Thoughts on PNL?

[Pokey]

A few weeks ago I read Professional No-Limit Hold'Em Volume I. At the time, I honestly thought it was pretty bad in its advice. Since then I've had some time to reflect on the subject matter and I've come to the conclusion that I was right all along.

Am I the only one who found this book reasonably unhelpful? I mean, who exactly are Matt, Sunny, and Ed playing against that let them get away with this crap? Sure, everybody limp-reraises KK from UTG on occasion -- when table conditions are perfect, when there's some aggro-monkey in LP who can't resist raising to punish limpers, etc. -- but as a general rule?? Where are these idiots who let you raise to 8 BBs with rockets and then don't turn around and recognize that something odd is going on when we minraise 87s?

The main theme of the book seems to be this whole Pot-to-Stack Ratio stuff. Yes, it's very nice and interesting and all, but stack decisions are such a small part of my typical game that I can't imagine building my strategy around them. Given that 99% of the time you are fighting for a smaller-than-all-in pot, shouldn't we be paying a great deal of attention to these other hands?

OK, I get the point -- "if it's all going into the middle, you should have a plan." Fine. But why are we designing strategies around my betting double-pot on the flop, pot-and-a-half on the turn, and then pot on the river? Do any of us play against opponents who will let us do that on a regular basis? I have a hard enough time getting the live ones to pay off pot-on-the-flop, pot-on-the-turn, let alone a river bet as well. Are your opponents so dazzlingly stupid that they won't notice that you've changed your usual "3/4ths-pot flop, 1/2-pot turn" into "double-pot flop, pot-and-a-half turn"? Mine don't seem to be.

Look, I'm all in favor of planning and I'm a big fan of extracting value, but we've also got to be realistic. In the games we play, we simply can't get away with most of these moves. Our opponents are not blind and not unthinking; they actually pay SOME attention to our behavior. I really want to get something useful out of this book; if you liked it or found it beneficial, please let me know what it was that helped you -- I want to share in the intellectual bounty!

[sh58]

i haven't read it, but from what you say, the idea's in it sound pretty bad.

i've come to the conclusion that most poker books are not as good as the stuff on 2+2 forums

[1C5]

I didn't read the book yet but question: is the book geared more for online or live play in your opinion?

[pineapple888]

All I know is that I horselaughed when somebody tried to explain the whole PSR thing in a long post on here, and have paid no attention to the book since then. Glad to know I was right by Pokey's standards (which are more than good enough for me).

[tubasteve]

pokey: remember this is volume 1. the other book is supposed to focus a lot more on postflop play IIRC.

fwiw however, yea i dont really think its a very good book either. the spr stuff is ok for n00bs that don't know whats going on and generally stack off way too light with stuff like TPWK, but for anyone that has a clue about NLHE the book just presents a really convoluted way of deciding when to get AI.

[Some9]

I think the advice in the book is not very suitable for the 1/2 online 8tabler. But I stil think it's a lot of the advice is valid.

I have implemented different preflop raise sizes into my game and so far I can say with confidence that it's better than having a standard open amount.

I guess an example helps here, when a donkey is in the BB and I'm OTB I will often raise 3BB with weaker hands and 4BB with stronger hands. The preflop minraise has also found a place in my game, usually with small pairs in early positon when there are many fishies at the table.

What I also noticed is taht balancing is not as important as you might think. I know it's hard to quantify, but the difference in exploit-ability between overpotting only 1/3 of all sets vs overpotting 1/4 of all sets and 1/6 of all flush draws is really really small.

[Tickner]

The book is pretty good IMO.

It got me thinking in a different view of my game and helped me really understand the importance of aggression. I agree that taken literally the book isn't a whole lot useful in practice, and I think that you have to make "adjustments" a large fraction of the time from the general strategy the book preaches because in 100BB stack online games, your SPR is going to rarely be near target.

It's great theory though and it did present some ideas that I was eager to try out, and have actually used them to improve my game.

[DaycareInferno]

i haven't read it, but from what i've seen and heard, i think there are some helpful concepts, but that maybe the authors get a little carried away with it. i feel the same way about nltap.

at the same time, i also think that a lot of online players are way too stubborn about things like varying bet sizes both preflop and on the flop. a lot of online school thought is the product of multitabling and convenience. i think there is a good middle ground where we can gain some small edges here and there without giving competent opponents more to work with when it comes to reading our hand. most of my variations are tied to position and board texture though as opposed to hand strength.

[Sean Fraley]

I've read the book a couple times now, and I sometimes wonder if either I'm reading a different book than the rest of you or if I have some weird mental defect that allows me to see the material presented in such a fashion that doesn't give me the impression that the only thing the book talks about is preflop raise sizing. I mean seriously people, is that the only thing that you guys got out of this? Yes they suggest sizing your raises to try and get a favorable SPR. Everybody noticed that. It just seems that the instant that everyone read that they were to busy being indignant to notice the sentences on the same friggin' page where Ed, Matt, and Sunny also mention that you don't have to do this and if you are playing against opponents that will figure out what you are doing you should not do this.

The actual focus of the book was to present a way of thinking about the hand from the instant you are dealt you hole cards that lets you start planning the hand based around what kind of hand you are most likely to wind up with postflop and what your opponents are likely to do. When playing hands where the most likely situation on the flop is to have either top pair or an overpair this basically boils down to:

a) Trying to get it all-in when we flop a big hand (set, top two, quads) or have a decent one pair hand and favorable SPR against an opponent or opponents who will stack of with something we beat.

b) Playing for a small/medium size pot when we flop a TP/overpair hand when we are against a villain or villains who will only be getting it all-in for the size of our stacks if they have a hand that beats us.

Here is where a problem that the authors have mentioned repeatedly on this forum occurred. In the decision as to what should be included in Vol I and what should be left for Vol II they decided to keep the material about planning around getting it all-in but to leave the in depth material about how to deal with speculative hands and stealing postflop for Vol II. Apparently, people were expecting this book to be nothing more than that NL equivalent of SSHE and seemed to be under the distinct impression that Vol I would cover all pertinent topics. It doesn't. It is just the first in a series.

The book actually has helped me. SPR gave me a nice structured framework with which to keep stack sizes in mind from the beginning and do a much better job of planning hands in a fashion that helps me avoid being faced with a difficult all-in decision that I'm not prepared for. It helped me to figure out exactly how to adjust my preflop range according to my opponents stack sizes. Commitment threshold has helped by defining a point where I need to look at the situation and decide whether or not I want the chips in the middle.

[Sean Fraley]

Another point to make.

Lets assume a standard 100NL 6-Max game. You are raising using the tried and true 2+2 method of 4BB + 1BB for every limper and you will also add 1BB to your raise size if you are in the blinds.

Hand 1 it is folded to you in the cutoff and you raise to $4. Hand 2 there are three limpers and you raise to $7. Hand 3 there are three limpers and you are in the BB so you raise to $8.

What percentage of your opponents do you believe have figured out how you are sizing you raises?