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.

[Lawman]

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

The point is that you don't even need a "good chance". Using the formula, you only need a relatively small chance of being called to make the play more profitable than milking a small bet.

[gieffe]

I think the problem with the book is that most of the concepts apply to games where players have very big stacks. This is almost never applicable to online poker, especially SS.

For the same reason I think that shoving all in on the river with the nuts is definitely the right strategy online