Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying I'm disagreeing, I'm just listening. Could you name those better techniques?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the thing.

SPRs are important in the sense that they tell us exactly what kind of reverse implied odds we are offering our oppopnents if we are committing. In this respect, I have no problem with the introduction of SPRs if it helps players recognize and calculate this aspect better.

I'm a bit concerned that when we are playing to steal we are raising a different amount than when we are playing to commit. IMO this gives a lot of information away. Based on some of the examples in the book, the authors are playing against pretty much incompetent opponents who pretty much won't discover this information or be able to do much with it if they did. Of course, in the real world our opponents are not always going to be quite so naive. (Maybe on a Friday night at the Bellagio or the Mirage).

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing there that refers to SPR in any way.

[/ QUOTE ]

*Sighs*

When someone asks "how deep are you", such as what the chapter is titled, they are referring to your stack size.

Of course, stack size is a relative figure. To know how big a stack size is, you must compare it to something. $1000 is a big stack in a penny game but a small stack on High Stakes Poker. And on the flop, which is the only spot where SPRs are applicable (according to PNL), of course you are going to compare "how deep you are" to what is in the pot (the reward) and nothing else.

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing interesting in PNL related to shortcuts for measuring SPR.

[/ QUOTE ]

SPR is a measurement stick of reverse implied odds that we are offering our opponent.

When I used the word "technique" I was referring to the "system" that the authors used to apply SPRs to their game.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
When I used the word "technique" I was referring to the "system" that the authors used to apply SPRs to their game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. Then the authors give SPR a label (never been done before), give analysis of specific numbers and what they mean (never been done before) and provide a basic framework for planning your hands, using it as part of a "system" (never been done before).

No matter how you slice it or semanticize it, it's new stuff.

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm a bit concerned that when we are playing to steal we are raising a different amount than when we are playing to commit.

[/ QUOTE ]


pOkerboy,

agree 100% you should only vary your preflop raise sizes if you can get away with it. the SPR manipulation of bet sizing stuff is written for easy/loose live and microstakes games. that was very explicit before we cut the volumes up; now volume 1 just says a couple times if your opponents will figure you out don't do it. what is missing is the introductory material for planning hands, which is the stealing vs. making the best hand, playing for small pots, etc. that is now page 1 of volume 2.

neither Sunny nor I vary from early or middle position in online games, although we sometimes use a dichotomous strategy of limp or raise.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm a bit concerned that when we are playing to steal we are raising a different amount than when we are playing to commit.

[/ QUOTE ]


pOkerboy,

agree 100% you should only vary your preflop raise sizes if you can get away with it. the SPR manipulation of bet sizing stuff is written for easy/loose live and microstakes games. that was very explicit before we cut the volumes up; now volume 1 just says a couple times if your opponents will figure you out don't do it. what is missing is the introductory material for planning hands, which is the stealing vs. making the best hand, playing for small pots, etc. that is now page 1 of volume 2.

neither Sunny nor I vary from early or middle position in online games, although we sometimes use a dichotomous strategy of limp or raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm being a little unfair in my assessments because a lot of volume 1 isn't optimal in my particular games.

Today I'm playing at a different stack size (40bb) and am planning my play around commitment. We'll see how it goes. So far I am noticing that my opponents have a really hard time adjusting their play to my stack.

[Starfish]

[ QUOTE ]
neither Sunny nor I vary from early or middle position in online games, although we sometimes use a dichotomous strategy of limp or raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean, that you vary your rise size to get the SPR you want only at late position? And use standard size raise at early/middle position (like 3BB or 4BB or whatever).

Is it to avoid overuse of the method so it would be more difficult to spot? (So use it in late position where it's more efficient, because you have more control and better view how the pot will develope.)

[Sunny Mehta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
neither Sunny nor I vary from early or middle position in online games, although we sometimes use a dichotomous strategy of limp or raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean, that you vary your rise size to get the SPR you want only at late position? And use standard size raise at early/middle position (like 3BB or 4BB or whatever).

Is it to avoid overuse of the method so it would be more difficult to spot? (So use it in late position where it's more efficient, because you have more control and better view how the pot will develope.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I can only speak for myself, but for me it means I basically just adjust to the game. In certain games (particularly live games) I use SPR a LOT and plan hands around commitment a good deal - along with my other bag of tricks. Ditto for some online games (mostly full ring ones, or if I'm mega-multitabling with less than 100bb stacks). In other online games, particularly heads-up and shorthanded ones, I plan my hands around stealing quite a bit more. It does depend on the lineup though as well. However, one way or another I feel that being armed with stack-to-pot ratio knowledge/awareness is invaluable.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm being a little unfair in my assessments because a lot of volume 1 isn't optimal in my particular games.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is nonsensical. It's like saying "pot odds aren't optimal in my particular games". There is no single strategy given, so how can there be one that isn't optimal?

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no single strategy given, so how can there be one that isn't optimal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes there is.

Did you read the book?

[1p0kerboy]

The strategy in the book is planning your hands around commitment. Volume 2 is going to be planning your hands around thievery. The latter is more successful in my game, because there aren't many players committing to pots with weak hands.