Harrington on Holdem 3: The Workbook REVIEW

[ChrisV]

I just finished reading the new Harrington On Holdem book. Like the previous volumes, it’s generally good, with a lot of useful advice and analysis. There’s even some (pretty basic) discussion of SNG bubble play and the ICM this time. It definitely deserves a place on your shelf. That said, there are a number of errors scattered through the book. Some of the following are my opinion and some of them are incontrovertible (especially problems 46/47).


Problem 3: Early in a SNG, we raise on the button with 9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], the SB calls and the flop comes K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 5 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. SB check calls our continuation bet. Turn is the 8 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and SB checks. Harrington wants to check here. I much prefer betting again. Our hand is vulnerable and if SB was planning to checkraise, it’s probably with a hand we’re drawing dead against, and if we check here we are probably going to have to call a river bet. I’m not putting him on a king just because he check called the flop.

Problem 9: We’re playing as Hellmuth, in an MTT. Blinds 100/200, our stack 15K. 3 limpers to us in cutoff and we limp with 33. Button (“no particular read”, 18.5K) makes it 1,100 and it folds back to us and we loosely but reasonably call. Flop is K76 rainbow and when we check our opponent checks behind. Harrington now bizarrely claims that this check probably means a weak hand. Against typical players the check means at least a good king the vast majority of the time. Turn pairs the 6 and now Harrington and Hellmuth both advocate betting. Turns out the opponent has AK. What a shock.

Problem 12: SNG, 1500 start stacks, 25/50 blinds, the cutoff (T600) open limps and we have K9o on the button. Harrington limps, which I don’t like much but whatever. Point is though, in the intro to the problem we’re told that cutoff has played “good, solid poker”. At the end of this hand it turns out he limped 86o in the cutoff for 1/12th of his stack. His postflop play is questionable as well. At the start of Problem 13 (same setting) we’re again told this player is “tight, solid and dangerous”.

Problem 13: SNG, blinds 25/50, stacks 1500ish. One MP limper to you and you’re supposed to limp in the CO with ATo, which I can live with. Only BB comes, and flop is A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 5 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. BB checks, limper bets 100, and we’re supposed to just call because one of them might have us beat and you can’t be too careful. No thanks, I’m raising. If I can’t even play my hand strongly on a flop like this then I’d rather not limp it in the first place.

Problem 14: SNG, blinds 50/100, 7 handed, you 2,260 UTG. Blinds slightly cover you, other stacks range between 1,240 and 1,880. We’re supposed to raise ATo UTG here. Firstly no thanks, secondly how is this a better raising spot than the previous hand? BB calls, flop is 975 rainbow, it goes check/check, turn is another 5 and BB checks again. Now you’re supposed to check again because of some convoluted reasoning that makes no real sense. I’m a simple minded type of guy and often I like to bet when I think I have the best hand. Of course versus a very aggressive player checking might be right but BB is not described as such.

Problem 18: Live MTT, Blinds 1500/3000, Antes 200 (total 6300 in pot). Pro on button moves in for 10K, you have 30K in BB and 65o. Pro has a $5K cash bounty on his head. While Harrington gets the answer right (call), my jaw dropped when he simply added the $5K (cash) to the $T pot when calculating pot odds. HUH??? He also, while working out an opponent range, informs us that the correct play for the pro on the button here is to move in with any two cards, even though he’s in the process of proving that we’re going to call him with 100%. This doesn’t compute. Pushing with 72o can’t possibly be right if we’re up against 100% in the blind. How he doesn’t see this I’m not sure.

Problem 36: MTT final table, Blinds 3000/6000, antes 300. We are BB with 185,000 and 88. Folds to button (275,000, “tight and aggressive”) who makes it 22,000. The problem is to figure out the size of our reraise. Harrington wants to make it 80,000, which I have no real problem with, though it might leave you in an ugly spot on the flop. But he gives less credit to moving in than to making it 44,000 or 56,000, both awful raises which price in your opponent who has position on you and probably two high cards. He can then pick you off at leisure on the flop. This because a smaller raise “disguises your hand. After all, you wouldn’t push allin with a big pair”. This is backwards. Against perceptive players I would push allin with a big pair. It’s true I will make somewhat less money with big pairs this way, but I am dealt big pairs substantially less than other hands and I will do a lot better overall locking up the 50K pot and not leaving myself in bad situations postflop out of position. (If this is the “fear of flopping” thing that Harrington talks about in the intro, count me in).

Problem 42: This is part of the SNG bubble series. Blinds 100/200, 3 stacks including you have 1000 and the big stack is UTG. He pushes (range 100%) and it folds to you in the BB. Harrington says call only AA-88 and AKs, which I assume is what the ICM says to do. I would call a little looser here because otherwise my opponents can simply fold-war me into the ground. I will be forced to go allin at some point so if I have a decent hand I simply have to eat the small loss here.

Problem 46, 47: We come now to the real howler of the book. We’re heads up at the end of an SNG, limiting stack is 4,500, blinds 200/400, antes 25. The only difference between the two problems is whether we or the opponent have the limiting stack of 4,500, Harrington correctly making the point that it makes no difference. We’re in the BB and SB pushes. Lest I be accused of unfairness, I’ll quote the description in full here: “Your opponent has played a solid and perceptive game throughout the tournament. You’ve been playing heads-up for about 20 hands. So far the pots have been small.”. The problem is to decide which of the following to fold to the push: QQ, AKo, 99, ATs.

