How good is Harrington 3?

[Big Bend]

Ya he briefly mentions that people should get SNG Analyzer, but then doesn't seem to use any of the info that comes from ICM calculations etc. Those calculations are $$$!

I'm only 1/4 done with HOH3 - still finishing up NLH:TP. Both books are awesome tho.

BB

[Alan3]

I'm about 1/3 of the way through and have found three really good nuggets that can apply to cash games.

[kgb76]

I think Harrington on Hold 'Em Vol. 3 is very good to great (though not "excellent" like Vol. 1 and Vol. 2).

I read volumes 1 & 2 probably six or seven times apiece. As a result, my tournament play has exploded -- let's just say the books have paid for themselves many, many, many times over.

Volume 3, as you probably know, consists of 50 hands, each of which contains 1-5 exam-style questions, just like the hand analysis in the first volumes. But unlike the previous books, HOH3 assumes you have grasped the essential points of Harrington's recommmended tournament poker style -- including short-stack "M" play, continuation betting, and the like -- and pushes further into reading your opponents, and adjusting your play accordingly.

[jdaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of the sit and go examples he gave were awful and most people in STTF agree. But other than that the book was pretty good. I still think there was too much an emphasis on pot odds for every hand. Also it would have been nicer if it was really for advanced players and he talked about ICM and expected value more often.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the book was absolutely great. I am glad hear the response on the SNG questions as I scored 394 overall, but tanked on all but one of the SNG questions (and I believe the one I scored ok on was due to influence from the earlier SNG questions). I'll have to check that thread out.

[pipes]

Read through it quickly. I'll probably get flamed, but I'm very disappointed. Few quick reasons..

1) Many of problems are from TV so if you've seen these hands it can skew your thinking
2)He really seems overly fixated on current pot odds. He doesn't always seem to consider implied odds, reverse implied, playability of hands, hammer of future bets etc
3) He never really seems to consider other reasons to bet (ex blocking bet) or check (induce bluffs, keep pot small with marginal hand etc)other than thinking he has worst/best hand
4) SNG hands/scoring seem terrible. He's calling all of his chips off due to what he thinks are great pot odds even though its clear he is beat. In Problem 8, he is just leaking chips. Most of the other SNG hands seem very very questionable as well.
5) Hand 50 - Full points for pushing 2 million into a 260K pot with a straight on a board of AQJT6. What are the chances Negreanu calls this massive overbet without a King on TV?

There's other items, but I don't feel like reading through the book again.

Loved NLHTAP. Didn't like this book.

[betgo]

It's mostly an analysis of hands from TV. I think the analysis is interesting. The book is worth reading. The hands are more interesting than the problems in HOH1-2. However, the really good part of HOH1-2 was the text portion not the problems.

For the hands other than TV hands are not so good or very elementary. The discussion of calling requirements for open pushes in SNGs is completely wrong and weak/tight. Harrington should stick to discussing major tournament play between strong pros, which he understands.

[ltb]

the scoring system gives too much partial credit.

i scored in the low 400s, and i am nowhere near a good tournament player.

[pipes]

[ QUOTE ]
the scoring system gives too much partial credit.

i scored in the low 400s, and i am nowhere near a good tournament player.

[/ QUOTE ]

think it might give too much credit for some answers and not enough for others

For example, Hand 14..no credit for folding ATo UTG with 8 people left in a SNG. Stack around 2200 and blinds only 50/100. If folding is wrong, it can't be too wrong. You most likely will either win a small pot or dump alot of chips to a dominating hand (which mathematically would be out about 35% of the time)

Hand 50, full points for overbetting 2 million in a pot of 260K on a board of AQJT6. Think any type of NLHTAP analysis would conclude a bet of around the size of the pot would be higher EV.

Most agree many of the SNG hands are weird.

I really wouldn't put much stock in the scores, whether they are good or bad.

I didn't keep track of my scores. I just read through it and tried to glean any useful discussion that I could. For me, it was his thorough hand reading discussions.

[fruitypro]

Personally I've generally found it to be a bit disappointing.

I think it advocates weak-tight play on the whole.

[Fishy McDonk]

[ QUOTE ]

I think it advocates weak-tight play on the whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's interesting. Someone else said this:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0#Post6155582