Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread

[mvdgaag]

Although I have really enjoyed this book and think it's one of the best books on NLHE cashgames, I feel I have to put some critiques as well, especially to the SPR part... I have taken some time to let it all sink in and think the main point SPR makes is that you should be aware of stack sizes and commitment during a hand and plan your hands around this. Some of the conclusions are not very well agrumented though and sometimes I feel it is better to plan around other stuff.


1) The argument to plan around getting it allin is because these are the large pots that are supposed to have a large impact on your overall result. While this is true in fairly agressive games I think in more tight/passive games the large chunk of the winnings come from stealing small pots while the big allin pots are made by monster hands and not so much top pair hands. IMO your goal should not be to commit with the best of it (what the book aims for), but to get away with stealing more than the rest.


2) I've been up against players where my top pair hands have triskaidekaphillia, instead of -phobia, because they'd lose their entire stack on a weak draw or TPNK. I have also been up against players where a decent raise nearly always means your TPTK is beat, so it would be triophobia?
The assumption that 3 pot sized bets(/raises), or 13 times the preflop pot, means your opponent has a hand that beats top pair is not very well argumented in the book. The example is clear, but annecdotal and not suited to justify triskaidekaphobia in general for TP hands.
The book says that your target SPR should be between 2 and 7 for TP hands, depending on your opponents. I like the range is this big, but it also shows the whole exercise a bit redundant. Why not just put it in one sentence: 'top pairs are hard to play with deep stacks.' or even better 'When you hold top pair and the pot is getting big you're often beat.'. This would be the same advice, I think, but just less mathematical and complicated. And since there is no good way to quantify the target SPR's there's no need to get mathematical IMO. Just stating that you might win a small pot or lose a big one with TP and big stacks is enough. One should know though, that the size of a pot should always be seen relative to the size of the stacks, because that determines the amount of normally(pot) sized bets/raises that might be made. This is something the book makes clear very nicely.


3) I think being aware of stack sizes and manipulating the size of the pot are both a MUST for playing winning no limit poker. Manipulating SPR's preflop (or on any street for that matter) could be a good thing, but promoting preflop bet sizing according to hand types requires to formulate it into a proper strategy, which it not really given in the book, except for 'mixing it up'. I hope this will be better discussed in part two. (reading the last posts here I believe this is so [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img])


4) When you can reasonably assume you are ahead often enough to profitably go allin you should always be willing to do so (or commit in a manner that will keep you willing to go allin, because a huge bet might influence your opponents calling range and you are not getting the best of it anymore and therefore not willing to go allin anymore).
When and how to commit are valuable lessons from the book and should be known to any serious NLHE player.
Deciding to commit to going allin before you had information that might change your decision is ignoring this very information and therefore bad play IMO. You should allow yourself the option not to lose any more on the hand when you realise you are not getting the proper chance to win this, even if it's the last 10% of your starting stack and you know you are beat more than the nineteen out of twenty times the pot is offering you. If this information comes late, it's a bummer, but in my opinion you should not ever make plays with less EV than a possible alternative as a default. And ignoring information leads to just this, sometimes.

Therefore deciding to commit, going beyond the treshold and still folding should always be an option, rendering the threshold to a mere quideline for the potsize at which to ask yourself: 'Can I play a pot this big and possibly even this much bigger and still get the best of it with this hand against this opponent?' The numerous exceptions of commiting after reaching the treshold also indicate it's more of a guideline than a treshold as well.



All in all the concepts discussed in the book are very important and should be basic knowledge to anyone serious about NL holdem, but they are brought like exact ratio's like the different SPR's and tresholds while I think in practise these ratio's are so hard to properly determine that a simpler general advice or guideline together with common sense would often do the job IMO.
I am really looking forward to the more complex and more practical stuff in volume two. Especially pot manipulation, SPR and the consequences to successfull play on the turn and river should prove to make very interresting reading.

I hope these points are clear and understood as an honest opinion and not as an offence.

Thanks for reading...

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
1) The argument to plan around getting it allin is because these are the large pots that are supposed to have a large impact on your overall result. While this is true in fairly agressive games I think in more tight/passive games the large chunk of the winnings come from stealing small pots while the big allin pots are made by monster hands and not so much top pair hands. IMO your goal should not be to commit with the best of it (what the book aims for), but to get away with stealing more than the rest.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree and feel we made an error in order of presentation. volume 2 begins with the general approach to planning hands: you're gonna have to make the best hand or steal, and you start by thinking about which method is more likely to make you money with your hand (if neither works then you fold). that should have come first because in no way is SPR the only way to plan hands.


