Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread

[maryfield48]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're right of course. I suck at poker and give horrible examples. My bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Geez binions. I think you of all people would understand how a guy with 61 posts is obviously a much better poker player that you or any pair of 2+2's authors.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument always reflects more poorly on the person saying it than the person about which it is being said, IMO. Unless of course, the subject under debate is forum history.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
In contrast to tighty, I was struck by the number of situations cited in which the book recommended abandoning the plan. Not because I think flexibility is unimportant, but I just wonder whether you can really refer to a commitment threshold and in the same breath talk about backing away from committing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you can. Every new bit of information, from the reaction of the foe to your bet on the flop to how many draws the turn card completes, can change a commitment plan. That doesn't make the act of planning meaningless.

[ QUOTE ]
I am also amused that in this thread the authors are critical of short stackers when their theory is designed to accomplish the same goal, i.e. shift the balance to pre-flop and flop decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Flynn seems to be more critical of shortstacking than Mehta who seems neutral about it, while Miller has written extensively about its virtues. So, your generalization of "the authors" does not work. Moreover, I don't think any of them have much of a problem with medium-stacking (buying in for 60xBB or so).

Further, your statement seems to only comprehend the strategy of trying to play top pair hands at your target SPR. You overlook the authors' advice about playing stealing hands in position at SPRs of 13 against top pair hands. Or the authors advice of playing drawing hands for value at SPRs of 20 or more, etc.

[well named]

My copy of PNL arrived from amazon.com on Tuesday. By way of background, and to frame my comments, i'm a poker n00b playing the micro-est of the micro limits on PokerStars whilst trying to learn and improve. PNL is my 5th poker book, after HOH vol.1, NLH:TAP, and Phil Gordon's green and blue books, and I would characterize myself as a weak player with a decent theoretical understanding but little experience, and little of the practical skills that experience brings. It would also be fair to say that i'm not reading the book primarily with the goal of making money -- i'm not a pro and probably never will be -- but that my interest is more recreational. Although I like to win, of course.

SPR, as a framework for evaluating decisions, is one of those ideas which, after you hear it, seems completely obvious, and every book on NL covers the idea of commitment in some fashion. Yet, I think the treatment in this book is phenomenal simply because it provides a metric that can be very easily incorporated into your decision making in practice. SPR does for commitment what the 2/4 rule for outs on the turn and river does for pot odds, IMO.

There has been some criticism earlier in the thread that too much of the discussion on playing top-pair/overpair hands was too concrete and inflexible. Personally, I disagree with that assessment, it seemed like for every rule of thumb presented there was a thoughtful exception in the footnotes, and it was stated quite a number of times how plays could change based on particular reads or the character of the table. I don't think the authors could be faulted if someone decided to read PNL as a cookbook only. It seemed very clear to me that SPR is intended to be a tool, not a strategy-in-a-box.

As far as the rest of the book, I think the first two sections do a good job of covering the basic topics, and are organized a little better than in NLH:TAP. My one regret is I wish there was a way to calculate equity against a range that is as easy to do as SPR. This is probably something I will get quicker at with experience, I hope.

All-in-all, i've enjoyed this book, I feel like i've learned some useful new tools to play with, and i'm awaiting volume two with baited breath. Thanks guys.

[maryfield48]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In contrast to tighty, I was struck by the number of situations cited in which the book recommended abandoning the plan. Not because I think flexibility is unimportant, but I just wonder whether you can really refer to a commitment threshold and in the same breath talk about backing away from committing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you can. Every new bit of information, from the reaction of the foe to your bet on the flop to how many draws the turn card completes, can change a commitment plan. That doesn't make the act of planning meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is probably semantics (although it may be telling that you used the term "commitment plan" and not the authors' "commitment threshold". To me, a threshold cannot be uncrossed. So I agree if you plan to commit and circumstances change enough, you should change your plan. It's just that in my world, that means that you haven't crossed the threshold.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am also amused that in this thread the authors are critical of short stackers when their theory is designed to accomplish the same goal, i.e. shift the balance to pre-flop and flop decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Flynn seems to be more critical of shortstacking than Mehta who seems neutral about it, while Miller has written extensively about its virtues. So, your generalization of "the authors" does not work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take your point. I was too lazy to look back at which of them had made those comments (I think the criticism of shortstacking was more evident in the SSNL thread). I still think it's amusing, but then I'm easily amused.

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, I don't think any of them have much of a problem with medium-stacking (buying in for 60xBB or so).

