Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
End of thread. Nothing more needs to be said after Tommy Angelo's review on Amazon:

[ QUOTE ]
This book is to no-limit hold'em what Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" was to zoology. There has been a permanent, dramatic, and final enhancement of understanding. Kudos to Flynn, Mehta, and Miller for this profound achievement.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


Wait til you read Tommy's book Elements of Poker.

[m3dude]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I am not saying NEVER fold when you hit your target SPR, hit your hand, and commit to the pot.

But you should RARELY fold at your target SPRs after 1/3rd of your stack goes in and you have top pair, good kicker or an overpair.

The book details some examples of when you might reconsider your commitment to the pot. Certainly, REM comes into play. Range, of course, is highly dependent on what type of foe you are facing.

But for example, last night I was playing 5-10 PL with a player I had never seen. He has ~500 and limps in. I have 575 with AQ, and raise it to 50 (can bring it in for 50 any time). Everyone folds to him, and he calls. 110 in the pot after rake. Flop comes Q rag rag. He checks. I bet 85. He thinks a bit, and reraises the pot.

Would you fold there? I didn't. I put him all in, and he turned over JJ. He was married to a pocket pair - just betting "the don't" on the Q or an overpair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Binions,

Nice hand - I will use it as an example for others in the thread.

You guys can see that in this hand Binions decided preflop that, even though he'd never played with this particular opponent, based on the general game conditions he is comfortable creating a stack-to-pot ratio of ~4.5 with a hand like AQ and committing with TPTK. Also, he feels that one acceptable way to commit against a random opponent in this game is to just bet out.

He expects to be ahead of his opponents' range when he commits, and he expects to make money. In addition, because he's already thought this out, his decision in the moment becomes less nerve-racking.

YOU adjust the specifics to YOUR game. You might decide that 4.5 is too much money to put into the pot with AQ in your game because the players play very tight to preflop raises and are tight postflop when facing bets. You decide that you are only willing to put in 3 times the pot with AQ after raising preflop. You might then decide that that's almost impossible with your ideal stack size, so instead you decide to play a much smaller pot (say SPR of 17) where your commitment decision won't come until later in the hand when you have more information.

However, you might then decide that, actually, 4.5 is not too much to commit to if you let THEM do the betting, or if you check-call the flop, or bet the flop and lead the turn, or min-raise preflop, etc. etc.

And you might do the same type of thing with other hands, like say, 76s. You may decide to do x preflop with the intention of doing y postflop such that you maximize profits - whether that means stealing the pot, making the best hand and having good implied odds, etc.

The point is that you start thinking through the hand as a whole, and plan ahead, rather than viewing each individual action as some sort of independent and often excruciating decision.

-S

[/ QUOTE ]

this hand plays itself.....this is never a tough decision, theres nothing to even consider. i feel spr is just a fancy name for such a basic concept that pretty much everyone who wins already uses even if they dont call it spr, and its disappointing u focused half of a poker book around something so basic. the toughest decisions i face, spr rarely comes into the equation.

we already have enough basic poker books imo

[JackCase]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
End of thread. Nothing more needs to be said after Tommy Angelo's review on Amazon:

[ QUOTE ]
This book is to no-limit hold'em what Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" was to zoology. There has been a permanent, dramatic, and final enhancement of understanding. Kudos to Flynn, Mehta, and Miller for this profound achievement.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Man. For the two or three dozen people that know who Tommy Angelo is, that's going to mean a great deal.

Wasn't Tommy going to come out with his own NL cash game bood this year?

[/ QUOTE ]

Tommy Angelo

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
My only gripe with the book is that it seems you are trying to provide a do it all formula so that players don't take it upon themselves to get better postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]


oh man just reread this. i hope that wasn't the main message people took from SPR. no way did we want to give that impression.

we should probably have put in more examples of how adapting to postflop information can override SPR. no way can SPR substitute for postflop play in tougher games. still helps but isn't enough.

thanks for pointing this out tighty. we weren't trying to sell SPR as snake oil, and your criticism is certainly valid if we gave that impression.

[tightymcfish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My only gripe with the book is that it seems you are trying to provide a do it all formula so that players don't take it upon themselves to get better postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]


oh man just reread this. i hope that wasn't the main message people took from SPR. no way did we want to give that impression.

we should probably have put in more examples of how adapting to postflop information can override SPR. no way can SPR substitute for postflop play in tougher games. still helps but isn't enough.

thanks for pointing this out tighty. we weren't trying to sell SPR as snake oil, and your criticism is certainly valid if we gave that impression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Matt in all fairness to you and the other authors. You did have a section of adapting and when SPR does not work. But it was extremly brief in my opinion. Most of your examples were SPR x means you have x pot sized bets to get it all in because you are committed.
I should shut up now because I want people to be confused so I can win the money. Lol. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[tightymcfish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I am not saying NEVER fold when you hit your target SPR, hit your hand, and commit to the pot.

But you should RARELY fold at your target SPRs after 1/3rd of your stack goes in and you have top pair, good kicker or an overpair.

The book details some examples of when you might reconsider your commitment to the pot. Certainly, REM comes into play. Range, of course, is highly dependent on what type of foe you are facing.

But for example, last night I was playing 5-10 PL with a player I had never seen. He has ~500 and limps in. I have 575 with AQ, and raise it to 50 (can bring it in for 50 any time). Everyone folds to him, and he calls. 110 in the pot after rake. Flop comes Q rag rag. He checks. I bet 85. He thinks a bit, and reraises the pot.

Would you fold there? I didn't. I put him all in, and he turned over JJ. He was married to a pocket pair - just betting "the don't" on the Q or an overpair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Binions,

Nice hand - I will use it as an example for others in the thread.

