Review, Advanced Limit Holdem Strategy (Tanenbaum)

[smbruin22]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. I haven't read that book but it seems to me this is also the opposite of what Stox recommends in his book as well.
If it has any amount of EV at all then he typically advocates playing it/calling down with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

agree.. how is more folding an "illusion of action"??.. maybe the author can weigh in as i won't be surprised if his ideas have been distorted here.

[*TT*]

Mason -

I haven't read the book (I have read the other title which Barry edited - wining shorthanded strategies) but flipping through Advanced Limit Holdem Strategy and speaking with others who have read the book the Illusion of Action that Barry discusses is not the same illusion you, Heisenb3rg or myself would assume he is discussing. Barry's Illusion of Action examples were equity raises that were also covered in books like SSHE and HPFAP .

When reviewing Barry's book its best to keep in mind who Barry's coaching students generally are. The Bear is good at opening up the range of weak tight Las Vegas locals as well as helping loose passive types learn when to properly use aggression (assuming the students learn well and absorb the material of course). Advanced Limit Hold'em Strategy seems to be tailored for this audience, the Las Vegas local who is essentially trading water with his or her play.

In short Barry's Illusion of Action seems to be nothing more than proper semi-bluffing from the outside looking in (I reserve the right to be totally wrong of course since I haven't read the book nor do I plan to - I am not the target audience). It seems like a good book for someone who is having troubles with the basics of limit hold'em theory after pre-flop play - aka limit hold'em 102. I think the difference is purely semantics, Barry didn't seem to be advocating overtly loose and agressive play.


I'm looking forward to your opinion of the book.

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Barry argues that the Illusion of Action keeps the payoffs coming your way.


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read the book (even though I have a copy sitting on my desk and hope to get to it soon), but this concerns me. It has always been my belief that an illusion or action, or just a loose image, is precisely the way you don't want to play limit hold 'em. I have written extensively about this before -- see my Poker Essays books.

However, that's not exactly my concern. I've seen some stuff recently where the author (not Tanebaum) advocates an illusion of action but then proceeds to give many plays that are predicated on a tight image. So when you write:

[ QUOTE ]
By far, the most important discussion in the concepts section is what Barry calls The Illusion of Action, which basically means playing in a way that makes you look like a “crazy” action player, when in fact, you’re really playing solid selective-aggressive poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't help but think the book is going this way. In the higher limits, especially if the game is short handed, you need to make all sorts of semi-bluffing type plays and plays that your opponent fears. This is not compatible with the illusion of action.

However, I'm not saying that creating a loose image is definitely wrong, even though I believe it is. But what I am saying is that if you go ahead and create a loose image, you then need to use an appropriate strategy consistent with that image. This would include much less semi-bluffing, value betting very weak hands, and going for extra bets and raises with hands that don't normally deserve this. Notice that is different from [ QUOTE ]
playing solid selective-aggressive poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyway, when I do finally get to read this book, I'll make sure to address this topic.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

I am really interested in your review. I have read the boook twice, studied it a little and I like it a lot. It is one of the few non-2+2 books that I would recommend.

His definition of an Illusion of Action play is basically how to mix up your play without spewing chips. Like occasionally raising in posistion with hands you normally limp. Showing a bluff from time to time and pushing a premium draw so that your opponents don't automatically know to fold when you bet because you only bet a made hand, etc.

I really liked the section about Illusion of Action plays and he mentions them throughout the book. He also states numerous times, that if they are calling your raises anyway, then don't make any Illusion of Action plays, just keep playing tight. Illusion of Action plays are for mixing up your game when your raises get too much respect.

Mason, I think after you read the book, you won't have any problem with Barry's Illusion of Action plays. I think the entire book makes a lot of sense.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen some stuff recently where the author (not Tanebaum) advocates an illusion of action but then proceeds to give many plays that are predicated on a tight image.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Although I don't expect you to say, I'd guess that the author you refer to is Dave Fromm and that this is a possible reason for dumping the Fromm/Zee book.

This point of strategy seems like one that needs clarification (meaning, "I don't get it"). However, if (hypothetically) Fromm/Zee and (possibly) Tannenbaum have failed to do that to your satisfaction, I'm not hopeful.