Further, your statement seems to only comprehend the strategy of trying to play top pair hands at your target SPR. You overlook the authors' advice about playing stealing hands in position at SPRs of 13 against top pair hands. Or the authors advice of playing drawing hands for value at SPRs of 20 or more, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right again. I was referring to the top pair hands, in which the advice is act pre-flop in a way that renders the rest of the hand a short stacked situation.



edited to fix the quoting

[m3dude]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're right of course. I suck at poker and give horrible examples. My bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Geez binions. I think you of all people would understand how a guy with 61 posts is obviously a much better poker player that you or any pair of 2+2's authors.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Here's a compilation from M3dude. First he says raising with hands that build top pair to make commitment easier postflop is disappointing advice.

Then he says if you do commit with top pair/overpair on the flop and someone raises, you should get away from it.

Then when I give the example of committing with top pair (AQ on Q rag board) and getting raised, I reraise and he says the hand plays itself and there is nothing to even consider.

LMAO

**********************
m3dude
stranger
Reged: 07/28/07
Posts: 11
Re: Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread [Re: 7n7] #11467084 - 07/31/07 03:26 PM

"from what ive read it seems like your recommending players to just raise big preflop so anytime u hit top pair u dont ever have to consider folding. basically play in a a manner which creates lower ev, but is easier. i find that pretty disappointing from a 2p2 book."

****************
m3dude
stranger
Reged: 07/28/07
posts: 11
Re: Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread [Re: 7n7] #11467853 - 07/31/07 04:05 PM

"friend: If you raise more so the spr is something like 4, you bet, get raised all-in and you have a no-brainer decision. KK overpair getting 3-1 to call all-in.

sounds like they are recommending exactly what i inferred, and i think thats a very bad way to approach poker. raising more cuts down their implied odds, but i fail to see how information matters since your just auto committing yourself. one thing that might be worth considering is, if you raise so big and bet the flop and get raised it might be easier to fold because a good villian is unlikely to raise with worse when your so committed."

***********************
m3dude
stranger
Reged: 07/28/07
Posts: 11
Re: Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread [Re: Sunny Mehta (coltrane)] #11485843 - 08/01/07 04:36 PM

"this hand plays itself.....this is never a tough decision, theres nothing to even consider. i feel spr is just a fancy name for such a basic concept that pretty much everyone who wins already uses even if they dont call it spr, and its disappointing u focused half of a poker book around something so basic."

[/ QUOTE ]

i said its something to consider, i didnt say u should fold everytime your raised. read much? i also said against good villians, since this is a live player who also bough tin short, this is likely not a good villisn. a situation where u might consider folding would be something like

5 10, 2000 deep, 6 max online game, you hold kk on the button. utg opens for 40, co raises to 140, you make it 350. good player in the bb cold calls. both others fold. flop t83. he checks. you bet and he raises. folding has to be considered a viable option here whether or not you en dup folding, even tho this book reccomends never folding here.

[ryanj247]

[ QUOTE ]

5 10, 2000 deep, 6 max online game, you hold kk on the button. utg opens for 40, co raises to 140, you make it 350. good player in the bb cold calls. both others fold. flop t83. he checks. you bet and he raises. folding has to be considered a viable option here whether or not you en dup folding, even tho this book reccomends never folding here.

[/ QUOTE ]

so the pot is $885 on the flop. SPR = 1.86. you bet $600. you've now put 1/2 your stack in, and you're going to fold? to me, that really doesn't seem like something even worth considering, no matter how solid the villain is. the decision to bet on that flop in that situation should be a decision that you are willing to play for stacks.

if you are considering folding to a raise there vs that particular villain, you should just check.

edit: think about this situation with REM and SPR in mind. you reraise to create an SPR that is ideal vs UTG and CO. you're not expecting to get called by the BB, because he's so solid.

when he calls, if he's that solid, you have to basically put him on AA. he didn't have anywhere near the odds to call there with any other hand.

ok, so two things:

1) maybe an SPR of 1.5 (as opposed to, say, 2) is ideal vs this particular player with a top pair / overpair hand. if that's true, then you didn't get there preflop (because you weren't expecting to play vs this player), and you should only put in > 30% of your stack if you plan to commit.

2) if you put him specifically on AA, then you shouldn't commit unless there's a K on the flop (or you flop an OESFD or something).

the book doesn't aim to get us to stop thinking. it does an excellent job of providing a framework & a new way of organizing your thinking about how to make the best decision in every situation, starting preflop and continuing through the entire hand. each decision you make will have a huge impact on the decisions you'll be faced with later in the hand, and that's something you have to consider when making your decisions early in the hand.

