Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?

[Albert Moulton]

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard that Brian Townsend don't think highly of the book, why is that exactly? It's one of my favorite books and I respect Townsend a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play live, 9-handed NL 5/5 1000 max buy in. I'm rereading this book for my 3rd time. And applying just about every bit of advice I can manage in that book I've gone from a break-even player to a $23/hour player. So, I'll obviously keep my day job. But I know from first hand experience that it is a solid book. I think it's as good as any, and better than most.

People accusing the book of being "cook book" didn't read it very closely. The examples are included to illustrate a concept, not to promote a certain play or style of play in every similar situation. Without the illustrations, the concepts would be very difficult to understand. And in most cases, the illustrations include EV calculations to explain why a particular move in particular circumstances would be better than others. The "all-in with the nuts" calculations is one example. That section is nothing but a math problem. It doesn't say, "Always go all in with the nuts." It says that you should consider going all-in with the nuts because it will often have a higher expected value than milking the nuts with small bets that might get called more frequently. And all throughout the book's examples, the authors include multiple caveats to "mix up" or "randomize" your play vs. observant opponents.

The overwhelming theme of NLHETAP seems to be that NLHE is a game of implied odds in which you seek to manipulate your opponents into making big mistakes in big pots while seeking to avoid being manipulated into doing the same yourself. The tools for that manipulation are laid out fairly well: calculating pot odds and implied odd; basic hand reading and EV estimation; adjusting for position, both relative and absolute; bet sizing both pre- and post- flop; pot control; deception and multiple level thinking; the concept of trading small mistakes early in a hand for an opponent's potential big mistakes later in the hand; occasionally risking free cards to manage pot size and induce a bluff; etc.

Many of the criticisms I've seen, like "Who would ever limp on the button" are missing the point of the "limp on the button" section. If you have a good drawing hand, deep stacks, and week players in the blinds who will stack off with top-two pair for 500bb if you have J9s, and flop a Q8Tr straight vs. BB's QTo top-two, then you would be silly to raise 4bb pre-flop and fold out the guy with QTo. Instead, you should let the QTo player have enough rope to hang himself. Now, if you are playing a TAG/LAG 6-max table with 100bb or less effective stacks and only 5 guys at the table, all of whom are never going to stack off with Q8o from the BB, then obviously this particular tactic in this one example doesn't apply to your game. But the larger concept of playing for implied odds and creating situations in which weaker players can hang themselves OOP is still relevant.

I also think the pre-flop bet sizing section is particularly good. Stack sizes, position, starting hands, and whether you want to play a big pot or a small pot should dictate whether and how much you raise. Blindly raising 4xbb+1/limper is less useful than raising big when you want to play with few players in a big pot (for whatever reason), or small if you want to play with many players in a medium pot (for whatever reason), etc.

The principles in the all the examples are true in all games: play for maximizing your EV. Sometimes that means playing for small pots. Sometimes that means playing for big pots. Sometimes you bluff. Sometimes you slow play. Often that means trading small mistakes when the pot is small for your opponent’s big mistakes when the pot is big. Sometimes that means folding what is most likely the best hand because bad position + marginal hand = reverse implied odds. Etc. Etc. Etc.

No other book packs as much relevant and useful information about how to think about NL play than this one. It is not cook book. And those who think it is didn’t read it very closely.