You guys can see that in this hand Binions decided preflop that, even though he'd never played with this particular opponent, based on the general game conditions he is comfortable creating a stack-to-pot ratio of ~4.5 with a hand like AQ and committing with TPTK. Also, he feels that one acceptable way to commit against a random opponent in this game is to just bet out.

He expects to be ahead of his opponents' range when he commits, and he expects to make money. In addition, because he's already thought this out, his decision in the moment becomes less nerve-racking.

YOU adjust the specifics to YOUR game. You might decide that 4.5 is too much money to put into the pot with AQ in your game because the players play very tight to preflop raises and are tight postflop when facing bets. You decide that you are only willing to put in 3 times the pot with AQ after raising preflop. You might then decide that that's almost impossible with your ideal stack size, so instead you decide to play a much smaller pot (say SPR of 17) where your commitment decision won't come until later in the hand when you have more information.

However, you might then decide that, actually, 4.5 is not too much to commit to if you let THEM do the betting, or if you check-call the flop, or bet the flop and lead the turn, or min-raise preflop, etc. etc.

And you might do the same type of thing with other hands, like say, 76s. You may decide to do x preflop with the intention of doing y postflop such that you maximize profits - whether that means stealing the pot, making the best hand and having good implied odds, etc.

The point is that you start thinking through the hand as a whole, and plan ahead, rather than viewing each individual action as some sort of independent and often excruciating decision.

-S

[/ QUOTE ]

this hand plays itself.....this is never a tough decision, theres nothing to even consider. i feel spr is just a fancy name for such a basic concept that pretty much everyone who wins already uses even if they dont call it spr, and its disappointing u focused half of a poker book around something so basic. the toughest decisions i face, spr rarely comes into the equation.

we already have enough basic poker books imo

[/ QUOTE ]
Ding ding ding . We have a winner. Most people on this thread who gave hand examples are just not very good imho. Most of these hands just play themselves out like the AK hand that flops two pair, the set hand and this hand.
I mean seriously if you needed this book to know these basics concepts you have HUGE holes in your game.

[m3dude]

i just want a book as deep as top written specifically for nl

[Stake Monster]

After reading all the good reviews here i bought the book right away. I look forward to reading it.

[maryfield48]

I'm a very recreational player, but I enjoy reading and thinking about poker. I'm 3/4 through the book and my impression so far is that the authors have packaged up concepts that are known to and practised by anyone who actually thinks about the game. In contrast to tighty, I was struck by the number of situations cited in which the book recommended abandoning the plan. Not because I think flexibility is unimportant, but I just wonder whether you can really refer to a commitment threshold and in the same breath talk about backing away from committing.

I am also amused that in this thread the authors are critical of short stackers when their theory is designed to accomplish the same goal, i.e. shift the balance to pre-flop and flop decisions.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I am not saying NEVER fold when you hit your target SPR, hit your hand, and commit to the pot.

But you should RARELY fold at your target SPRs after 1/3rd of your stack goes in and you have top pair, good kicker or an overpair.

The book details some examples of when you might reconsider your commitment to the pot. Certainly, REM comes into play. Range, of course, is highly dependent on what type of foe you are facing.

But for example, last night I was playing 5-10 PL with a player I had never seen. He has ~500 and limps in. I have 575 with AQ, and raise it to 50 (can bring it in for 50 any time). Everyone folds to him, and he calls. 110 in the pot after rake. Flop comes Q rag rag. He checks. I bet 85. He thinks a bit, and reraises the pot.

Would you fold there? I didn't. I put him all in, and he turned over JJ. He was married to a pocket pair - just betting "the don't" on the Q or an overpair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Binions,

Nice hand - I will use it as an example for others in the thread.

You guys can see that in this hand Binions decided preflop that, even though he'd never played with this particular opponent, based on the general game conditions he is comfortable creating a stack-to-pot ratio of ~4.5 with a hand like AQ and committing with TPTK. Also, he feels that one acceptable way to commit against a random opponent in this game is to just bet out.

He expects to be ahead of his opponents' range when he commits, and he expects to make money. In addition, because he's already thought this out, his decision in the moment becomes less nerve-racking.

YOU adjust the specifics to YOUR game. You might decide that 4.5 is too much money to put into the pot with AQ in your game because the players play very tight to preflop raises and are tight postflop when facing bets. You decide that you are only willing to put in 3 times the pot with AQ after raising preflop. You might then decide that that's almost impossible with your ideal stack size, so instead you decide to play a much smaller pot (say SPR of 17) where your commitment decision won't come until later in the hand when you have more information.

However, you might then decide that, actually, 4.5 is not too much to commit to if you let THEM do the betting, or if you check-call the flop, or bet the flop and lead the turn, or min-raise preflop, etc. etc.

And you might do the same type of thing with other hands, like say, 76s. You may decide to do x preflop with the intention of doing y postflop such that you maximize profits - whether that means stealing the pot, making the best hand and having good implied odds, etc.

The point is that you start thinking through the hand as a whole, and plan ahead, rather than viewing each individual action as some sort of independent and often excruciating decision.

-S

[/ QUOTE ]

this hand plays itself.....this is never a tough decision, theres nothing to even consider. i feel spr is just a fancy name for such a basic concept that pretty much everyone who wins already uses even if they dont call it spr, and its disappointing u focused half of a poker book around something so basic. the toughest decisions i face, spr rarely comes into the equation.

we already have enough basic poker books imo

[/ QUOTE ]
Ding ding ding . We have a winner. Most people on this thread who gave hand examples are just not very good imho. Most of these hands just play themselves out like the AK hand that flops two pair, the set hand and this hand.
I mean seriously if you needed this book to know these basics concepts you have HUGE holes in your game.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right of course. I suck at poker and give horrible examples. My bad.