HoH I - Errata List

[Philos]

I create a thread with an <u>errata list</u> for Harrington on Hold'em Vol. 1.

p. 92 - Harrington writes the pot is $ 14.000, but it's only $ 13.500 ($ 300 from the blinds, plus $ 1.000 from the five calls, plus Harringtons $ 2.000 bet, plus the button's [/b] 2.000 call, plus the button's $ 8.200 raise).

[Philos]

It would be very helpful if anybody proves the calculation error I found on page 92 in Harrington on Hold'em Vol. 1!

[GeleHaas]

I checked it, and you're right.
It is $ 1.000 from the five calls, not $ 1.500
The big blind in this example is $ 200, not $ 300

[Philos]

I found some other errors in The Problems Hand 5-4 (pp. 220-221):

1) Harrington says on page 220: "You need to accumulate chips whenever you can, you've got plenty of reasons to think you have the best hand, and the pot odds of about 5-to-1 should be irresistible to him...".

Harrington recommends you should bet $ 150. The pot would then be $ 900 ($ 750 + $ 150) and the villain would have to call $ 150. The pot odds would be 6-to-1 instead of 5-to-1.


2) On the next page (p. 221) Harrington says "with 17 outs [...] [the villain] almost had the money odds for a proper call on fourth street."

17 outs make the villain a 29-to-17, or about a 1,7-to-1 underdog. The pot odds on fourth street are 250-to-500, or 1-to-2. So it is reasonable for the villain to call.

Please help me verifying the errors by proving them!

[Philos]

[ QUOTE ]
[Hand 5-4]

2) On the next page (p. 221) Harrington says "with 17 outs [...] [the villain] almost had the money odds for a proper call on fourth street."

17 outs make the villain a 29-to-17, or about a 1,7-to-1 underdog. The pot odds on fourth street are 250-to-500, or 1-to-2. So it is reasonable for the villain to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

The mistake is the villain has not 17 outs, but 15 outs. Otherwise 6s and Js would be counted twice. So the villains is a 31-to-15, or nearly 2-to-1 underdog. The pot odds are 2-to-1. That is why his call is almost reasonable.

[agoldenbear]

Another error, or so it would seem, is on p.171 in Problem 4-10.

After your flop bet gets raised, Harrington tells you what factors you should consider. Under "your opponents" he rules out a made straight from their possible holdings because "...someone would need to be holding ace-deuce, seven-six, or six-deuce, all unlikely hands to be playing before the flop."

I agree that A-2 and 6-2 are both trash hands that shouldn't generally be played, but seeing as everyone limped preflop, A-2 and surely 7-6 cannot be ruled out. 7-6 suited is a very likely candidate given the action up to this point, so why Harrington would discount it here, when it is precisely what your opponent ultimately shows down, is beyond me.