Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
When you value bet, your expectation is:

P(You are Called) x (Amount you Bet).

So if you think there is a good chance you will be looked up with a big bet, your expectation is often higher betting big for value.

[/ QUOTE ]

While the "intuitive" belief is often to milk the hand, the problem I have with the book is that essentially everything in the book breaks down to what you wrote above.

The "theory" of NL poker boils down to "do that which results in the highest EV".

Thank you very much, I think I already knew that. Granted, sometimes we milk, but it's not because we don't understand EV, it's because we might misjudge how much our opponents would call and how often. The book does not help very much at all with the judging part.

Compare your book with NLHTAP Collin, and you'll see the difference. Your book shows how to play, TAP doesn't. Some have criticized a couple examples in your book as showing the right decision without the correct reason being given. I don't know about that but overall I can read SNG and come away knowing how to play the game fairly well. The same can't be said for TAP.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many of these conclusions are not correct in many situations.

The most glaring, obvious one being to shove all in on the river with the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you value bet, your expectation is:

P(You are Called) x (Amount you Bet).

So if you think there is a good chance you will be looked up with a big bet, your expectation is often higher betting big for value. The intuitive belief is often the opposite, namely that value betting is a "milking" process where you bet small to assure gain from a big hand. Keeping the above formula in mind will certainly benefit your value bets, and I think it was an excellent point made in the book.

[/ QUOTE ]


That wasn't the point at all. The point made was that sometimes betting big has higher EV than betting small even if the chance the big bet gets called is very small.

Example:

Betting 10,000 and getting called 20% of the time has an expectation of 2,000 and is better than betting 2,000 and and getting called 80% of the time because that only has an expectation of 1,600.

The problem I have with that theory is you then have to make big bluffs or semibluffs as well or the big bets will never get paid except against brain dead opponents.

If you make reasonable sized value bets on the river (1/2 pot to full pot) then you can also make bluffs of that size.

[runway model]

[ QUOTE ]


The "theory" of NL poker boils down to "do that which results in the highest EV".

Thank you very much, I think I already knew that. Granted, sometimes we milk, but it's not because we don't understand EV, it's because we might misjudge how much our opponents would call and how often. The book does not help very much at all with the judging part.


[/ QUOTE ]

Jeff, this is spot on.

At this point the cookbook haterz will make accusations of needing to be spoon fed recipes rather than thinking through things for ourselves. But anyone reading NLTAP is going to have a hard time making +EV decisions without some cookbook help or context with the judging part.

The other big problem with the book is that it takes too long discussing those things that can be most easily reduced to math calcs (eg shoving the nuts), and ignores more common real money making stuff that can't be so easily modelled.

In other words the book ignores the NL forest, but provides good analytic discussion of some of the lesser known trees...

And of course, the book has no structure whatsoever.

[eMbAh]

The reason i really like the book is because it explains the theory behind the game. It doesn't tell you what to do but it tells you how to think so you can figure out what to do.

[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason i really like the book is because it explains the theory behind the game. It doesn't tell you what to do but it tells you how to think so you can figure out what to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trouble is, it does try to tell you what to do .... that is where it falls apart [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] (and besides some of the theory is dead wrong, like claiming that blindstealing (or actually just stealing) is not a reason to raise from the BTN)

[Farfenugen]

[ QUOTE ]
Trouble is, it does try to tell you what to do .... that is where it falls apart (and besides some of the theory is dead wrong, like claiming that blindstealing (or actually just stealing) is not a reason to raise from the BTN)

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish I had the book with me at the moment but would be shocked if it says that blind stealing in NL is never a reason to raise from the button. As I recall Sklansky mentions that in most cases is is not a reason to raise and explains some situations in which one might want to raise to steal blinds(which is true in a full ring game).

Correct me if I'm wrong plz. The book is at home and I haven't read it in a few months.

