HOH "outdated"

[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]

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.

[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.

[Dalek]

I agree that HOH is not outdated. Both 1&2 introduce important concepts that every player should be aware of. Whether you think that how he does something is right or wrong is irrelevant because the underlying concept is still important. A hyper-aggressive player could still learn something from HOH even though Harrington is tight.

The problems are also one of the best tools (besides playing) to learn how to think in a logical manner.

[Gonso]

Not only is Harrington on Hold'em NOT outdated, it's still the best work on NLHE tournament play. Snyder's book has merit despite a few problems.

Sklansky of course has his mega-revised Tourny Poker book coming soon an it's supposed to have an assload on new NLHE stuff too.

But HoH being outdated? No way.

[fraac]

How useful do you honestly expect any upgrade to TPFAP to be? I guess not much.

[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]

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
How useful do you honestly expect any upgrade to TPFAP to be? I guess not much.

[/ QUOTE ]

More than 100 new pages as per Mason, most concerning NHLE. It's not a minor revision.

[fraac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How useful do you honestly expect any upgrade to TPFAP to be? I guess not much.

[/ QUOTE ]

More than 100 new pages as per Mason, most concerning NHLE. It's not a minor revision.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't answer the (somewhat rhetorical) question.