Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
To clarify, were you mid-stakes pros already trying to manipulate the pot so that the ratios (smallest stack to pre-flop pot size) were in the range you wanted?

I've known concepts like min-raising (to effectively up the stakes), flat-calling to keep the pots small, etc., etc. but hadn't ever thought of trying to keep the pot size in proportion to the remaining stacks within a particular range. I guess I'd never seen this discussed before (though I haven't been actively reading the strategy forums this past year).

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. I was generally aware of building pots and exercising pot control and implied odds, but I had not thought explicitly of stack to pot ratios, nor what types of hands preferred what ratios for what purposes.

Same for "pot-committed." I generally knew when someone was committed, but the commitment threshhold and planning hands around it is new to me.

Really good stuff.

[dafrk3in]

i ordered mine from ebay two days ago for about $30 after shipping... amazon said it would take about 2 years to get to me

[HighSteaks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My book just arrived all the way in Oz woo hoo- lol, I hated school so much, can't believe I'm this excited about the arrival of a book [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Whenever poker gets attacked as destructive gambling the Poker lobby should drag me out for evidence of it's worth, it's the only thing I've studied in my 42 years thus far. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

P.S. Cool cover, another vote for guns in next addition however- I kind of liked those rediculous retro covers.

[/ QUOTE ]

where did you order it? (im still waiting.........)

[/ QUOTE ]

Here, only the $14.50 post [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
this is the one thing i hate about poker books. this example is wriiten in a vacume. what good player would let himself have only 10bb before playing a hnad. this is a cash book right? dont good players rebuy at some point. say he had 100 then lost to a all-in player which left him with 10bb. why would anyone play the next hand without rebuying. this example is bs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it happens all the time online. There is often a hand or 2 of waiting time before a player who got down low can reload, due to software. There is no option I know of that can "keep me topped off". I have to manually do it, and no matter how fast I do it it can't be done between the hand that just finished and the start of the next one.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's high time I weighed in on the value of this "book."

Don't bother reading any of those books about poker "theory". You can't learn how to play from a book. Books are filled with math and that [censored] doesn't matter in poker. You need to have instincts and balls of steel. Play No-Limit Texas Hold'em and just bluff the donkeys out of pots. Learn how to stare into another man's eyes and know everything about his life.....that's the way to play poker. Books can't teach you that.

[/ QUOTE ]

But presumably we should listen to your advice, right? In other words, we shouldn't read books, but we should read online forum posts? Oh, OK.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
all i ask is why would a good player leave himself only 10bb at start of a hand?. I HAVE NEVER EVER SEEN THIS EVER playing many hours of no-limit in mississippi yet!

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point. If things change radically and poker is ever played anywhere else though, it might come in handy.

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]


Bingo. I was generally aware of building pots and exercising pot control and implied odds, but I had not thought explicitly of stack to pot ratios, nor what types of hands preferred what ratios for what purposes.

Same for "pot-committed." I generally knew when someone was committed, but the commitment threshhold and planning hands around it is new to me.

Really good stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess my real question was that the book implied that this is the way that current Pro NL players already think, and of course they way they should think.

I just wondered if those of you successful players believe this to be accurate. You've done a great job of keeping this SPR concept in the dark if you have.

Oh, and Binions, I was actually going to hold off on reading the book for a bit, but after reading your example in this thread, I had to start just to see what the heck you were talking about. Very glad I did now. Kudos to ya'.

[Gonso]

Mason sent me a couple copies (thanks again), and it looks very well done. The writing is very clear and concise.

The basics and fundamentals are nothing new, but well presented. The later material I skimmed overall, but dug into a couple of spots.

For the moment this appears to be the definitive book on the subject of NLHE cash. I'm sure Harrington/Robertie will be no slouch either, but this is a nice step up from NLHETAP (which I thought was very good).

You can't do a set like this without covering the basics early on, I know. The later sections move into advanced material nicely, and I hope there's no looking back for volume 2 and beyond.

In particular, I hope to see a good solid treatment of not just 6-max, but also of very short handed and HU play.

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
On page 41: " Now suppose he has $150 left....$200 in a $16 pot". I took it as the same scenario as above with bigger stack left. Wouldn't it be a 16(3 raked) + 15 + 50 = $81 pot when you make the $200 decision? (or 185 decision, the 35 raise plus the 150 he has left?)

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not sure what the authors had in mind here. perhaps they were talking about making a commitment decision before any flop betting takes place? (i didn't realize that they were accounting for rake, either.) sunny?

[ QUOTE ]
Page 59: (3rd paragraph) Wouldn't it be 3 potential straights..45, 58, and T8 ?

[/ QUOTE ]

great catch!

[MikeyPatriot]

Finished the book today. Nice quick, concise read.

The books is written clearly and I didn't find myself having to read parts over twice because I couldn't understand what the author was trying to say. Contrast to Mathematics of Poker (which I also really enjoyed) where I very often found myself scratching my head.

As others have said, most of the information isn't groundbreaking per se (although I think the SPR concept might be), but it's a lot of stuff that I've thought about that I hadn't really seen in text. I think one thing this book has really helped me with his playing TP hands. For the past 5-6 months, I've been struggling with these hands and have often commented to myself how awkward a 100BB stack plays with a standard raise with TP hands. PNLHE helps you to understand how to manipulate a pot with TP. Further, this book really helped me play against short stacks (technically, playing short stacked). It's a lot easier when you know it's OK to commit to TP or even A high with certain SPRs.

There are a couple things that I hope the authors can help with.

First, as stated, I'm a little lost with how to bring SPR to a reasonable level with 100BB stacks in a standard 6max online game. For example, I raise 3.5BB with AKo from the CO, BTN folds, SB calls, BB folds. So we have an 8BB pot and 92BB stacks for an SPR of 11.5. Nicht gut. Raising 5BB or 2BB brings the SPRs to 8 and 19 respectively. Both are better according to basic SPR strat. However, I don't really feel like minraising is a good default and I don't think you're getting a lot of action with a 5BB raise. Are we just going to have to accept the fact that we are going to have to play at awkward SPRs a lot of the time with 100BB stacks?

Second, example no.3 on pages 261-262. I won't get into detail about the text, but the hand involves hitting TPTK with AK on a very dry board with a bad SPR OOP. The book advises to check here (which I agree with), but fails to offer any sort of plan. I understand that there's is stuff being saved for Vol. 2, but there's not even any sort of general advice about what your plan should be. Are we checking with the intention of calling, then leading the turn? Check/raising? Check/calling all the way down?