[Gelford]

You know with two 'weak' players in the blinds, if you look down on J9s, then you should prefer to just limp on the btn, in order to give the blinds the chance to make expensive postflop mistakes

[runway model]

The book feels like it started out as a pure theory book, but then Sklansky either ran out of things to say, or lost faith in that approach, and the compromise is a bunch of random concepts in practice tagged on at the end. This ends up pleasing neither those who want a pure theory book, nor those who want more help making +EV decisions in practice, since both sections fall short.

And it's annoying there is so much left unsaid even from the perspective of pure nl theory. I'd love to hear DS on for instance the theoretical trade-off between planning hands hands around commitment versus stealing, but the lack of any meaningful SPR discussion just suggests he didn't really play much (or enough) NL before writing the book.

[daveT]

[ QUOTE ]
You know with two 'weak' players in the blinds, if you look down on J9s, then you should prefer to just limp on the btn, in order to give the blinds the chance to make expensive postflop mistakes

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something that I am not sure if you are being sarcastic about.

This is a raising situation because weak player may call and fold on the flop, which even if he does this once every 100 hands, is higher EV than open-limping.

I am more concerned about raising a strong player's blind, because I am not sure about calling a re-raise, or what is going to happen when I miss on the flop. I will make more mistakes. A this point it is not worth waisting chips at all if you know that you will be out-played.

A loose player will likely call. If I miss, I can take it down, maybe. Or I can hit, hoping that this player will call with incorrect odds or on the hopes that I am bluffing.

[daveT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many of the concepts are common sense, but then they are twisted on their heads and analyzed to death. Many of these conclusions are not correct in many situations.

The most glaring, obvious one being to shove all in on the river with the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]


Can you remember more examples? Why is it so bad to shove with the nuts on the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that this has already been mentioned, but it is not inherently bad, per se, but you certaintly can't make it a habit, for all the reasons previously written.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't find a use for it, as I have developed a style that would be broken if I was to take many of the suggestions. I think that many of the higher limit players, and 2+2r's don't like if for this reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this because the players are conservative or can you give some examples of how the book suggest something that seems awkward to incorporate into their game?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't remember specific examples. I think I already mentioned the concepts of balancing strategy. I don't identify with the pre-flop raising chapter at all. There is nothing wrong with raising similar amounts with various hands, because you do want action, it has a higher expectation than taking the blind because you "defined" your hand with a 20x bb raise. A pot sweetener bet can be inviting disaster, especially at a small stakes full ring game.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a new player was to use this book, his strategy would be highly exploitable. Although many basics are correct, the player would need a ton of coaching. The most exploitable being the "balancing" concepts, as they open you up to making many more decisions than you would have to make if you were playing more straightforward.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you come with some examples of if a new players plays according to the concepts of the books, how he is exploitable?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is little need for deception in poker, attempting to randomize your play at the beginning, you will be opening yourself to mistakes. The biggest problem with the book is that you would be attempting to play randomly, but in a total vacuum. There isn't enough consideration to how your opponent plays, and how they react to your bet.

For example, and hand I played recently:

I have AJ

I raise whatever, I have one opponent, I presently have 100 BBs in front of me.

Flop comes down A45 rainbow

I bet and villain check-raises me. Okay, the guy was sort of a donkey, I guess, but do you really think that I am convinced that I am beat and drawing dead to 23? Check-raising with a draw is so cliche, (it was plainly obvious to me that he had exactly 56), it is sickening. The book says, that if your opponent is likely to lay down his hand, then attempt to check-raise with a draw. It would imply that you would do this with a tight player. I play tight, but most players cannot distinguish the difference between strong and weak. Learning to address these opponents are vital in this sort of situation. I, of coarse, shoved all in, destroying his pot, effective, and bluffing odds. (He did beat me, to runner runner flush, if you must know).

The chapter on Loose Aggressive opponents is terrible. A LAG couldn't care less if he gets value on his good hands. Yes, it may feel good, and it is a part of the strategy, but they are just trying to take down pots. It forces the bad players to play more honest, diminishing the chance that a good LAG will make a mistake.