Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread

[stinkpaw]

Anyone who hasn't gotten this book do yourself a favor and order it now. It may help prevent you from getting into situations like the following:


Effective Stacks 100BB

Dealt AQo UTG. Want to get my SPR low so raise 6BB and hope for at least 2 callers. Only get 1. Stack is 94 BB and pot is 12BB (leaving out blinds for the Rake.) SPR is 7.8. Villain is loose and aggressive. Loose increases my Target SPR, but aggressive lowers it, so I’d day my T-SPR is 5 for this hand & opponent, so I didn’t reach it.

Flop (12BB) Q, 9, 5 2 suited, I have none of the suits.

I hit, but I’m playing above my T-SPR, and I really have trouble making a plan for the hand.

This is how the hand played out:

I bet 2/3 Pot (8BB) and got called.

Turn (28 BB, Eff Stack 86, SPR 3) 7o
I bet 3/4 Pot (21BB) & get called.

River (70 BB, Eff Stacks 65 BB) 6o
I check, villain pushes.


1) Should I just fold PF? Seems kinda weak-tight but AQo UTG FR may end up in more trouble than its worth.

2) If I bet the pot on both the Flop and Turn, I would end up with half a pot left on the River making a much easier decision. But I am in essence going to the felt when the SPR is higher than my T-SPR, which is something that is –EV.

3) I could check the Turn but what do I do if villain bets. If he takes the free card we are pretty much c/c a reasonable bet on the River with any card, even the 3rd flush card, correct?

[GuyIncognito]

Raising from UTG shows a lot of strength. Are you likely to get 2 callers with a 6 BB raise UTG? And can you get them all-in with KQ/AJ/JJ/etc. when you hit your top pair? If not, you probably should try something else preflop.

Limping is fine. If raised, you could consider folding (if you think you will get trapped by AK/KK with a low SPR when you hit) or reraising (if you think you can trap villain with KQ/AJ/JJ/etc).

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]

But what if I want to have steal potential with top pair hands and medium pairs. At my target SPR of 4 for AK, if I c-bet when I miss the flop I am crossing the Commitment Threshold. My opponent is also more committed to the flop and less likely to fold. So going for a lower SPR w/AK type hand when I plan on stealing seems -EV to me (especially considering opponent’s range is a lot stronger if he is putting so much in PF.) What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

nice! ok, first at the commitment threshold it's ok to bet when bluffing. in fact it is a great time to bluff because any big bet (before the river) threatens your opponent with a stack decision: he may face an all-in on the next round.

so, when you miss with AK and an SPR of 4, fire!

your opponent isn't necessarily less likely to fold - exception is if you got so much money in preflop that now everyone is holding AA-QQ/AK.


[ QUOTE ]
Medium pair hand have a Target SPR ~13.

[/ QUOTE ]

pairs play well with many SPRs. it's other draw hands that like SPRs near 13.


[ QUOTE ]
If I pump the pot PF then try to steal when I don’t flop a set, again aren’t I making my opponent more committed by lowering the SPR?

[/ QUOTE ]

depends on how low you go. and remember, if he's got anything but a big pair he is a dog to flop top pair or better.



[ QUOTE ]
On the flip side, how do I adjust if I know my opponent likes to steal.

[/ QUOTE ]

check more if he's a light stealer, and bet if he's a heavyweight stealer.

[ QUOTE ]
For AK hands do I adjust my Target SPR up (say to 13) so I won’t lose much when I miss and fold to opponent’s aggression but am willing to call 3 bets when I do hit?

[/ QUOTE ]

he'd have to be one tough stealing bastard for you to do that.



some additional information:

the worst case is when the SPR is a little over the max you are willing to put in. say that's 6. then against an aggressive opponent, you fear an SPR of 8 more than one of 13. why? because the all-in threat comes earlier, and you don't want to get all-in.


second note: if you normally bet 2/3 pot just adjust that 13 down to 10 or so. SPR game adapts around the "normal" bet size.

[Matt Flynn]

Albert,

awesome list. some of it's already in there. we'll try to get to more of it in PNL2.

Matt

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]

Effective Stacks 100BB

Dealt AQo UTG. Want to get my SPR low so raise 6BB and hope for at least 2 callers. Only get 1. Stack is 94 BB and pot is 12BB (leaving out blinds for the Rake.) SPR is 7.8. Villain is loose and aggressive. Loose increases my Target SPR, but aggressive lowers it, so I’d day my T-SPR is 5 for this hand & opponent, so I didn’t reach it.