[jimitilt]

I am about two thirds thru the book and the "Illusion of Action" idea Barry refers to is just a new name for ideas that have been written about for years. Namely that certain hands can be played differently depending on position and number of players; plays that might seem strange to a lesser experienced player. one example he gave is to three bet from the cutoff with Q9s against a tight, losing frustrated player who had raised from his right. Barry hit a 9 on fourth street and won a pot and showing the hand got other players to view him as foolish and lucky. He points out that isolating a predictable player in position will allow him to win that pot almost all the time but creates the illusion of action for players who don't understand how sophisticated the play really is. He also talks about making other "situational" raises like raising with JT suited once 4 or more players are in or raising with a small pair once 5 or more players are in to tie those players to the pot with overcards when you hit your sets. Nothing really new except the terminology-"Illusion of Action" I think the book is good but nothing groundbreaking.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
one example he gave is to three bet from the cutoff with Q9s against a tight, losing frustrated player who had raised from his right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to be an example of trying to have it both ways. If the player is tight, then three betting with Q9s is clearly wrong. If it's a knowledegeable player who knows to loosen up on his first in raises from late position, then this play becomes borderline. If it is someone who is frustrated, then he may clearly be playing too many hands and this reraise becomes clearly correct.

[ QUOTE ]
Barry hit a 9 on fourth street and won a pot and showing the hand got other players to view him as foolish and lucky.

[/ QUOTE ]

This looks a little results oriented to me. Also, the majority of the time you three bet with a hand like this you don't make anything and you do want your opponent to fold. So showing your hand to convince your opponents that you're lucky and foolish is just bad advice to me especially since you will now be teaching your opponents to correctly call you down with hands that you would prefer them to fold.

[ QUOTE ]
He points out that isolating a predictable player in position will allow him to win that pot almost all the time but creates the illusion of action for players who don't understand how sophisticated the play really is.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, we wrote this play up almost 20 years ago with the original release of HPFAP. Second, notice that the play really didn't work so well since his opponent did not fold on the flop and that he had to catch a nine on the turn to win it. Notice that this contradicts "He points out that isolating a predictable player in position will allow him to win that pot almost all the time."

[ QUOTE ]
He also talks about making other "situational" raises like raising with JT suited once 4 or more players are in or raising with a small pair once 5 or more players are in to tie those players to the pot with overcards when you hit your sets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, these plays were first written up almost 20 years ago when HPFAP was first released.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Adman]

Mason makes some great points here and what he's saying does seem to refute to some extent the validity of Tanenbaum's assertions.

TT, given the lively discussion we had previously concerning the new D&B shorthanded book, I am very interested to hear your opinions on it since I noticed earlier in this thread you have since read it. Please comment?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Adman:

Again I have not yet read this book and probably shouldn't comment (much) on it until that happens. I now hope to get to it sooner rather than later (as originally planned), and when I do, even though my formal review won't appear here, everyone will quickly find out what my gereral opinon is.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Cactus Jack]

First, Bear is talking about middle-stakes, not small stakes, so that has to be kept in mind. Second, the Illusion of Action that he talks about is for making more money when you have an image that is too tight. If they fold when you raise, then your tight image may be working against you. By making Illusion of Action plays, which aren't really that loose but may appear to be loose, you'll make more on your very good hands. Mostly it's opening your hand range and making thin raises and reraises in position against certain opponents, when the entire table is watching. He also tries to create an image with his table demeanor, even though he doesn't write about that in his book.

Much of the book is as much mind-set as pure strategy. As TT said well, his audience is made up of weak-tights who aren't aggressive enough. Barry is trying to get them out of their comfort zones. Most 2+2ers don't need it, obviously, but we aren't his target audience. Most of us already play an attacking, aggressive game like he wants his readers to play.

His goal is to make your opponents become predictable as you become unpredictable to them. In this, I think he does it well.

It's a very good book, and I think the world of the poker E.F. Hutton. He's one of my very favorite people. Even if I didn't know him, I'd be impressed with the book. It's a good read. I think also you'll give it a good review, too, Mason. I look forward to it.

CJ

ps--Barry is going to be on my show in the next week or so. I'll keep an eye on this thread for things to ask him.

[Shandrax]

When I read about "illusion of action", I get reminded of John Fox "Play Poker, Quit Work and Sleep Till Noon" where he talks about a guy named ASQ (p.58-59) who intentionally makes a few suboptimal plays to make others believe that he is a fish, so they do everything they can to get into a game with him.