Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread

[mrjetguy]

I really want to see some more reviews from respected posters, please. I have to wait to get it in Australia.

[Birdnals]

[ 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 ]

The point of the book though is to avoit these situation. After the preflop betting you have put more than %10 of your stack in. The book points out, that at this moment, you want to make a decision to commit to the pot or not. If you want to play a big pot at this point, then yes go ahead and bet. But who wants to play a big pot with one pair? If you don't want to commit your chips, then perhaps keeping the pot small and checking is your best option. Regardless, the book would advise making a commitment plan after the flop. In the situation you mentioned, the player with KK committed, which may not be the most advisabl play.

[MadMat]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question about 'Sup Bro'. In the first orbit examples at the end of the book the muscle-bound 20-something with a pink shirt and popped collar, is this a reference to the legendary 2+2 poster who was an all-county linebacker in H.S. and had 17 tackles for losses?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL yes I picked up on that one, nice to see a subtle "in joke" slipped in [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Mat

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we already have enough basic poker books imo

[/ QUOTE ]
Ding ding ding . We have a winner. Most people on this thread who gave hand examples are just not very good imho. Most of these hands just play themselves out like the AK hand that flops two pair, the set hand and this hand.
I mean seriously if you needed this book to know these basics concepts you have HUGE holes in your game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but we morons must amuse ourselves SOMEHOW until the real good stuff comes out in your soon-to-be-released poker masterpiece.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, if you keep thinking omg I put 60% of my stack I have an overpair I have to call then you are missing the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really think it's you who is missing the point. The point is not to play formulaic poker, the point is to understand and put into practice an important concept grounded in solid probability theory.

Let's make it extreme and bring it back slowly. You have AA. With $2 blinds you raise all-in to $200 and you get one caller. You are happy about this regardless of his holding.

Now lets' say his holding is 66, and he is hoping to flop a set. He made a bad call if he knew what you had. Now let's say you raised to $199, and he called. Now the flop contains a 6, no ace, and he moves all-in for your last dollar.

Now you have a dilemma. You have new information. It just so happens that this opponent is super passive and won't bet without a very strong hand. Do you call?

The point of this story is that even if you knew 100% you were beat, you would still call, IF

calling when behind was the only way you could be guaranteed being allowed this overall scenario again in the future.

Let's phrase that a different way. Your opponent can't go around calling $199 raises when you hold AA and he holds 66 and expect to make money, even if you promise to always go all-in after the flop if he wants you to.

Yes, we can always make different decisions after the flop based on new information. But in many cases, you don't have to. Some of these decisions would be very difficult to make, meaning you can't really know the answer. But you don't have to know the answer even if you get all your money in. You just give up that dollar (or EV portion of that dollar) because you know the overall profit is there based on the amount of money that went in earlier. Once he calls your preflop raise, he's screwed in the long run, even if he can choose to fold when he misses his set, and even if you promise to call every time he flops a set, you still win.

Now, just adjust down from $199 to find out where this starts to break down. You obviously win this game at $199, and you obviously lose this game at $5, but somewhere in the middle is the threshold.

This is similar in concept to what PNL is presenting.

[m3dude]

just because hes called your preflop raise and screwed himself doesnt mean u have to screw yourself when u know your beaten and dont have odds to outdraw.

lets take that aa hand for example/ lets play it out a few ways

u make a standard raise to 8 bucks and get a caller, flop j73 rainbow. now if u get heat u have to play poker.

u make a big raise like the book suggests to 20. u likely get nothing but folds and u win the blinds.

u limp hoping to reraise. its unlikely your reraise gets called more than 1 in 15, and it might just get limped around. either way ur chance of ever winning a nice pot is tiny.

out of these 3 options im choosing 1 every time and just playing poker when i face heat, as im going to make much more money this way rather than trying to create an spr that means i dont ever have to do anything but mash the bet button post flop

[jeffnc]

Here's another game you can play. You have an opponent who proposes the following game.
- you play heads up
- you get AA, he gets 66
- you each put $1 in the pot
- the flop is dealt, and no more cards are dealt past the flop
- he plays first after the flop
- if he checks the flop, you must check
- if he bets the flop, you must call his bet
- $5 is the only bet size allowed

Do you play?

[m3dude]

do i have to call flop and turn too? does he know i have aa?

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
just because hes called your preflop raise and screwed himself doesnt mean u have to screw yourself when u know your beaten and dont have odds to outdraw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it does, if that's the only way you can get him to screw himself to begin with (assuming he's getting screwed worse than you.) (You have to play this game sometimes or else your play will be exploitable by being bluffed out of pots too often.)

You can avoid the issue if you want, but if you don't get the concept then you have gaps in your game, it's as simple as that.

[m3dude]

no your concept is ridiculous. i dont think u understand poker at all.