Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone care to give a short answer to whether this book is good or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are several reviews in this thread.

Personally I'll give it a 5/10. There is just so much of the game that this book doesn't cover (much of that is probably coming in the later volumes).

I don't think the book offers much outside 'basic no-limit hold 'em strategy'.

It offers an approach that is somewhat of a defensive style in that it is designed to prevent your opponents from getting the best of you. Of course there is nothing wrong with this; but a lot of my personal play revolves around finding weaknesses in my opponents and attacking them.

The SPR puts the player in a position where postflop decisions are easier. Of course, if you have excellent skills in areas such as hand reading and pot manipulation you might be cutting your bottom line by playing in certain spots that the book recommends.

I don't think REM process or SPR are really revolutionary and I don't think they are better than other, more sophisticated, techniques. But I think they are good for new no-limit players who don't have quite as deep of an understanding of no-limit concepts and fundamentals.

A generic look at poker is to
1) know what you have
2) consider what your opponent has
3) play your hand as profitably as possible

Well, this is the 'REM process" in a nutshell.

In summary, this is a book pretty much for new players to no-limit hold 'em.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[I don't think REM process or SPR are really revolutionary and I don't think they are better than other, more sophisticated, techniques.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Where have you ever seen SPR in print before? By the way, do you also refer to "pot odds" as a "technique"?

This is new, but it's not rocket science. I still can't figure out why so many people are not getting this.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Really? Where have you ever seen SPR in print before?

[/ QUOTE ]

The concept of stack size compared to the current betting and pot size has always been around.

Pot-Limit and No-Limit Poker by Stewart Reuben and Bob Ciaffone

Chapter 5: How Deep are You?

"The amount of money in front of the players has a profound influence on the betting."

"The deeper the money, the greater the implication that a player has a strong hand when he raises."

After numerous examples:

"As we see, the amount of money in front of you and your opponent is often a critical factor in determining how to play and when to play."

[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, do you also refer to "pot odds" as a "technique"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pot odds is not a technique but a specific way, or shortcut, used to measure them would be.

[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[curious123]

[ QUOTE ]
This is new, but it's not rocket science.

[/ QUOTE ]

I ~disagree w/ both claims. See MOP.

[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.

[Starfish]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think REM process or SPR are really revolutionary and I don't think they are better than other, more sophisticated, techniques.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying I'm disagreeing, I'm just listening. Could you name those better techniques?

Just one thing that came to my mind. When considering whether to call a raise from position with a drawing hand like suited connector, Ciaffone gives the 5-10 rule. However, using the 5-10 rule, the SPR you will get will usually be much lower than the SPR PNL recommends. (20+, or 13 if you have good stealing opportunities, or at least try to aim as close as possible.)

At pages 65-66 in Pot-Limit & No-Limit Poker with 89s, where if you call a raise with two other callers and you use 5% of your stack, you'll have the SPR of 4.5 at the flop, and if you use 10% of your (half-size compared to previous situation) stack, the SPR will be 2.15 - if the other people have you covered.

(The raise of BB was 150 more. Blinds 5-10-25. When calling with 10% of your stack, the stack must have been 1525 at the beginning of the hand. If the call was 5%, it must have been 3025. Three original limpers, one of them folded to BB raise, and hero on the button.)

There are situations - especially with several callers - where your SPR will be even lower than above if using 5-10 rule. Thus far from the recommended 20+ or 13. (Of course several callers raises your implicit odds, but on the other hand, it also reduces stealing opportunities.)

So if I'd like to follow those SPR recommendations, I should adjust Ciaffone's 5-10 rule much tighter. Opinnions, what kind of SPR should I require to make a call with different amount of (average type) callers - like in this example, but varying the amount of callers?

[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.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really? Where have you ever seen SPR in print before?

[/ QUOTE ]

The concept of stack size compared to the current betting and pot size has always been around.

Pot-Limit and No-Limit Poker by Stewart Reuben and Bob Ciaffone

Chapter 5: How Deep are You?

"The amount of money in front of the players has a profound influence on the betting."

"The deeper the money, the greater the implication that a player has a strong hand when he raises."

After numerous examples:

"As we see, the amount of money in front of you and your opponent is often a critical factor in determining how to play and when to play."

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing there that refers to SPR in any way.

Besides, it's the description and discussion of SPR that's important, not the mere mention of a "pot" and a "stack".

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, do you also refer to "pot odds" as a "technique"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pot odds is not a technique but a specific way, or shortcut, used to measure them would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing interesting in PNL related to shortcuts for measuring SPR. It's the concepts introduced that are important. The difference is like saying "there was a book that talked about the size of the pot and the size of the bet", versus a strategy quantifying pot odds and recommending how to use that quantification. Big difference.

Sorry, there has been nothing like PNL in print ever before. Props to the authors where props are due.

[Starfish]

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing there that refers to SPR in any way.

Besides, it's the description and discussion of SPR that's important, not the mere mention of a "pot" and a "stack".

[/ QUOTE ]

But here there is (page 67, PL&NLH, talking here about stack size at the flop):
[ QUOTE ]
As a rule of thumb, slowplay a big pair before the flop only when the amount of money in play for your opponent is two to four times the pot size.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, in PNL this concept has been taken much further.