Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
But the point is not to consider each act in isolation, but the whole preflop action.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the wrong way to look at it, and my posts explain exactly why.

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the point is not to consider each act in isolation, but the whole preflop action.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the wrong way to look at it, and my posts explain exactly why.

[/ QUOTE ]


i love this question, just a great discussion point. when work allows today i'll post a more detailed response here. your example is right of course. so why do we differ? post coming.

[1p0kerboy]

Matt, let me give you another example.

The pot is $200.

We have the A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].

The board is 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].

Our opponent holds the A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] and we know it.

Both players have $200 behind.

He bets $65 on a semi-bluff. We raise to $130 because we have the best hand. We figure, it's incorrect for our opponent to get $130 in on this street with nothing but a flush draw.

But this is a fallacy.

Now it costs our opponent $65 to call while there is $395 in the pot. The pot is laying him 6-1 on a call, while he is 1-5.1 to make his flush.

And here's where the fallacy lies:

As soon as your opponent bets, the money is not his. It's part of the pot. So it doesn't really matter when your opponent put what money into the pot up to that point. It's irrelevant.

[SenecaJim]

[ QUOTE ]
Now it costs our opponent $65 to call while there is $395 in the pot. The pot is laying him 6-1 on a call, while he is 1-5.1 to make his flush.



[/ QUOTE ]

How do you get 1-5.1 to make his flush? I get a better figure. There is no flush card that can hit and lose to a full house. How do 9 outs out of 44 cards come out 1-5.1?

[1p0kerboy]

I don't know where I got that number. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Did you get 1-3.88?

Matt,
looking forward to your response of course.

[1p0kerboy]

Also note that in my example we make money on any amount bet. Even if it is small enough that it allows our opponent to make money as well. But we should still make it a mistake for our opponent to call. That maximizes our expectation while decreasing our opponents to the point where his falls below 0.

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
Also note that in my example we make money on any amount bet. Even if it is small enough that it allows our opponent to make money as well. But we should still make it a mistake for our opponent to call. That maximizes our expectation while decreasing our opponents to the point where his falls below 0.

[/ QUOTE ]


hi pokerboy,

i'm exhausted, flight was way delayed coming home last night from LA, and this question deserves a well-rested response.

who is "right" depends on the underlying assumptions and gets seriously complex. the discussion topic is fantastic. if you've done this on the forums please link.

in pokerboy's example we have the best hand and opponent has a flush draw. there is a bunch of dead money in the pot. we benefit from every dollar that goes into the pot b/c opponent is roughly 4:1 to hit. however, opponent also has equity in the dead money. in this situation, if we assume opponent will not bluff if checked to (on the turn or river), then any bet > 0 benefits us. however, we want to price opponent out of the pot. if we bet exactly the price-in point, opponent is indifferent between calling and folding and so cannot make a mistake. if we bet less than the price-in point, we yield equity to opponent when he calls. if we bet more than the price-in point, opponent can make a mistake.

as an aside, in these situations, we DEFINE the equity of folding as zero. that's the correct frame of reference for decision-making. however, the equity of folding is not zero from a play-of-hand perspective. once you fold, the money you put into the pot is really gone as opposed to in play. for example, the decision-making starting point may be "i have 10% equity in this $100 pot, which is $10. if i spontaneously stick my hand into the muck, i lose $10." the cost of folding is $10, not zero. however, to decide whether you should make a play (like call a $50 bet), you "tare" to zero before weighing the option.

ok back to the example. we had a nuance we had to stick in, which is considering the value of future bluff-catching. say opponent loves to push on the river when he misses if he is not priced out on the turn. then it can be better to offer him a good price to draw because we make up for it by picking up equity when he misses the river and we call his bluff. once that nuance is defined out, the answer becomes clear.

in a similar way, there are major nuances in the AA vs. 66 hand. for example, opponent may have a wider calling range for a small limp-reraise than just pocket pairs, and we get a lot more equity when a non-pair hand calls. if we ignore these nuances or define them out, then pokerboy is right. opponent can have enough equity in the dead money and implied odds that calling is correct, and we lose because he calls. in other words, we would do better if we bet more, regardless of whether he folds or calls the bigger bet.

if we include the nuances, then pokerboy's perspective is often not the optimal one. however, the devil is in the nuance assumptions. these are tough to quantify and malleable depending on your mood and debating position. tomorrow i will argue that typical nuance issues make "my" perspective better.

matt

[amulet]

I ordered Professional No lImit when it first came out and read it promptly. I had problems with the book. However, I chose to withhold my comments to see what others thought. I have been surprised at the comments. While I think it may be the best NL book out to date, I don't think it is a very good book. Nor is it a book that will teach a player how to become a much better No Limit player.

The book does stress position, which is incredibly important in NL. It also stresses controlling the size of the pot. This is also very important. However, controlling the pot size is one of MANY important things that must be taken into account when playing a No Limit hand. The authors chose to make this single concept the focus of a huge amount of the book, instead of one of the many concepts that must be taken into account in nl play. This is a major error.

Additionally, I found the "SPR" very artificial, and not really a way to teach how to play no limit.

The key to controlling pot size is the bet that is made post flop or on the turn (or the decision not to bet). Players should think of somewhere between the 2ed and 3ed bet that they make (without a huge hand) as the key point.

I has problems with other parts of the book. One large mistake the authors make is to suggest that when you have a huge hand, to bet whatever you think your opponent will call. When you have a huge hand in NL you want to either make a very large bet, or get all of your money in in pieces. By betting big your opponent will often fold. However, the times your opponent plays will make you SIGNIFICANTLY more money then betting what you expect him to call. A large part of NL's profit comes from the times that you are able to win huge pots. By betting what you expect him to call, over time you are losing a lot of money (that you would otherwise win). Of course, this is opponent and situationally dependent, however, it is very important and something the authors completely missed.

I could go on. However, I will let others comment first.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
to bet whatever you think your opponent will call.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
By betting big your opponent will often fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

???

Pretty obvious contradiction here.

[Niediam]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
to bet whatever you think your opponent will call.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
By betting big your opponent will often fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

???

Pretty obvious contradiction here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all.

It's better to bet $100 and be called 15% of the time then bet $10 and be called 100% of the time.