I giggled and flicked to the next page, confident the answer would be none of them. I stared aghast at the page as Harrington told me the correct answer was to FOLD 99 AND ATs. The justification? Well, our opponent is probably tight, since he is “solid” and the “pots have been small”. If he’s very tight here, naturally he only pushes with TT+, AQ+. If he’s only moderately tight though, he’ll be shoving a far looser range: 77+, AT+, KQ.

Folks, I am not making this up. The whole problem reads like it’s from another galaxy. It’s an embarrassment to 2+2 that it ever made it into print. I can only assume that Harrington has never played a SNG in his life.

Quite apart from the sheer insane tightness of the pushing ranges, I’m expected to believe that my opponent’s standard play with AA or KK is to push? Even though he apparently never pushes normally? Give me a break.


OK so my tone has been somewhat harsh in this review. Honestly I think this is a good book, I learnt things from it and would recommend it. I think it could have benefitted from a proof read from a good SNG player, especially the insane Problem 46. And I just wanted to highlight some of the questionable choices in the book, in case people out there are taking Harrington’s word as gospel.

[schwza]

i can't bring myself to spend money on a book that would tell you to fold 99 and ATs with 11x HU, especially against someone who is "solid." i'm sure there is a lot of useful stuff in the book, but i have a moral problem with supporting someone who is giving such flagrantly horrible advice.

i dunno, maybe i should be thanking him.

[suzzer99]

Wow. That's jaw-dropping. All I can say is I hope all my opponents buy this book and take the HU advice as gospel. Villains' playing too tight HU may be the single biggest boost you can get to your ROI. Maybe this will convince them to tighten up a little. If they shove anywhere close to those ranges I'm a happy camper.

[gumpzilla]

I think you guys are neglecting that you've played 20 hands HU with 11 BB stacks and the pots have generally been small. There has been zero pushbotting. In this example, then, there's quite a bit of evidence to suggest the tight guy actually is ludicrously, stupidly too tight (EDIT: as is hero, obviously).

Now this isn't a situation that should ever appear (if your opponent is that tight you should have already been bombing every hand PF and loosened him up after you'd taken half his stack), but given that situation I can imagine putting the raiser on a tight range, and then the rest is going to look somewhat silly from there.

[ChrisV]

gumpzilla: Firstly, "small pots" doesn't necessarily mean to me that people aren't pushing since I don't count uncalled raises in the pot. But suppose we do. The problem never states that we've played those 20 hands at 200/400, for starters. At 100/200, all the pots being small wouldn't be unusual at all. And even at 200/400, if the stacks were a bit more even, we'd be raising to 1000 or something, which would still mean small pots. The push this hand might be because the limiting stack has dropped to 4500. Or the opponent might have just decided to push instead of small raise, and the idea that this represents a BETTER hand is crazy, usually it means a hand that is +EV to push but doesnt want to small raise because a call or raise is awkward. (A8o, say).

I would need an AMAZING amount of convincing before I would agree to fold 99 to an 11BB push. The problem description doesn't even begin to come close.

[curtains]

You didnt add the Phil Ivey hand where he has 93o or whatever and he recommends you bet the entire pot postflop against 4 opponents after totally missing on a somewhat coordinated board?

[suzzer99]

If someone is that tight HU that folding 99 to an 11BB raise is correct, it would be one GIGANTIC anomoly. To the point I can say if I have ever played against anyone like that in 5000+ SNGs, I wouldn't know it and therefore wouldn't have that read. It's silly to even propose IMO.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
You didnt add the Phil Ivey hand where he has 93o or whatever and he recommends you bet the entire pot postflop against 4 opponents after totally missing on a somewhat coordinated board?

[/ QUOTE ]

This post isn't an exhaustive list of the plays I disagreed with (it's long enough already). To be honest, I left this out because I didn't want to become embroiled in a discussion about how I'm not allowed to criticize Ivey's play since he is way more awesome than me and the Tiger Woods of poker and etc. Also there's really no useful strategy content in the hand at all, it's entirely a question of whether Ivey thinks he can completely run over the table or not. I seriously doubt it, but I wasn't there. It's just not a hand worth discussing is my point.

[curtains]

That one is so ridiculous. The point is he says you must bet the flop because you played the hand preflop. Its not like numbher of opponents or flop texture could possibly influence's one's decision, NOPE once you call preflop you are basically LOCKED into bluffing no matter what?

I dunno I found that hand really stupid. The book is basically for morons in my opinion. There are some good hands of course, but there is an inexcusable number of bad, poorly thought out and lazy hands. I get so sick when I hear people talk about what good books they are. Yeah they are good if you aren't very good at poker maybe? Sorry to everyone I'm insulting with that last comment.

[ChrisV]

Yeah the hand was dumb but there's not really anything to say about it beyond "this hand is dumb" and I didn't just want to post "wtf Harrington and Ivey are retarded" lest a lynch mob descend on me. I just moved on to other hands where I thought technical mistakes were made.

I like the books but more as a dialogue process. There were times reading the book where I thought "Yeah I wouldn't have thought about the hand like that but that makes sense". Other hands I thought "No way, that's completely wrong". As mental exercise for analyzing hands, the books work imo. As instruction manuals, they're a bit too error ridden.