Harrington on Holdem III Discussion Group

[ QUOTE ]
scored 394, though my actual results in tournaments is more indicative of a 250 score and certainly not a 400 score.

I would be interested in any HOH discussion group if one acutally got off the ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, I got 397, but I know my answers in areas were affected by previous problems. I'm probably in the ~300 range if I'd had to answer each question without any knowledge gained from answering previous questions.

[fruitypro]

Hi,

I have just signed up to 2+2 to see if there was any discussion on this subject - I really don't agree with some of the answers!

So I'm glad to see that one is being hopefully setup. I think a discussion on each individual problem would be a great idea, although I'm not sure how this would be done.

If a discussion group is set up, I'd love to be part of it.

[kev]

I hope that a proper discussion group is set up. I feel this has got to be about the most controversial poker book ever written. When "How Good Is Your Limit Holdem?" came out some people said that you couldn't score that accurately for limit holdem. That was for LIMIT holdem, HOH3 is NL, and yet Harrington give out scores as if they are definitive answers but all the quiz scores are entirely based on Harrington's style of play: "3 points for folding...Raymer obviously feels differently, and he's had a lot of success playing his way, so score 1 point for calling. (Hey, it's my book.)"

You could be a good poker player with a different style of play and score badly. Or you could be a weak tight player and score well.

I don't pretend to be the worlds greatest tournament player or to have ever won the WSOP but some of the plays seem clearly wrong to me. For example Question 8F: "You don't like it, and you're probably beaten, but the 3.5-to-1 pot odds make for a call." - Given the way the hand was played your opponent is virtually guaranteed to have an Ace here. If you call off your money whenever you know you are beaten but are given favourable pot odds your opponents will just keep on giving you odds to call off your money whenever they have you beat.

There's a lot to be discussed about this book. If you learn to play like Harrington you could make a lot of money, but equally if you learn to play like Ivey, Raymer or Green Plastic you could do pretty well.

[pipes]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't pretend to be the worlds greatest tournament player or to have ever won the WSOP but some of the plays seem clearly wrong to me. For example Question 8F: "You don't like it, and you're probably beaten, but the 3.5-to-1 pot odds make for a call." - Given the way the hand was played your opponent is virtually guaranteed to have an Ace here. If you call off your money whenever you know you are beaten but are given favourable pot odds your opponents will just keep on giving you odds to call off your money whenever they have you beat.


[/ QUOTE ]

Kev, I agree with you. I think this one particular SNG problem seemed horrible. He was leaking chips that whole hand due to what he considered great pot odds. In SNGs, I would think that's a terrible way to play.

In general, I was not a big fan of the book.

The most useful aspect of any Discussion Group would probably be to try and sift the good from the bad. For a 2+2 book, that is unfortunate.

[ThorKGB]

I would like to join a study group.

Score 377 (I know, I suck.)

I by the way also disagree with the pay-off of the ace in problem number 8.

My biggest disagreement, and the problem I lost most points on, is the SNG problem in number 14. I would have folded AT UTG seven handed, and would at least bet the flop when the caller checked.

[pipes]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to join a study group.

Score 377 (I know, I suck.)

I by the way also disagree with the pay-off of the ace in problem number 8.

My biggest disagreement, and the problem I lost most points on, is the SNG problem in number 14. I would have folded AT UTG seven handed, and would at least bet the flop when the caller checked.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't worry about your score.

Yeah folding ATo UTG 7 handed with blinds 50/100 got you zero points. I didn't like that one either. Other SNG problems seemed weird as well.

[kev]

[ QUOTE ]

Yeah folding ATo UTG 7 handed with blinds 50/100 got you zero points. I didn't like that one either. Other SNG problems seemed weird as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that the buyins weren't given in any of problems make it impossible to know what sort of players you are likely to be up against. Vague terms such as "playing tight" or "playing loose" are not as helpful as they could be.

[emmapeel9]

I agree about problem 14.

I don't think the pre-flop fold is a terrible play just a tight one.

And as for the check on the flop; it seems to me that you are getting at least 50% of your opponents hands to fold to a bet. Yet, as Harrington repeatedly says, you only need to win the pot 33% of the time for a half pot bet to be correct. In book 2 Harrington says that, for a continuation bet, it is good to have only one opponent and for the flop to be all low cards. No points are given for this play however.

There are a lot of similar situations to this where the scoring seems a little hard to understand. I am still only on problem 16 as well.

I still think this is a great book though but it would be nice to have some clarification about some of the answers.

Emmapeel

[kev]

Most of the correct answers are the ones that it says you actually do. Anybody can get a pretty high score just by realising that pros normally make the correct decisions and picking those answers. A better format would have been to not have specific answer options but a line to write your answer, then have to turn the next page to see what actually happened and see the scoring e.g. "if you said check 2 points, if you said bet up to $2000 no points, if you said bet between $2000-$3000 4 points. no points for betting more than $3000."

[1p0kerboy]

Problem #10

You come in with 9-3 offsuit after a limper and there are several callers behind you.

Score 4 points for betting the flop (OOP to players who have not yet acted) after catching air.
Score 0 points for checking with the intention of folding the hand.

Dan's reasoning: "You didn't invest $300 in this hand to check if you missed the flop."

Surely this is a [censored] joke.