Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Overall Is PNL better then NLHTAP?

[/ QUOTE ]

They're different books (although there is some overlap). Depends on what you like, but I think PNL is much better because it's more practical - it's advice you can take to the table. NLHTAP gives the theory, but does not help you apply it much.

[Jeff76]

Finally got my copy. Great so far (just through the first section).

It is clear to me from reading this thread that people are missing some of the ideas in the text. Right from the beginning the authors talk about the most important thing being having a plan for your hand. I've known for quite a while that this is important, but quiet honestly wasn't certain HOW to plan for my hand. It is pretty clear that this book will give me many of those tools, and I'm looking forward to getting deeper.

But those people who come away from this book saying "well x happened, and now I'm in y spot, and the authors say that I should to z here" have completely missed the point. They make it crystal clear that this is not the way to think about a poker hand. Rather it should be "if I do x then that gives me the best opportunity to profit when I get into y spot where my plan is z, unless I get additional information that requires me to change my plan". If people miss this, though, it is through no fault of the authors, who have done an excellent job thus far presenting the material.

I can't wait for the rest of the book.

[phydaux]

[ QUOTE ]
those people who come away from this book saying "well x happened, and now I'm in y spot, and the authors say that I should to z here" have completely missed the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but missing the point doesn't stop them from posting, does it?

Oddly, it seems the most vocal critics are the ones that haven't even read the book. I always find that funny.

[mshalen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
those people who come away from this book saying "well x happened, and now I'm in y spot, and the authors say that I should to z here" have completely missed the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but missing the point doesn't stop them from posting, does it?

Oddly, it seems the most vocal critics are the ones that haven't even read the book. I always find that funny.

[/ QUOTE ]
Funny yes but around here that is considered the ABC method of posting.

[Birdnals]

[ QUOTE ]
just because hes called your preflop raise and screwed himself doesnt mean u have to screw yourself when u know your beaten and dont have odds to outdraw.

[/ QUOTE ]

in the example jeff gave, youd be calling $1 to win $399, definitely good enough odds to withdraw

[ QUOTE ]
u make a standard raise to 8 bucks and get a caller, flop j73 rainbow. now if u get heat u have to play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

which is why the book advocates to not make a standard raise

[ QUOTE ]
u make a big raise like the book suggests to 20. u likely get nothing but folds and u win the blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

have you read the book? first off all, what are your blinds at? what are the effective stacks? you dont give enough information to make an argument against.

[ QUOTE ]
u limp hoping to reraise. its unlikely your reraise gets called more than 1 in 15

[/ QUOTE ]

what games do you play in? the way it looks you havent even read the book. as walter would say, you're out of your element.

[phydaux]

Just read the section on "Commitment Threshold."

All I have to say is that the Rule of 5 & 10 makes a hell of a lot more sense now!

[Splossy]

So this SPR thing - it sounds like it's something the authors thought up for the book rather than something they actually used as part of their daily professional play. Is that correct?

[phydaux]

[ QUOTE ]
So this SPR thing - it sounds like it's something the authors thought up for the book rather than something they actually used as part of their daily professional play. Is that correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can think of a dozen poker books that have chapters with fancy-ass titles that are exactly that.

Anyone remember The Matrix Theory?

SPR, however, is NOT that. It's simple NL poker math.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
So this SPR thing - it sounds like it's something the authors thought up for the book rather than something they actually used as part of their daily professional play. Is that correct?

[/ QUOTE ]It doesn't sound like that at all to me from the text- though the posting here (by other people) makes it sound like some new fangled concept.

The book lays it out (IMHO) very nicely and explains why the ratio is useful. I'd hazard a guess that the concept (though maybe not specifically expressed the way it is in the book) is probably used by all top players, even if for some they use intuition to gauge the relation of stack sizes to the pot rather than hard numbers. Certainly you cannot make solid NL decisions without considering risk vs. reward, including implied odds, and that is really the heart of what SPR is.

[mshalen]

The concept of using the size of your opponents stack to drive your decision making process has been around for a long time. In 1997 (which in poker history places it in the Jurasic period) in Pot-limit and No-limit Poker Reuben & Ciaffone were showing examples of how they formulated their strategy based on the size of the stacks at the table. The problem with their book was that it was not well organized and they alternated the writing of the chapters so there was no flow to the book.

It is not unusual for a concept to be discussed for many years but it doesn't become well known until a good writer comes along who can translate the theory into a well written book so the general public can understand the concept and apply it. The concept of "M" was around for a long time and it would have stayed an esoteric concept discussed by top poker players if not for Harrington writing a simple and clear explanation of it's use.