[ QUOTE ]
2) I've been up against players where my top pair hands have triskaidekaphillia, instead of -phobia, because they'd lose their entire stack on a weak draw or TPNK. I have also been up against players where a decent raise nearly always means your TPTK is beat, so it would be triophobia?
The assumption that 3 pot sized bets(/raises), or 13 times the preflop pot, means your opponent has a hand that beats top pair is not very well argumented in the book. The example is clear, but annecdotal and not suited to justify triskaidekaphobia in general for TP hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

this seems to fall under the general "it depends" clause. sure you might want to stack off for 13x in some situations, but most games/opponents aren't like that. since the typical game now has a 100bb buy-in, and the typical preflop raise leads to SPRs of 13 often, it's a good use case imo.


[ QUOTE ]
And since there is no good way to quantify the target SPR's there's no need to get mathematical IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]


yeah, we could have done it in fewer pages and less mathematically. c'est la guerre. however, it does help to think "this guy is tight, i can't get more than 2-3x out of him at best" vs. "this guy might well spew for 6-8x." you are def. right that it isn't precise, but it can be quite useful. check out some of the posts in the Mcro Stakes NL forum that contain "SPR" in the thread to see how people are making money using SPR.



[ QUOTE ]
4).... Deciding to commit to going allin before you had information that might change your decision is ignoring this very information and therefore bad play IMO. You should allow yourself the option not to lose any more on the hand when you realise you are not getting the proper chance to win this,...

Therefore deciding to commit, going beyond the treshold and still folding should always be an option, rendering the threshold to a mere quideline for the potsize at which to ask yourself: 'Can I play a pot this big and possibly even this much bigger and still get the best of it with this hand against this opponent?' The numerous exceptions of commiting after reaching the treshold also indicate it's more of a guideline than a treshold as well.

[/ QUOTE ]


we say all those things in the book and never advocate blindly committing. we repeat several times that before you actually get all-in, you should take stock and reevaluate whether it is profitable to do so. we also say in Commitment that you should ask yourself whether you are committed on every street. also, we discuss commitment plans in Commitment Threshold, not blind committing.


[ QUOTE ]
All in all the concepts discussed in the book are very important and should be basic knowledge to anyone serious about NL holdem, but they are brought like exact ratio's like the different SPR's and tresholds while I think in practise these ratio's are so hard to properly determine that a simpler general advice or guideline together with common sense would often do the job IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

we're gonna be all about simplifying in volume 2!

in Commitment Threshold takeaway in a nutshell is if you've put 10% of your stack in, you better think about commitment.

in SPR takeaway is WHEN you plan a hand to play for commitment, ask how much you can reasonably expect to win from your opponent, and try to arrange things so you have that much behind OR a lot more. remember he can put a ton of pressure on you if you leave the wrong amount of money behind.


[ QUOTE ]
I hope these points are clear and understood as an honest opinion and not as an offence.

[/ QUOTE ]


no worries! yours is an honest critique well intended and well received.

plus the first book is the hardest. writing has a steep learning curve, at least it did for me.

matt

[VespaRally]

I would like to give thanks to Sunny and Matt for their posts in this thread.

I’ve never seen this depth of author/reader feedback via an online forum, and it’s pretty sick IMO.

Some of the discussions have made for good reading and it sounds like some of the stuff brought up will shape the material for Vol. II in a positive way.

[Davdob]

I think the book is very interesting, but I will whithold comment about effectiveness until after I play with the concepts more. Conceptually though, the authors have given a good guidline for simplifiying post flop play throuhg preflop actions, and that is good for alot of beginners.

More amazingly though, is the enormous amount of intellectual effort they have put forth in this thread and others. They have given literally, an entire other books work of deeper thinking on these topics, and for free at that! I commend you for that effort, and sincere thanks. I hope you sell alot of books.

[IlPug]

quick and belated question that might have already been addressed - what's international shipping like, cost/time wise, if i order from 2+2?

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
quick and belated question that might have already been addressed - what's international shipping like, cost/time wise, if i order from 2+2?

[/ QUOTE ]


i don't know. www.conjelco.com is 2+2's direct seller but i believe they charge full price. Mike from www.professionalpoker.com offers it for < $20, ships it quick and reads this forum, so that may be your best bet.

[mvdgaag]

Thanx a lot for the long read and for the reply...


