Review, Advanced Limit Holdem Strategy (Tanenbaum)

[Mason Malmuth]

[ 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

[daveT]

[ QUOTE ]
Illusion of action is more important shorthanded

[/ QUOTE ]

With less players, you need to play looser to play profitably, and that requires thin bets and calls. I don't know if it is an illusion or not. But it could be argued that as the table goes to four and five handed, there is more than one loose style of winning, and no tight (20% vpip) style of winning.

Mason, I hope you post a review soon. I look forward to it. I am on the fence about buying or not buying this book.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
With less players, you need to play looser to play profitably

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
and that requires thin bets

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
and calls

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. You would prefer to get folds on may of your bets and raises.

Best wishes,
Mason

[tipperdog]

I reread my original post after reading yours and think I overstated things a bit--particularly with the phrase "crazy action player."

To be precise, Barry's text defines the Illusion of Action as "making enough plays that look like action (while generally still having positive expectation) that you get real action from opponents when you have the best of it."

So, it means cultivating a looser image, but certainly not a crazy loose image.

Anyway, I do look forward to reading your comments. I've always found your reviews helpful.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi t_dog:

[ QUOTE ]
To be precise, Barry's text defines the Illusion of Action as "making enough plays that look like action (while generally still having positive expectation) that you get real action from opponents when you have the best of it."


[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest you read Howard Lederer's limit section in the Full Tilt Poker Tournament book. He goes through a pretty good discussion, which applies to both tournament and non-tournament games, where he explains that you should fold some of the hands that would show a very small profit so that you can profit more on your other hands. I agree with this and think it's precisely the opposite from what you are saying.

Best wishes,
Mason

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
he explains that you should fold some of the hands that would show a very small profit so that you can profit more on your other hands. I agree with this and think it's precisely the opposite from what you are saying.

[/ 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.

[PJS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he explains that you should fold some of the hands that would show a very small profit so that you can profit more on your other hands. I agree with this and think it's precisely the opposite from what you are saying.

[/ 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 ]

I'll be honest, I'm a bit confused on this one. I'd appreciate it if Mason (or someone who can clarify this) could take the time to provide an example where this would apply.

PJS

[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.

[Heisenb3rg]

IMO skalasnky/malmuths advice about having a tight image in limit holdem is only correct under certain (most?) game conditions.
There is no way its true in all game conditions.

If the pots are frequently multiway and large preflop and your opponents will allow your tight image to manipulate and control the potsize postflop (by turning people passive to your raises).. as well as succesfully semibluff occasionally. A tight image IMO is superior to a loose image.

However, if a full ring game is playing extremly loose postflop, a tight image wont allow you to take down more pots than a loose image, so getting people to give you excess action is more important.
Although, Im not sure how the increased ability to "protect your hand" with a tight image comes into play..

In shorthanded games, winning pots due to bluff raising is not nearly as rewarding. People showdown too much, and the pots are much smaller.
The opportunity to win pots with the "first right to bluff" as well as winning more bets when you have hand are the largest source of value.

A loose agressive image both gets you more action (when you both have a hand), as well as discourages your opponents to bluff raise you without a good draw(for they fear the bluff-reraise). Your range is weak a good % of the time in shorthanded games, so people taking a lot of shots at you can be very difficult to play against.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
However, if a full ring game is playing extremly loose postflop, a tight image wont allow you to take down more pots than a loose image, so getting people to give you excess action is more important.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. You might get free cards when you raise. Your bets may not be raised when they should be. Your opponents may check to you when they should bet. They may play more straight forward against you than they might someone else. And so on.

Best wishes,
Mason