Winning in Tough Hold 'em Games

[amulet]

i play limit at very high stakes, and often shorthanded. as i wrote, the book made me think, however, there was a lot i disagreed with.

i would like to hear why you, mason, and maybe jfk thought it was so wonderful, and what parts all of you thought improved your game.

[steamboatin]

I will confess. I have avoided buying this book because I avoid tough lmit games. I know I will eventually buy it because when the NL boom runs its course, I need to be ready.

[jfk]

[ QUOTE ]
i would like to hear why you, mason, and maybe jfk thought it was so wonderful, and what parts all of you thought improved your game.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the most fundamental level I appreciated the book for the marriage between empirical data, winning play, solid writing and stark advice. Previously, there wasn't much in the way of very specific writing towards the sort of BSB battles that are now at the heart of modern online hold 'em. WTHIG plugged that gap in the literature.

I think about the very good past titles from 2+2, like HEFAP or Zee's Hi/lo split and marvel at the progress made in terms of very specific, very finely shaded advice which can be given due to the availability of databases with millions of hands played.

Though I'm not at all a quant. in terms of training, it is clear that players with this bent now enjoy an enormous edge versus those more traditionally schooled in poker skills. As such, I find great value in being bludgeoned with the hard facts of what the data says about correct ranges and play.

In terms of the way it has improved (or at least changed) my play, I've opened up both my blind steal and defense ranges appreciably. I run med. and small pairs harder, especially with position. I've added a little more balance into my play in terms of tempering some needless aggression.

Of course, I can't definitely say that these adjustments have been correct, as my tighter than the mean profile means that when I get push back, it may be more indicative of strength than that same play against a more mainstream opponent. As anyone would, I sometimes need to re-adjust some of the principles applied.

Perhaps most importantly, I've also been far more mindful and appreciative of game selection. Since reading WITHG I've actually tended to move down in stakes, move away from shorthanded play, play live more, and play a lot less online limit hold 'em. Part of this is because the mid-high, full ring limit games at the site I prefer (World Poker Exchange) rarely run, but I'm also seeing a lot of merit in staying away from online limit games where much or all of the table has the same general skill set as I.

I give a lot of credit to the authors for addressing this. Page 4 describes upper mid-stakes limit games as, "These games are tight and aggressive. You will find tables full of players that play just like you. You should avoid them." The next page gives the frank assessement that most high limit games, "...are not worth playing."

Further they show a data pool from a mid-limt full ring grinder who after 430K worth of hands is up a little less than 12K while playing at levels as high as $1/2. That's a very bleak picture of the possibilities in today's limit hold 'em. Assuming he's holding the 1000BB bankroll (or $200K) described as being needed to ply $1/$2, this player could've made about as much in interest from a money market account as he did playing 430K hands of limit hold 'em.

WTHIG is the most sophisticated book on the subject but sadly this advanced, nuanced level of play brings the realization that heavily raked online limit hold 'em is an increasingly bad gamble, even for winning players.

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]



I give a lot of credit to the authors for addressing this. Page 4 describes upper mid-stakes limit games as, "These games are tight and aggressive. You will find tables full of players that play just like you. You should avoid them." The next page gives the frank assessement that most high limit games, "...are not worth playing."

[/ QUOTE ]

So one of the main things that you learned from the book entitled "Winning in Tough Hold'em Games" is to avoid them?

[smbruin22]

[ QUOTE ]
So one of the main things that you learned from the book entitled "Winning in Tough Hold'em Games" is to avoid them?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, i thought the same thing... i understand the comment at the end of the review, where he says that he got the feeling heavily raked online isn't worth it with TAG games. but i don't understand the author's comment that he picked up on.

JFK, appreciated the review very much. can you clarify the stox comment? did he write a book about games he thinks "we should avoid"??... thanks in advance!!!

[jfk]

[ QUOTE ]
So one of the main things that you learned from the book entitled "Winning in Tough Hold'em Games" is to avoid them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it reinforced the concept that I always have to be on the look out for a good gamble. That there's no sense in playing without an easily defined, readily identifiable edge.

Prior to Stox/Zobags, I was regularly playing 20/40 to 50/100 online. Now (if playing limit hold 'em) I commonly play as low as 3/6 and my earn isn't very different while my variance is in a very narrow band. Also, I've branched out into LO8, HORSE and NLHE MTTs.

When moving up the ladder of limit hold 'em stakes, I was very mindful of game conditions. After a while I took that for granted and didn't win as much. After a while it became non-sensical to sit in games where table VPIPs were in the teens when I could play other forms of poker or go to a live game where the clock was rolled back to 2004 and seven players were seeing a flop.

I still mix in the occasional online mid-limit hold 'em game, but I'm far more selective.

[Blue Lagoon]

[ QUOTE ]

Further they show a data pool from a mid-limt full ring grinder who after 430K worth of hands is up a little less than 12K while playing at levels as high as $1/2. That's a very bleak picture of the possibilities in today's limit hold 'em. Assuming he's holding the 1000BB bankroll (or $200K) described as being needed to ply $1/$2, this player could've made about as much in interest from a money market account as he did playing 430K hands of limit hold 'em.


[/ QUOTE ]

+Rakeback +Bonuses that are easier to clear in Limit and it's still $$$ in your pocket.

$1/$2 is a stake to avoid imho: Bad "rake + nb of good players" to "rakeback+bonus" ratio. (could depends on the site obviously)

[jfk]

[ QUOTE ]
+Rakeback +Bonuses that are easier to clear in Limit and it's still $$$ in your pocket.

$1/$2 is a stake to avoid imho: Bad "rake + nb of good players" to "rakeback+bonus" ratio. (could depends on the site obviously)

[/ QUOTE ]

I shouldn't have used abbreviations. By 1/2 I meant $100/$200.

[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]
i play limit at very high stakes, and often shorthanded. as i wrote, the book made me think, however, there was a lot i disagreed with.

i would like to hear why you, mason, and maybe jfk thought it was so wonderful, and what parts all of you thought improved your game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amulet, I'd be more interested in hearing what you disagree with in the book, than why Mason likes it ... pls share [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[BlueSmurf]

What Gelford said! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]