[ QUOTE ]
i agree and feel we made an error in order of presentation. volume 2 begins with the general approach to planning hands: you're gonna have to make the best hand or steal, and you start by thinking about which method is more likely to make you money with your hand (if neither works then you fold). that should have come first because in no way is SPR the only way to plan hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool... Volume one was great, volume two is going to be the nuts. I think though, that it's not an either/or choice when it comes to planning for stealing and maximising. You could go for stealing preflop and for value post flop and plan this all beforehand.

For example finding JJ preflop in middle position, folded to you, everyone to act has you covered and betting 4BB would give you an SPR of 13. Limp/raising makes it easy. You can play for a small pot when it's limped along and for a big allin one when you get to raise to a favorable SPR.
But what if a normal raise would be more profitable because of all the blinds you steal preflop that make up for the few times you get into trouble because of your stack? Also you have a lot better hand against a small field and by limping you risk playing against a lot of opponents...
So you raise for stealing preflop and on a good flop you are going for maximum value, even if you could be facing a tough decision on the turn. Thus not planning for maximum value or stealing, but both and sacrifising the favorable SPR.

[ QUOTE ]
we say all those things in the book and never advocate blindly committing. we repeat several times that before you actually get all-in, you should take stock and reevaluate whether it is profitable to do so. we also say in Commitment that you should ask yourself whether you are committed on every street. also, we discuss commitment plans in Commitment Threshold, not blind committing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I understand... I feel though (and believe you do to), that planning commitment is a lot more complicated than putting the chips in to (most likely) put the rest in on the next card instead of going for pot control.

Some examples:

- Putting in more chips to fold out better hands sometime, but commit against a range that might not be as great committing against if you'd have bet a lower amount where you could still get it in

- Betting less to make a more profitable overbet later in the hand

- Betting to get raised

- Checking to induce a bluff

- Checking to be called on a later bet when your opponent is likely folding here

- Checking to let your opponent catch up

- Checking to see what your opponent does, because this information is more valueble than a bet for value at this street.

- etc

These are all plays that might oftentimes have a higher overall expectation than betting to get allin IMO. All these examples show how hard it is to stick to your original plan of 'betting to get allin' or 'going for a small pot'. I feel I can almost never stay with the plan. Do I have 'fancy play syndrome'?
Or does it just show that you should have a lot of different plans for each hand and choose the action that suits most (or the most likely) of these plans best?

[ QUOTE ]
plus the first book is the hardest. writing has a steep learning curve, at least it did for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The book is one of the best and educative of the pokerbooks i've read and certainly the one that was most clearly written and enjoyable to read so far. I think you did a great job! Thansk again!

[Matt Flynn]

hi mvdgaag,

as you point out, it's always a hybrid between stealing and making the best hand. you can steal with aces (e.g. suppose a five-flush came on the river and you didn't have it but your opponent had the four). you can make the best hand with 72o. planning involves thinking about which is most likely and how that should affect when you play a hand preflop, when to raise or reraise, and what you should be thinking about going into the flop. it's not either/or.

as you say commitment does not mean betting to get all-in. rather it means are you willing to get all-in. big difference, and that's explicitly stated several times in PNL1.

examples of commitment plans: you might be committed to picking off a bluff and check to catch it. you're committed, and your commitment plan is check and call a bluff. other times it might be "bet my two pair hard to get all-in unless the flush completes, and fold the if the flush comes and my opponent bets hard into me." those are commitment plans, which is what we are talking about in Commitment Threshold and elsewhere.

your latter comments speak to maneuvering with your opponent to maximize expectation, which is a big part of any hand and any commitment plan. and a long topic. ;-)

matt

[RacersEdge]

While I was reading this book, I was playing online 25 and 50 NL. Those games are fairly tight and non-aggressive post-flop. So it struck me that the SPR concept seems best fitted to help a TAG player stick to his guns (stay committed) in the face of of loose/aggressive play post-flop. Even a lot of the examples in the book when citing reasons to stay with you committment plan are bluffy/semi-bluff - just flat loose play from your opponenents. Against standard tight players, it seems a regular "REM" approach would make more sense.

Also, here's a thing I can't get around:

If you have 100 BBs, raise to 8 BBs get one caller, you get an SPR about 6. If you scale everything down, 50 BBs and raise to 4 BBs with still one caller you get almsot the same SPR. So from an SPR standpoint, they are similar points in the hand. But really they are not. I would need to tighten my callers range in the first case much more than in the second case. It's like a Catch-22 - I got the SPR I wanted, but in the first case, since range is better, I need a lower SPR to continue. How do you resolve this situation?

[soah]

you're not always committed