[/ QUOTE ]


was it a really loose game? also, how many players?

if you've got some reason to believe their calling ranges are still wide preflop and that they'll stack off postflop, then fine. but it pays to be careful.

i'd play AQo almost every time utg.

[m3dude]

so i bought the book yesterday and read it cover to cover. there are solid basics and fundamentals. spr is solid in regards to giving a sense of how much to commit in general with each type of hand, however the methods the authors suggest in applying it will likely only work against bad players. v tough players it will make u very exploitable.

for example:

page 229 - hand example 8 they recommend limp folding ace queen against a loose player whos playing loose because he isnt being punished for it because you cant get a low spr. this is just passing on a likely profitable situation and allows this player to continue his free reign over the table.

page 224 - hand 4 they recommend limping kjs on the button after 2 limpers. while the footnote says u can raise if u have steal equity, you should raise because you have position on 2 limpers with a hand that plays well post flop and is ahead of their range. you will win more in this spot over 100000 hands by raising than by limping assuming you play well postflop. choosing to limp because you cant create your target spr just costs you money.

page 132 - minreraising aq. this strikes me as very bad advice because you give villain great odds to call with anything reasonable and play in position against you. whats usually going to happen is you get it all in v a huge draw and ur a small favorite, or you get it in crushed. villain is correct to call here with a wide range of hands getting 3 to 1 immediate odds and almost 20 to 1 implied. u also allow him to 4 bet over you and push u off the hand. while u might do this with aa too making him hesitant, the odds you offer your opponent to break your aa are too good to make this reraise with aa. so he can likely profitably 4 bet if he knows your not a weak player. you then get yourself into the situation where your playing high variance aggro wars with a tough player because you know he might be 4 betting light and you do have a decent hand.

the understanding i take away from the overall spr message you guys are conveying is that when possible build bigger preflop pots with 1 pair type hands to cut down on villains implied odds, or dont build them at all. i feel you can accomplish the same thing without becoming exploitable/sacrificing value by just widening your raising range.

i realize playing the way this book teaches helps prevent you from being outmaneuvered in big pots by tough players, but it also prevents you from winning big pots against them. you basically relegate yourself to being a winner in only the easiest games

[Sunny Mehta]

[ QUOTE ]


page 132 - minreraising aq. this strikes me as very bad advice because you give villain great odds to call with anything reasonable and play in position against you. whats usually going to happen is you get it all in v a huge draw and ur a small favorite, or you get it in crushed. villain is correct to call here with a wide range of hands getting 3 to 1 immediate odds and almost 20 to 1 implied. u also allow him to 4 bet over you and push u off the hand. while u might do this with aa too making him hesitant, the odds you offer your opponent to break your aa are too good to make this reraise with aa. so he can likely profitably 4 bet if he knows your not a weak player. you then get yourself into the situation where your playing high variance aggro wars with a tough player because you know he might be 4 betting light and you do have a decent hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everything you cite about this example is completely contrary to how we describe the villain. If you change the components of villain's range and tendencies, of course you will get a different answer. We mention that over and over again.


[ QUOTE ]
i realize playing the way this book teaches helps prevent you from being outmaneuvered in big pots by tough players, but it also prevents you from winning big pots against them. you basically relegate yourself to being a winner in only the easiest games

[/ QUOTE ]

That might be true, um...if you ignored everything we mentioned about stealing and putting your opponents to stack decisions by bluffing, semi-bluffing, etc!

Honestly, I don't see how any of your specific points disagree with our actual theorems - almost all of your criticisms involve changing of variables within the "formulas". If you're saying that "the concepts in the book only work against x opponent type", I think you vehemently missed the "forest through the trees". If you're saying that you "would like to have seen more examples of the concepts applied and adjusted to tougher opponents", I think that's a very valid comment - to which I'd say:

a) Volume One is geared for entry level players, not high level professionals.
b) We needed to explain the crux of the concepts first before getting too far into more advanced adjustments - particularly given that there's only so much one can fit into a 300-page book covering as wide a range of topics as we did (note the "Volume One" on the cover). [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
c) Volume Two baby! Now that we've laid out our concepts, much can and will be discussed about adjustments, nuances, etc in future volumes.

