Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread

[tipperdog]

Just got the book. Has the "Hand 3" example on pp 87-88 been discussed anywhere (I searched but didn't find)? I think the authors made an error here. At the very least, they didn't write the example well. Specifically the authors completely lose track of the "aggressive player" with an $800 stack. IMO his presence turns a close fold into a push or call. Here's the hand.

1/2 NL
OOP "Agressive Player" [AP] with $800 stack
MP "tight & straightforward" [TS] player with unknown stack (but "has you covered.")
Hero $180 with 6d 6s

PF: AP raises to $6. TS calls. Hero calls in position.
FLOP: 7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]5 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]4 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. AP bets $20, TS raises to $80 (pot now $118) and action is to you with $174 behind. This flop decision is the point of the exercise.

The authors very reasonably conclude that 1) you are likely behind TS; 2) if you push, your $94 reraise will certainly be called by TS; and 3) calling isn't an attractive option. They also reasonably estimate your odds of winning are about 1.5:1 and correctly calculate your pot odds to about 1.25:1. Therefore, they say it's close, but it's a clear fold.


BUT WTF HAPPENED TO AP? He's still in the hand!

His presence could make the correct play a push. For example, AP could easily have a big overpair (he's played this hand just like AA or KK, hasn't he?) and if he calls, you'd be getting better than 2:1, and your odds of winning the pot would not be significantly diminished.

It's less likely, but also possible, that AP has a hand like AKc and (if TS has a similarly large stack) AP could reraise big as a semibluff, forcing TS to lay down his overpair--a sequence of events that gives you a huge overlay.

I think the presence of AP means you shouldn't fold. Surely, there has to be some reasonable chance he'll play, which will change your pot odds dramatically.

At the very least, I note the irony that just a few pages after the authors write "always consider your opponents and stack sizes before making committment decisions" they completely lose track of one opponent with a monster stack.

I'm confused [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Did I miss something in this hand example?

[Sunny Mehta]

Hi tipperdog,

Note that we simplified the "odds of winning" in this example to 1.5-to-1, partly because the example is there to review the Fundamentals (one of which is counting outs), and partly because we haven't gotten into the more complicated REM Process at that point in the book yet.

I don't think there's anything wrong with you wanting to delve into the hand more and treat it like it's a "full analysis" hand, but the thing is, if we do that, I'd actually draw the exact opposite conclusion as you.

If we actually assign these players ranges, hero probably has even less equity than we give credit for in the example!

First off, AP's range is way wider than AA/KK/AcKc. He's aggressive, and most of the time his flop bet is just a c-bet. I think it's far too optimistic to think that he's gonna stick his chips in with anything but a very strong hand after he bets the flop, gets raised by a tight player, and then sees an all-in from hero after that. What do you estimate is the probability that AP has a hand he's willing to commit to? It's pretty low.

Secondly, tight player's range alone is scary. If he has any pocket pair from jacks down to fours, hero is actually about a 2-to-1 dog against that range. Then even if you add in the fact that hero will get 2-to-1 on his money when (and that "when" is rare) AP comes along, the problem is that by adding AP's [strong] range into the equation hero's equity actually ends up being more like 25 percent (3-to-1).

Hero's draw is a weak non-nut straight draw on a flush draw board, his SPR is in the double digits, there's a bet and a raise in front of him, and he has zero f-equity. This is a fold.

Thanks a lot for the detailed post though.

-Sunny