Tips for reading NLTP

[SuitedKingAce]

Hi all,

I'm looking for some advice on how I should read NLTP. In my opinion, its approach is quite mathematical (which I like, as I come from a limit poker and master in maths background), but I'm struggling with the following: in a lot of sections, the author makes assumptions like: 'if the chance of your only opponent betting is 30%, you should ...; however, if it's 60% or more, you should ... instead'. How I am supposed to know what my opponents tendencies are? I haven't seen most players I play against online, as I'm new to NL, so therefore, I'm a bit lost when these assumptions are made.

Don't get me wrong, it all makes sense, but usually after reading a section which starts with the given assumption, I don't have a clue what to remember, that is, what I should do against an unknown opponent. I understand the book is focussed on maximizing a players profit, but I am a bit clueless when I don't know how to fill in the prerequisites needed to make a decision as described in certain sections.

Any ideas are very welcome. Thanks guys.

[James Nl]

[ QUOTE ]
How I am supposed to know what my opponents tendencies are? I haven't seen most players I play against online, as I'm new to NL, so therefore, I'm a bit lost when these assumptions are made.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would just get a notebook or set up a file on your computer to take notes on players incase you happen to encounter them again. You can do simple things like see how many hands they played in the past 10 dealt and see how it varied with position.

[SuitedKingAce]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How I am supposed to know what my opponents tendencies are? I haven't seen most players I play against online, as I'm new to NL, so therefore, I'm a bit lost when these assumptions are made.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would just get a notebook or set up a file on your computer to take notes on players incase you happen to encounter them again. You can do simple things like see how many hands they played in the past 10 dealt and see how it varied with position.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree, and that's what I am trying to do now. But it makes me I'm wondering, I can't imagine that this is done when multitabling. I think I am having problems with the fact (as far as I understand everything ofcourse) that the book does not state a 'general' tactic, but only describes the deviations of this 'general' tactic, which can be made once you have more specific information about your opponent. Does this make sense?

[SplawnDarts]

Yeah, it makes sense. Remember the people who wrote that book aren't particularly good NL players. It shows.

[SuitedKingAce]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it makes sense. Remember the people who wrote that book aren't particularly good NL players. It shows.

[/ QUOTE ]I have no idea if this is true, but in my opinion, the book has lots of value. My only problem so far is that some sections don't make much sense because of difficult/doubtful assumptions and the lack of general description. This might be an impression of me because I'm fairly new to NL.

[RobertJohn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it makes sense. Remember the people who wrote that book aren't particularly good NL players. It shows.

[/ QUOTE ]I have no idea if this is true, but in my opinion, the book has lots of value. My only problem so far is that some sections don't make much sense because of difficult/doubtful assumptions and the lack of general description. This might be an impression of me because I'm fairly new to NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

The probability estimates they use to explain the EV of a certain decision are just that, "estimates." You could either choose to ignore the results of their calculations or you can study them, and see how a little change in your opponent's behavior here or there may affect your decision.

They might be cumbersome or gratuitous, but IMO they teach a necessary skill in learning to play NL well. You have to constantly be thinking about how your opponent will react to various actions you take and how this affects everything later in the hand, and how it affects your overall expectation.

[RobertJohn]

[ QUOTE ]
How I am supposed to know what my opponents tendencies are?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a bit clueless when I don't know how to fill in the prerequisites needed to make a decision as described in certain sections.

[/ QUOTE ]

OP, since you come from limit poker, and you have only been playing NL for a short time, you probably don’t realize the importance yet of reading hands and players in NL as opposed to limit. Although these skills are very important in limit too.

The only ingredient to fill these gaps is experience .

You have to put in hours playing NL to see how specific types of opponents react to specific types of situations. IMO, and in the opinion of many others, reading players and being able to accurately assess someone’s range of hands and how they will react with those range of hands to your actions is the supreme skill needed to win.

Experience will better prepare you to make these types of estimates, and I believe the authors state themselves that this part of NL can’t really be taught b/c a lot of it is experiential and instinctual.

This is the part of the game you should be honing when you’re playing at the tables or online. You can’t get it from a book, but when you become better at it, their material will make more sense.

If you keep working at it and keep working at it and don’t improve in this area, then NL is probably not for you. You might just end up making comments like:

[ QUOTE ]
Remember the people who wrote that book aren't particularly good NL players. It shows.

[/ QUOTE ]

w/o explaining yourself or offering any proof to back the claim.

[SuitedKingAce]

Thanks for your replies guys. I agree that these percentages are estimates, but my problem is: if you don't know your opponent, which estimate if the general one? 30%? 60%? 80%?

I understand hand reading is a very important skill in NL (by the fundamental theorem of poker), and I admit I am having lotr of problems to put my opponents on a hand. Any advise (books, articles, sites, ...) on how to improve on this is very welcome.

thanks all!

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it makes sense. Remember the people who wrote that book aren't particularly good NL players. It shows.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you continue to insert statements like this into every thread regarding this book? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Honestly, I don't know that you're fully qualified to discount Ed and David's NLHE experience. Do you know something the rest of this board doesn't? Granted, neither are known for NL, but that doesn't mean they're not any good at it.

I know you have some problems with a few of the concepts and I respect that, but blanket statements like the above serve very little purpose.

Point out your perceived flaws in the book (above and beyond the one example you gave in the other thread) that show that Ed/David's lack of understanding of NL and it would much more helpful than saying "they're not very good."

If you can take the time to write several of these types statements, how about one long one with several examples from the book that you disagree with?

Also, we assume you play NLHE yourself and are successful. Not challenging that, just stating our assumptions when people make the type of posts you make.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it makes sense. Remember the people who wrote that book aren't particularly good NL players. It shows.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you continue to insert statements like this into every thread regarding this book? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]


[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's the key to understanding the book and getting some value out of it. Dave's theorizing about how he wishes NL were played if only they didn't keep reading him and taking all his money (back to midstakes LHE for him), and Ed's never had that problem because he's never even tried to roll with the big boys.

There's some useful information in the book, but it's no substitute for actual information from an actual NL player. Check out Doyle or Ciaffone for that. If DS & Ed wanted to be useful, they might explain WHY think think it's 60% likely their opponent will fold to a given bet, rather than assuming such a critical and hard to get piece of information and then showing us some arithmetic anyone who did well in 4th grade could set up and do on their own. Even they admit that [censored] has nothing to do with actually playing NL poker.

And yes, I've played NL successfully - at least if you would consider about 7BB/hour over most of a year at 25/50 PL and NL holdem to be successful.