Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Specifically, you agree that he loses money on the play of the hand because he put 10% of his money in with 66 against his range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Altogether the preflop play by the button in this particular hand is -EV because we have kings.

But his call of the 3-bet with a pair is still +EV IMO if he's set-mining and/or he figures to play better than us postflop.

[threads13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Specifically, you agree that he loses money on the play of the hand because he put 10% of his money in with 66 against his range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Altogether the preflop play by the button in this particular hand is -EV because we have kings.

But his call of the 3-bet with a pair is still +EV IMO if he's set-mining and/or he figures to play better than us postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our range is mostly hands like this, so most of the time that this happens it is globally -EV. So, it will tend to follow that this is globally going to be -EV.

You took out the part where I said the call of the 3-bet is +EV. I have never disputed this and I have said that it is +EV multiple times.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Specifically, you agree that he loses money on the play of the hand because he put 10% of his money in with 66 against his range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Altogether the preflop play by the button in this particular hand is -EV because we have kings.

But his call of the 3-bet with a pair is still +EV IMO if he's set-mining and/or he figures to play better than us postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our range is mostly hands like this, so most of the time that this happens it is globally -EV. So, it will tend to follow that this is globally going to be -EV.

You took out the part where I said the call of the 3-bet is +EV. I have never disputed this and I have said that it is +EV multiple times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the call of the 3bet might not be +EV. It depends on how well the button plays post flop. But it can be.

I don't understand why we need to look at everything "globally". To me that gives us less knowledge and information about the hand than considering all of the actions.

[Matt Flynn]

threads,

yes, by globally i meant all of the preflop actions that collectively result in getting 10% in.


pokerboy,

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why we need to look at everything "globally". To me that gives us less knowledge and information about the hand than considering all of the actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

both viewpoints are useful. one interesting reason to also look "globally" is that one can make a series of correct decisions that result in an overall mistake. the main reason is the money that goes in earlier becomes "dead money" that can make your later decisions correct.

for example: say you have 86o on the button. stacks are 100bb. utg limps, next player raises to 4bb. a big part of your equity comes from position and stealing. you decide you're a ninja thief and call (you forgot your cowboy hat so you don't raise). utg then repops to 8bb and the original raiser calls. well your stealing profitability just dropped like a rock, but you now have higher implied odds to call and hit your hand. so you call, but for different reasons than you called the first time. but here's the kicker. had utg open-raised to 8bb and then gotten called, you may well have folded because you have a stealing hand and don't really want to put 8bb in preflop. your second call became correct because of the dead money in the pot.

i am really tired so forgive if that example is off in some way.

one way to approach about how a sequence of bets can result in an overall mistake is that zero definition. "The value of folding is zero." this is the correct frame of reference to use for figuring out what to do NEXT. but it is not globally true in most cases. not to beat a dead horse, but suppose the pot is zero. you have aces. what's the value of folding? zero? ok what's the value of folding 72o? zero you say? so folding AA and 72o have the same value. ok, i'll take the AA and you can have the 72o.

matt

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]

Actually the call of the 3bet might not be +EV. It depends on how well the button plays post flop. But it can be.

[/ QUOTE ]

just to be clear i agree the call of the 3bet _can_ be +EV for the 66. it is _definitely_ +EV for the AA. the dead money can make it +EV for both players.

[Ulkis]

I was wondering if the book is a total collaboration of the 3 authors or if each author concentrated on different topics or areas?

Mehta and Flynn obviously take part in the discussions on 2+2 boards about the book, but would be interesting to know what was Miller's contribution - which area if not the whole area?

[Niediam]

[ QUOTE ]
I was wondering if the book is a total collaboration of the 3 authors or if each author concentrated on different topics or areas?

Mehta and Flynn obviously take part in the discussions on 2+2 boards about the book, but would be interesting to know what was Miller's contribution - which area if not the whole area?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ed was brought on to help with the actual writing of the book (as opposed to the concepts).

[springb0ks]

So how good is this book actually?

[springb0ks]

Anyone care to give a short answer to whether this book is good or not?

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone care to give a short answer to whether this book is good or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO it's good.