HOH "outdated"

[MrX5000]

JustCuz,

very well put. I definitly agree with you. But I would like to compare it to another game of strategy. Chess is like poker. When I was a tournament chess player, I read all the different openings to understand other players attack methods..etc. There's an infinite number of ways to think about chess and poker.

Chess openings have evolved over centuries and I would't seel poker short of the same type of trends.

Harrington's mathmatics depend on call/ fold variables that he arbitrairly sets. I've heard how television has affected poker profits. I'm sure books do it as well. That being said, the mathmatics of poker is constantly changing but the core concepts are still the same.

[JustCuz]

MrX5000,

A comparison between poker and chess can, as your post illustrates, yield some interesting similarities. I would, however, warn against too close a comparison, particularly since you are from an obvious chess background. So, for the sake of this discussion, I would like to introduce a third game, backgammon, as a sort of "in-between" to reference the divide between chess and poker.

In chess, there is absolutely no "hidden" or "unknown" information. Everything that is true, or can possibly become true, is able to be determined by either or both players based on what is visible on the board. Sure, one player might trick another one into thinking that the will do one thing and then do another, but that possibility can always be surmised by a true master.

Backgammon, on the other hand, is similar in that both players know, at all times, exactly the same information about where the game stands; one player hides nothing from the other. However, there is an unknown in backgammon: the roll of the dice. So, players respond to situation based on a marriage of what they both know to be the facts of the game (the situation on the board) and the probability of what is unknown (what opportunities the "random" rolls of the dice are likely to afford to either player). In the case of backgammon, the known information is shared equally and fully by both players, but the unknown information (the roll of the dice) is also equally mysterious to both -- netier know for sure what the dice will bring, but predictions can be made about liklihoods.

Poker, however, is a much different game strategically. In hold'em, for example, the board is known to both players, just as it is in chess and backgammon. Yet, the unknowns are two-fold: 1) The other players' hole cards (which are known to only the player holding the cards -- a type of information not present in chess or backgammon) and 2) What opportunities are likely to be realized based on the turns of the cards (turn and river as opposed to rolls of the dice).

So, we, as poker players, have to manipulate many, many more variables as they relate to the knows and unknowns of the game, and, on top of that, we have to know that our opponents, who hold unknown cards, are doing the same.

The point to all this is that a huge part of playing winning poker is the ability to navigate our way through those unknowns that are so unique in our game. And here's where I must disagree with you: Harrington has not arbitrarily set call/fold variables; he has merely given us guidelines. Just as I have my preferred counter to Bird's opening in Chess, for example, I will not use that counter every game, nor does Harrington suggest we play every hand in every situation the same way. Like you say, however, the mathematical core is still the same, and it's interesting to see how others propose playing in light that one constant in our game.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
In chess, there is absolutely no "hidden" or "unknown" information. Everything that is true, or can possibly become true, is able to be determined by either or both players based on what is visible on the board. Sure, one player might trick another one into thinking that the will do one thing and then do another, but that possibility can always be surmised by a true master.

[/ QUOTE ]

This "complete information" idea is commonly bandied about. It's true in theory, but not in practice, at least among amateur players.

It's true that while playing a "true master" you won't be able to get away with anything, against opponents at your own strength (less than master), chess is really not a game of complete information in practice. You have to pick up on your opponents strengths and weaknesses. You can pick lines he's not familiar with. Not everyone has the abilitiy to recognize all the information available to him. Some players are better at book lines, some are better at strategy, some are better at tactics. Some are better with positional analysis, some are better at sharp, open games. Some are better getting to an endgame safely where they can leverage their advantage in king and pawn play, while others are better at earlier fireworks.

It certainly is possible to bluff in chess (as you said not against a "true master".) But practically speaking, different information is available to the 2 different opponents.

To make an analogy, you could have the equivalent of a 1500 chess rating and make a lot of money at poker. That rating will certainly not make you any money at chess, even though you can win most of your games :-)

[Win.by.TKo]

It's funny how previous posters referenced Chess & Backgammon as games to compare to poker. Not surprisingly, Harrington was a master at ALL THREE GAMES.

