Professional No Limit, My thoughts.

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
The lack of addressing anything substantive about poker or my thoughts on the book is sad and shows how this site has degenerated.

I should have never bothered to try to have a productive discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll go against the grain of other posters in this thread and say thank you for starting a new thread. While this forum has a ton of clutter (all asking the same question over and over again), occasionally, separate threads are necessary once they become too long and too "all over the place". Other forums do it, so why can't this one...though usually the moderator starts it or grants permission. Perhaps that was the way to go.

Anyhoo, to call PNL not very good needs to be taken in context of the reader. The more advanced players may see it this way, but the average reader (myself included) do not. NLHETAP suffered from the same stigma. I'm not sure you can really produce a revolutionary NLHE book anymore. It's not like the days before TOP when concepts like semi-bluffing, implied odds, etc. are brand new. Too many players are good enough to already understand SPR.

But, to us mere mortals, it's good stuff. Vol. 2 will introduce more concepts and/or expand on ones already presented. I look at it like Vol. 1 is a basics, and vol. 2 an advanced version.

[tagWAG]

[ QUOTE ]

I has problems with other parts of the book. One large mistake the authors make is to suggest that when you have a huge hand, to bet whatever you think your opponent will call. When you have a huge hand in NL you want to either make a very large bet, or get all of your money in in pieces. By betting big your opponent will often fold. However, the times your opponent plays will make you SIGNIFICANTLY more money then betting what you expect him to call. A large part of NL's profit comes from the times that you are able to win huge pots. By betting what you expect him to call, over time you are losing a lot of money (that you would otherwise win). Of course, this is opponent and situationally dependent, however, it is very important and something the authors completely missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

please translate this paragraph into english. what on earth is your point?

*clues*

1) if betting more means your opponent will fold, then you can't win a bigger pot by betting more.
2) if your opponent will call a bigger bet, then you will win a bigger pot by betting more.

what not to understand?

[Gelford]

Well this particular subforum of 2+2 never stops to amaze me.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
I ordered Professional No lImit when it first came out and read it promptly. I had problems with the book. However, I chose to withhold my comments to see what others thought. I have been surprised at the comments. While I think it may be the best NL book out to date, I don't think it is a very good book. Nor is it a book that will teach a player how to become a much better No Limit player.

The book does stress position, which is incredibly important in NL. It also stresses controlling the size of the pot. This is also very important. However, controlling the pot size is one of MANY important things that must be taken into account when playing a No Limit hand. The authors chose to make this single concept the focus of a huge amount of the book, instead of one of the many concepts that must be taken into account in nl play. This is a major error.

Additionally, I found the "SPR" very artificial, and not really a way to teach how to play no limit.

The key to controlling pot size is the bet that is made post flop or on the turn (or the decision not to bet). Players should think of somewhere between the 2ed and 3ed bet that they make (without a huge hand) as the key point.

I has problems with other parts of the book. One large mistake the authors make is to suggest that when you have a huge hand, to bet whatever you think your opponent will call. When you have a huge hand in NL you want to either make a very large bet, or get all of your money in in pieces. By betting big your opponent will often fold. However, the times your opponent plays will make you SIGNIFICANTLY more money then betting what you expect him to call. A large part of NL's profit comes from the times that you are able to win huge pots. By betting what you expect him to call, over time you are losing a lot of money (that you would otherwise win). Of course, this is opponent and situationally dependent, however, it is very important and something the authors completely missed.

I could go on. However, I will let others comment first.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe i can help here. i havent read the book yet because i inhereted i sports book and have been doing a crash course in "being a bookie" for the past 6 mo. butttt...maybe what amulet is trying to say is something i tell people all the time. whenever you know your winning, think seriously about a massive overbet. when i play i make many massive overbets and min. bets as well. the mistake i see most is people not playing w/ the only part of the game which makes it interesting...the bet sizing.

[cjk73]

Actually OP is correct at least on the point of bet sizing (i'm not agreeing with his main point though as I found PNL very good, albeit with some answered questions).

You absolutely do not size value bets to get called. You size bets to maximize EV. To be extreme for illustrative purposes and assuming you are ahead (ie value betting) if a $200 bet will get called 30% of the time it CRUSHES (EV wise) a $40 bet that will get called 100% of the time. In cash game play, this is the only way to think about it unless you are making a play specifically for deception.

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]
You absolutely do not size value bets to get called. You size bets to maximize EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless I remember incorrectly, this is covered in PNL.

[cjk73]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You absolutely do not size value bets to get called. You size bets to maximize EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless I remember incorrectly, this is covered in PNL.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is extensively covered in NLTAP, and it is touched on in the basics section of PNL as well. I do remember the statement OP is talking about regarding "bet what they will call" somewhere else in the book but a quick skim through just now is unsuccessful in finding where. Anyhow, my response was also directed at another poster above that seemed to be defending the position that you should "bet what they will call".

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You absolutely do not size value bets to get called. You size bets to maximize EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless I remember incorrectly, this is covered in PNL.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is extensively covered in NLTAP

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the problem I have with NLTAP. They "extensively cover" a topic that's intuitively obvious, but ultimately they never tell you how much to bet.

[Nate.]

Everyone--

Amulet is legit well beyond what you need to be to start a new thread in this sort of situation. If you're reading 2+2 but aren't reading what he's writing, you're making a mistake.

Amulet--

Thanks for your thoughts.

--Nate

[masterblaker]

There is a thing or two in there that is interesting, but I was very dissapointed with it. I can't say that it has helped or hurt me since reading it.