Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread

[RacersEdge]

Question on basic concept the book preaches: the SPR = 13 danger zone for big pairs. This number was derived from 3 pot sized bets to give a stack size pre-flop of 1+3+9=13. But this assumes pot-sized bets on the flop, turn and river - which doesn't seem the norm, the norm being more like 2/3 - 3/4 the pot. So should the real number to avoid as far as SPR for big pairs be scaled to like 9 or 10?

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
Question on basic concept the book preaches: the SPR = 13 danger zone for big pairs. This number was derived from 3 pot sized bets to give a stack size pre-flop of 1+3+9=13. But this assumes pot-sized bets on the flop, turn and river - which doesn't seem the norm, the norm being more like 2/3 - 3/4 the pot. So should the real number to avoid as far as SPR for big pairs be scaled to like 9 or 10?

[/ QUOTE ]


yes.

actual number is anything over what you'd be willing to get all-in for.

[bknollenberg]

i'm about 100 pages into the book so far, and it's great. obviously i still haven't gotten to the real meat of it, but i'll get there tonight and i'm looking forward to it.

[DovVN]

Well I spent a few hours reading this book so far.Heres my initial impression.Maybe it will change the more I think about it.I have to admit that Im a little disappointed.Mostly because it requires a huge change in the way I play preflop.This isnt necessarily the fault of this book.Maybe I just dont like change.Do you guys really play like this though(the authors)?It remiinds me of the system I used when I first started playing poker.It was "rock" poker for begginers.Never raise anything but AA KK and when you do raise,raise it to 25 percent of your stack.Then just bet off the rest of your stack to the river.You would only play QQ,JJ,AK,AQ,AJ in LP and would play it very tight.Any raise and you fold.What ended up happening is that I never really learned to play poker.It is just over the last few months that Ive abandoned this system(after 2 years) and am really making some progress.Maybe the comparison isnt fair but it feels the same.

Anyways.Is this expected to make more money on average than playing normally?When I say normally,I mean someone who raises 2-4 bb preflop and then is used to playing top pair under this condition.Or does it just make it easier to play top pair.

I play with a 100bb stack size so this is gonna force me to keep the same stack size and move up a level with bigger blinds.Or its gonna force me to limp alot more with QQ,JJ,AK,AQ,1010,AJ.Hmm.Not sure what to do.

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I spent a few hours reading this book so far.Heres my initial impression.Maybe it will change the more I think about it.I have to admit that Im a little disappointed.Mostly because it requires a huge change in the way I play preflop.This isnt necessarily the fault of this book.Maybe I just dont like change.Do you guys really play like this though(the authors)?

[/ QUOTE ]


my guess is your comment refers solely to SPR?

no, SPR is not the only way we play. for example, you might play for smallball to steal lots of small pots, or not set up for commitment at all with deep stacks, or play stricly against commitment using SPR against unsuspecting opponents. we did screw ourselves a bit splitting the books where we did, because all of this is acknowledged in what will now be in volume 2.

however, for someone learning the game and playing in capped live games or smaller online games, you can play everything using SPR and not give up much. you just don't go for commitment when you can't get to a good SPR for committing, and if your opponents are aggressive you consider playing for a much smaller preflop pot when you can't get to a big one.

[Jeff76]

Since reading the book, I have turned a lot of my TPTK hands into small pot hands when I couldn't achieve a low enough SPR. Not always, though actually I'm surprised by the situations I CAN achieve a good SPR. But back to my point: I am finding there is a lot of value to be had in playing TPTK hands in really small pots, especially if I can read hands better than my opponents. Sometimes they will invest a lot with a TPWK kind of hand or even a middle pair or bluff simply because they are willing to invest 4 or 5 BBs over a small pot. And really, how many BBs are we expecting to win every time we get AK? It is not a hand you often play for stacks 100BBs deep- often it wins a PF call and a c-bet, if it wins at all. It's surprising how often you can get this same value in a limped pot.

[Luckyspikes]

Do you have any plans for a french translation ?

[threads13]

[ QUOTE ]
Since reading the book, I have turned a lot of my TPTK hands into small pot hands when I couldn't achieve a low enough SPR. Not always, though actually I'm surprised by the situations I CAN achieve a good SPR. But back to my point: I am finding there is a lot of value to be had in playing TPTK hands in really small pots, especially if I can read hands better than my opponents. Sometimes they will invest a lot with a TPWK kind of hand or even a middle pair or bluff simply because they are willing to invest 4 or 5 BBs over a small pot. And really, how many BBs are we expecting to win every time we get AK? It is not a hand you often play for stacks 100BBs deep- often it wins a PF call and a c-bet, if it wins at all. It's surprising how often you can get this same value in a limped pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something I have been thinking about but I am having trouble balancing the commitment concepts with the stealing concepts. I imagine with time it will all become more clear to me.

[Jeans]

After reading the book I have one tough question..
are you comitted with KK preflop 100BB stacks when the pot is:
1) 1.5BBs
2) 20 BBs
3) 40 BBs

against an unknown

[DovVN]

[ QUOTE ]
my guess is your comment refers solely to SPR?

no, SPR is not the only way we play. for example, you might play for smallball to steal lots of small pots, or not set up for commitment at all with deep stacks, or play stricly against commitment using SPR against unsuspecting opponents. we did screw ourselves a bit splitting the books where we did, because all of this is acknowledged in what will now be in volume 2.

however, for someone learning the game and playing in capped live games or smaller online games, you can play everything using SPR and not give up much. you just don't go for commitment when you can't get to a good SPR for committing, and if your opponents are aggressive you consider playing for a much smaller preflop pot when you can't get to a big one.



[/ QUOTE ]


Yea I meant the SPR section.

I read some more last night rereading some sections.I guess what threw me was that in the early sections it talks about conventional ways of playing.How to keep the pot small,why to keep the pot small.This is exactly why I bought the book.Then it seems to completely change gears when you come to the SPR section.Im just having a hard time wrapping my head around how forcing myself to be commited with such a weak hand can be profitable.Heres an example.

Im playing $100 NL against somewhat loose players with a couple tight players.Im in LP with AK.According to your book Id need to raise to about $7 to achieve an SPR of about 4.4 assuming I get 2 callers.Now at this point Im thinking......I have only $7 invested into this pot yet because Im gonna cbet the flop the size of the pot,Im commiting to going all in on the turn(assuming I hit the flop or turn).

So if Im one of the callers calling with 77,76 suited,even AQ,Im looking for a good flop to get my money in and bust what looks to me like a big pair.Its doubtful Im gonna call a pot size bet here with a pair on the turn.

It seems as though the difficulty has been shifted to the flop bet.If I bet Im commited.If I dont Im not commited and I have only wasted $7.If I do bet Im all in basically.As compared to playing normally,I bet $3 preflop bet the pot $9 on the flop,get a call.Check behind on the turn and then call or bet $15 on the river.It seems an opponent with a mediocre holding is more likley to stay around for this whereas when I play for a big pot by betting $7 preflop,they will usually have better than a pair at showdown.

So I understand that by committing yourself you make the decision easier.Im just not sure how in practice this makes you more money with such a weak hand.I think its the "why" this is a good way to play that is whats confusing people.Me anyways.Maybe you could explain the math behind this a little more?And why would someone be willing to call $7 preflop and then commit to going all in with a weaker hand?I guess we have to assume that we are playing very loose players then.Does it have to do with the fact that they are calling too much preflop with their weaker hand and this makes it correct to get all in on the turn?Maybe Im thinking about this wrong.