[businessdude]

Can someone give a concise explanation of the difference between this book and the NLTAP that came out last year? (Maybe it's in this thread somewhere.) Is one more "advanced" than the other?

[PokerHorse]

After reading most of this thread let me ask a question. before this book came out Ed Miller said that he felt this book would blow peoples minds, etc.
I havent bought or read the book, but the theme seems to be
SPR, or stack to pot Ratio. And from what Ive read, spr is just a tool to help players evaluate situations at the
table.
My question is, is this book the mind blowing book that made you say, "wow!!", and make you a professional level player as it promised? Or Not?? In other words can you take this knowledge and use it to turn pro as it was touted to be????? Let me know , thanks

[m3dude]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

5 10, 2000 deep, 6 max online game, you hold kk on the button. utg opens for 40, co raises to 140, you make it 350. good player in the bb cold calls. both others fold. flop t83. he checks. you bet and he raises. folding has to be considered a viable option here whether or not you en dup folding, even tho this book reccomends never folding here.

[/ QUOTE ]

so the pot is $885 on the flop. SPR = 1.86. you bet $600. you've now put 1/2 your stack in, and you're going to fold? to me, that really doesn't seem like something even worth considering, no matter how solid the villain is. the decision to bet on that flop in that situation should be a decision that you are willing to play for stacks.

if you are considering folding to a raise there vs that particular villain, you should just check.

edit: think about this situation with REM and SPR in mind. you reraise to create an SPR that is ideal vs UTG and CO. you're not expecting to get called by the BB, because he's so solid.

when he calls, if he's that solid, you have to basically put him on AA. he didn't have anywhere near the odds to call there with any other hand.

ok, so two things:

1) maybe an SPR of 1.5 (as opposed to, say, 2) is ideal vs this particular player with a top pair / overpair hand. if that's true, then you didn't get there preflop (because you weren't expecting to play vs this player), and you should only put in > 30% of your stack if you plan to commit.

2) if you put him specifically on AA, then you shouldn't commit unless there's a K on the flop (or you flop an OESFD or something).

the book doesn't aim to get us to stop thinking. it does an excellent job of providing a framework & a new way of organizing your thinking about how to make the best decision in every situation, starting preflop and continuing through the entire hand. each decision you make will have a huge impact on the decisions you'll be faced with later in the hand, and that's something you have to consider when making your decisions early in the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol have u ever even played 5 10 before? from this post it seems like u have no clue how it plays

[ryanj247]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

5 10, 2000 deep, 6 max online game, you hold kk on the button. utg opens for 40, co raises to 140, you make it 350. good player in the bb cold calls. both others fold. flop t83. he checks. you bet and he raises. folding has to be considered a viable option here whether or not you en dup folding, even tho this book reccomends never folding here.

[/ QUOTE ]

so the pot is $885 on the flop. SPR = 1.86. you bet $600. you've now put 1/2 your stack in, and you're going to fold? to me, that really doesn't seem like something even worth considering, no matter how solid the villain is. the decision to bet on that flop in that situation should be a decision that you are willing to play for stacks.

if you are considering folding to a raise there vs that particular villain, you should just check.

edit: think about this situation with REM and SPR in mind. you reraise to create an SPR that is ideal vs UTG and CO. you're not expecting to get called by the BB, because he's so solid.

when he calls, if he's that solid, you have to basically put him on AA. he didn't have anywhere near the odds to call there with any other hand.

ok, so two things:

1) maybe an SPR of 1.5 (as opposed to, say, 2) is ideal vs this particular player with a top pair / overpair hand. if that's true, then you didn't get there preflop (because you weren't expecting to play vs this player), and you should only put in > 30% of your stack if you plan to commit.

2) if you put him specifically on AA, then you shouldn't commit unless there's a K on the flop (or you flop an OESFD or something).

the book doesn't aim to get us to stop thinking. it does an excellent job of providing a framework & a new way of organizing your thinking about how to make the best decision in every situation, starting preflop and continuing through the entire hand. each decision you make will have a huge impact on the decisions you'll be faced with later in the hand, and that's something you have to consider when making your decisions early in the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol have u ever even played 5 10 before? from this post it seems like u have no clue how it plays

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. folding an overpair when you've put 1/2 your stack in is generally a bad idea regardless of the stakes or the characteristics of the game you're playing.

and even if you could somehow rationalize that the BB calling in that spot in a particular type of game with some hand other than AA is "solid", doing so would require that he be assigning a very wide range to your hand. if that's true, then that would even further support the notion that you should never consider folding to his c/r after putting in 1/2 your stack.