Thanks for the comments,

Sunny

[m3dude]

[ QUOTE ]


Everything you cite about this example is completely contrary to how we describe the villain. If you change the components of villain's range and tendencies, of course you will get a different answer. We mention that over and over again

[/ QUOTE ]

yes i understand that u gave a specific scenario, i just dont think its very realistic and i think it conveys a flawed concept. i think a call and a fold are both better in this instance than a minimum reraise


[ QUOTE ]
That might be true, um...if you ignored everything we mentioned about stealing and putting your opponents to stack decisions by bluffing, semi-bluffing, etc!

Honestly, I don't see how any of your specific points disagree with our actual theorems - almost all of your criticisms involve changing of variables within the "formulas". If you're saying that "the concepts in the book only work against x opponent type", I think you vehemently missed the "forest through the trees". If you're saying that you "would like to have seen more examples of the concepts applied and adjusted to tougher opponents", I think that's a very valid comment - to which I'd say:

a) Volume One is geared for entry level players, not high level professionals.
b) We needed to explain the crux of the concepts first before getting too far into more advanced adjustments - particularly given that there's only so much one can fit into a 300-page book covering as wide a range of topics as we did (note the "Volume One" on the cover).
c) Volume Two baby! Now that we've laid out our concepts, much can and will be discussed about adjustments, nuances, etc in future volumes.

Thanks for the comments,

Sunny

[/ QUOTE ]

if villian knows you are only betting with monsters or bluffs, whether they be semi or stone, but checking behind with all 1 pair hands when u arent committed it makes it very easy for him. when villain knows u arent a weak tight player and u cant just be pushed off anything thats not 2 pair +, and you can make those value bets with solid 1 pair hands only then can u effectively steal from such players. if they know you are just checking behind with your solid 1 pair hands they arent going to give u credit for a big hand often enough when you bluff. we just dont make big hands that often. they are also much more likely to rebluff your steals, especially if they have outs.

im not saying u blindly go to town with all your 1 pair hands, it requires properly analyzing your opponent and being able to read hands. but this book seems to teach a weak tight style, and i think most players who buy this book will be online players, and in todays online games weak tight is not the way to play. the games are more aggro then ever. i do think much of the book would work well in the typical capped live game up to 10 20 depending on the game.

thx for the reply. is there an eta on vol 2?

[m3dude]

sunny/matt would u mind if i posted a hand i played here and get your advice on how to approach it from an spr perspective? if u guys dont mind i think it would be very helpful.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
but this book seems to teach a weak tight style

[/ QUOTE ]I don't agree, though I do see how this perception might arise.

It all goes back to REM. The authors put opponents on ranges and made the proper plays based on the equity they had against those ranges. It is not weak tight to fold against an opponent whose range will get the best of you when you get it all in at a certain SPR. However, this is not to say you make those folds in all situations and against all opponents. If you find someone trying to "exploit" you, then you re-asses their range, which changes your equity, when then changes your play (and your willingness to commit).

For example, something I've thought a lot about since reading this book is they typical tournament players I've played against. I come from the donkament world before playing cash, and one thing I know is that the average player in a tournament is a lot looser and willing to call off weaker. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that at low stakes, an SPR of 13 with a top pair hand might not even be bad against a lot of these players (that is, TPTK is the virtual nuts against these guys and you can pot, pot, pot and expect to be ahead the majority of the time when you are called). Of course, potting three streets for value with TPTK will get you killed in most cash games, but it just illustrates the point that you have to adjust to the game you are in.

The point is, SPR isn't a "system" that opponents will be able to figure out and exploit as long as we are doing it right. That is, they should not be able to say "Well, he builds x pot with y type of hand, so I will adjust", because if we are on our game, when they start trying to exploit us we will re-adjust and start building a z pot with that same y type of hand because it will now become a more profitable size pot against our opponents new range. But of course, this isn't anything new, this is the same old poker- adjusting and re-adjusting. The only difference between this and non-SPR play is that now we have an additional tool in our arsenal.

To bring it back around, we might make a certain fold against an opponent believing that we cannot go forward profitably against his range. That is not weak/tight- it is good poker. However, if new information emerges that tells us our opponent has a wider range than we initially thought (or has now widened his range), now we don't make that fold because we have greater equity. We should be playing attention to opponent tendencies so that we know how to apply SPRs and make decisions at the commitment threshold.