Chess has an equivalent book to HoH; Reassess Your Chess (J. Silman). It essentially sets up a backbone for formulating plans during the middlegame. It gives you a broad system to utilize. It is obviously not the end all to chess, but it lays another foundation for future play, reading and study to build on.

In both games, everybody has a unique style of play that opponents must figure out. They take their knowledge of the game along with the knowledge of their opponent to place opponents in uncomfortable situations that lead to difficult decisions.

I have played tournament poker and tournament chess, but not tournament backgammon, but see the similarities. All games are a mix of styles and situations to achieve an ultimate goal.

I must admit that there is a ton of money in poker compared to chess. Also, chess has a difinitive rating system, where poker does not. The ratings can give you an idea on how strong your opponent is (if you want to know it. I personally avoid learning my opponents rating to prevent being 'beaten before going to the board.) Poker has no such luxury (or curse). You must figure this out at the felt.

Bottom line is that HoH is a solid book to build a tournament foundation for other books to build on, but it cannot stand alone.

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]

To make an analogy, you could have the equivalent of a 1500 chess rating and make a lot of money at poker. That rating will certainly not make you any money at chess, even though you can win most of your games :-)

[/ QUOTE ]

You can make money with the ability level of a 1500 rating if your official rating is lower and you can get into the u1200 section at the World Open or other similar tournament. Even in chess, it's all about game selection if you're in it to maximize profits. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ShaneP]

[ QUOTE ]


This "complete information" idea is commonly bandied about. It's true in theory, but not in practice, at least among amateur players.



[/ QUOTE ]


Jeff, I've seen you make this claim a few times. In game theory terminology, chess is indeed a game of complete information, and poker is a game of incomplete information. What people choose to do with this information is another thing, but that doesn't change the definition of the game.

If you want to say that the players if they are amateurs don't follow a Nash Equilibrium strategy, that's fine, and that's exactly what's going on. If you want to denote something else, you probably should chose different words that don't have a specific meaning in game theory already.

shane

[jeffnc]

No, it's not "outdated". The ideas are sound, and provide a good base even if you are playing against players who have advanced beyond it. Even if some top players don't play exactly that way, they still know how to, and they still need to be aware of who's playing that way. Then again, lots of players you play against will not even have absorbed that material, let alone done more advanced things.

Snyder's book does not supercede it, it augments it. Harrington's M ideas are not 100% fleshed out, and Snyder helps fill in some details related to increasing blind speed, "making plays" in position, leveraging a large chip stack, etc. I'd read Harrington first and Snyder second, possibly among other books.

[Paul Levy]

I don't believe it's outdated at all, I think it provides very good advice for low-variance, solid tournament play. However it is true that many players in the high stakes space deride the 'solid play' approach in the first place and bizarrely dismiss the M metric in favor of the number of big blinds.

[KiwiMark]

Personally I don't think that HoH is outdated at all.

I have read all 3 books all the way through 3 times now and I plan on reading them several more times. Does this mean I know everything in the books? I don't think so, but every time I read them I try to understand the concepts that Dan is trying to convey.

Does reading and understanding the books make you a great poker player or at least a winning one? I say no, it does not. I would also say that no book or instructional video does. But if you read and understand HoH as well as various other books by Sklansky and books like Kill Phil and Cloutier's book and a bunch of others then you can not only take in various worthwhile concepts and apply them to your own game, but you can also develop an understanding of the various ways of thinking that your opponents might be using. None of these books will make you a winning poker player, but the knowledge you can gain from them can help. What you really need is a very broad knowledge of the many concepts that are in Hold'em poker and the flexibility to bend your game to the situation on the table that you are playing. You need a lot of experience to understand the situation and to more quickly figure out how to play it.

I think that a flexible and intelligent mind, backed with a good theoretical knowledge and honed by as much experience as possible is the best asset in poker. Reading and understanding HoH is still a valid way to improve your grounding in the theoretical knowledge, but you need more than just that to play poker well.

For me my biggest weakness is my lack of experience, but I am working on that. Every week I play for several hours - gaining valuable experience. Then every few months I re-read HoH and try to fuse that theoretical knowledge with what I have learnt from experience - to better understand what I am doing (and what I should be doing).