Ciaffone's Middle LHE

[Diana Ross Fan]

Hi all. I was going to wait until I finished the book, but I need some input now.

I am slogging my through the Ciaffone/Brier book on middle limit he. In a word: excruciating. I can maybe take 5 pages a day, and I still have about 50 left.

The only thing keeping me awake is that we disagree at least a third of the time. I think he lives in a world where people only bet or raise with the nuts, thus often he says "fold" where I think "obvious call"

Compounding the problem is that I usually have to read a book three times before I start applying it play. Do people here generally aggree with Bob's advice? And is the book worth learning through and through?

And yes, I have read the Sklansky trio: HEFAP, SSHE, and TOP, as well as Gary Carson's book and most of the limit sections in the Supersystems. books.

[RobertJohn]

Yeah, it is hard to get through that book in long sessions. This is due mainly to the overwhelming amount of hand problems, which is a good thing for sharpening your ability to analyze plays that you make, but it tolls on the readability.

The problem some have had with the book is what you've touched upon. His assumptions about his opponents likely ranges are often too tight and he advocates a lot of folds that are considered highly debateable by some if they occured online at equivalent stakes (or lower).

However, his problem-solving technique and his supporting logic are sound once you acknowledge his assumptions. To enjoy it more, you might see how the recommended strategy would change if you were to be more aggressive with the hand early, or if your opponents had wider ranges for their actions.

[dirty banana2007]

I havent read it yet, but it is on my to read list for the future.

In the archives there is a review by mason that is worth reading. I think he gave it two scores because of the high number of fold recommendations. If i remember rightly, he gave the lower score because if you followed the strategy it would leave you open to bluffs by opponents capable of good reads on your play. The higher score was for players who could identify hands in which Bob's recommended play was too tight.

[Heisenb3rg]

The key is , unless specified, he's assuming all his opponents are straightforward nits (like the average grinder used to be in the old MLHE days).
When you assume that, his analysis is often very sound...
My only complaint was even assuming your opponents are nits, he often underestimated your implied odds and overestimated the effect of reverse implied odds.
But not very much. Most players have the opposite mistakes (overvaluing their odds) so his thought process is very useful.

There are a lot of interesting concepts in the book, and it helped my full ring play immensily.

[Diana Ross Fan]

Thanks for the feedback guys, I am going to finish it off.

[jeffnc]

I'ts a good book for tough games, where people play well at a full table. Going through the hand examples is the best part, which takes time. Getting good at something takes a lot of time.

Read ITH as well.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
I'ts a good book for tough games, where people play well at a full table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just the opposite is true. Tough players will realize that you're looking to throw away hands and they'll give you plenty of opportunities to do so.

MM

[Adman]

Sorry, I know a lot of people love this book and at one time it may have been useful but these days it is all but completely useless. The advice is just ridiculously weak tight and with the amount of semi bluffing, value raising of draws when multi-way, raising for free showdowns and just straight out aggressive play that is prevalent in the games of today, you will be folding winners too often to eke out even a modest profit if you follow Ciaffone's advice. Unfortunately this book is just not useful anymore.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'ts a good book for tough games, where people play well at a full table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just the opposite is true. Tough players will realize that you're looking to throw away hands and they'll give you plenty of opportunities to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

True in a sense, but "tough" is not a well defined word. I meant basically players with tight and theoretically correct starting hand selection and post flop play. Opponents who can spot any weak/tight holes in your game can exploit them, obviously.

Anyway, it certainly is not the case that it's "just the opposite". You would certainly not want to play SSHE poker against tight players who do not go too far with their hands postflop, and you would certainly not want to play MLH poker against loose players who go too far with their hands postflop.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I know a lot of people love this book and at one time it may have been useful but these days it is all but completely useless. The advice is just ridiculously weak tight and with the amount of semi bluffing, value raising of draws when multi-way, raising for free showdowns and just straight out aggressive play that is prevalent in the games of today, you will be folding winners too often to eke out even a modest profit if you follow Ciaffone's advice. Unfortunately this book is just not useful anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, it works pretty well multitabling in today's online environment. Many of the players you'll face in lower limits are exactly the sorts of opponents described in MLH. Although I agree, in general play is more aggressive now than what MLH suggests.