Some top players dislike NLHTAP: Why?

[eMbAh]

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 alot.

[fraac]

Ask him. My guess is he finds it irrelevant to his game.

[Gelford]

[ 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 alot.

[/ QUOTE ]


It's a mess ... the first 100 or so pages on theory are fine, but then it dissolves into an utter mess, when he starts to talk about the practice.

The order of the examples are a bit random and the examples themselves are incomplete .. The reads on the villians is in the examples are either "good", "tough" or "weak" and sometimes there are no reads.

Like you get advice to always fold a hand in a certain situation in vacuum.

Then there is the total ignoring of the mechanism that is raise pf then cbet ... apply pressure and live of the blinds especially if table is nitty (not the same as bad)

And also the wierd wish to limp on the btn if blinds are weak, most prefer to play raised pots in position with weak players.


Etc ...


This is some of the things I noticed rereading it a month ago ... the thing is, that it is not a bad book (just poorly written), if you actually know how to play and are able to fill in the blanks and what table conditions need to be in order for this or that to be correct. But I pity the noob who has to wrestle with it first time around.

I feel this is a book for new to intermiediate players, but the language and organization is such, that it caters very poorly to that player type. On the other hand, the established ssnl+ 2+2'er finds it to shallow.

In it's defence, it is rumoured to have been written for live games (1-2, 2-5 and 5-10) which usually play different (softer) than online games


PNL on the other hand show very great promise ... the first book being fairly simple tho as it should be for starters, but great promise, two thumbs up to Mason for signing on Matt and Sunny !!!


PS. Don't get me wrong, I love a lot of Sklanskys work especially TOP and 7CSFAP, but this one is imho a near miss [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Albert Silver]

Have you read "Dominate...", Gelford? Just curious to know what you thought of it.

[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you read "Dominate...", Gelford? Just curious to know what you thought of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No ... I haven't, so I have nothing else on that, than the reviews and 2+2 threads, but I'm guessing you've read those as well [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[daveT]

I am also among the several hater of this book.

Gelford touches on many of my concerns. I bought it when it first came out. I noticed many bad habits in players that I did not see in them before, and it was because of this book.

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.

I gave my book away. 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.

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.

I personally think that it is better to find your basics at Limit then learn No Limit. This transition would actually speed up the learning process, and forget about the No Limit books that are available (I haven't read the new crop).

[eMbAh]

[ 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 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 ]
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?

[Collin Moshman]

[ 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.

[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.

[JJay1231]

I tried reading it a while ago but got so frustrated with the writing style after the first 100 or so pages that I just put the book down and never finished it. Maybe one day....