Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread - Page 9

phydaux · #81 07-25-2007, 08:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's not the shortstacking, it's the ratholing/hit-n-running.

[/ QUOTE ]

Short stacking is all about ratholing and hit-n-running.

The only exception is if you buy in short, double through and then change your strategy for playing a medium stack.

But if you're going to do that, then just buy in for the max in the first place.

Sure, there could be BR reasons why you'd buy in short and then stay after you doublled up. But if you're playing at a level where you're properly rolled then just buy in for the max.

Mizzmazz · #82 07-26-2007, 01:23 AM

Hi Matt & Sunny,

Forgive me if this has been asked or addressed before, but I am curious. How does PNLHE 1 differ from No Limit Hold 'em: Theory and Practice?

I'm really hoping your book is less theoretical/conceptual than Sklansky/Miller. I would rather have more real-world handle examples and hope to pick up some "tips and moves" for my game, especially online, as I feel I have a good conceptual grasp on NLHE.

How does your book rate in terms of who it applies to? Is it aimed more for complete novices or do you feel it's an advanced read?

Apologies if this has been covered, but I didn't find anything that compared this volume with Sklansky/Miller's work. I am a big 2+2 lurker and have been a fan of Matt's posts in HSNL for quite sometime.

Thanks

Mizzmazz

Jzo19 · #83 07-26-2007, 04:01 AM

when will this be available in the stars FPP store ?

Mason Malmuth · #84 07-26-2007, 05:14 AM

Hi Everyone:

We have informed both Pokerstars and Full Tilt that we have new books available. If and when they pick them up is not in our control. However, it doesn't hurt to email them asking that they carry our new books.

Best wishes,
Mason

Matt Flynn · #85 07-26-2007, 07:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Matt & Sunny,

Forgive me if this has been asked or addressed before, but I am curious. How does PNLHE 1 differ from No Limit Hold 'em: Theory and Practice?

I'm really hoping your book is less theoretical/conceptual than Sklansky/Miller. I would rather have more real-world handle examples and hope to pick up some "tips and moves" for my game, especially online, as I feel I have a good conceptual grasp on NLHE.

How does your book rate in terms of who it applies to? Is it aimed more for complete novices or do you feel it's an advanced read?

Apologies if this has been covered, but I didn't find anything that compared this volume with Sklansky/Miller's work. I am a big 2+2 lurker and have been a fan of Matt's posts in HSNL for quite sometime.

Thanks

Mizzmazz

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Mizzmazz,

NLHT&P is a series of ideas about the game. The first half is primarily for less experienced players, the second half more food for thought for pros. The 60 concepts should be mandatory reading. They comprise a good test of how well you understand the game.

PNL1 is a hands-on practical approach: here's what you need to think about, here are examples, here's how you do it. We wrote it for aspiring pros.

Matt

maryfield48 · #86 07-26-2007, 08:29 AM

Matt,

Props for resisting the temptation to use the word 'mish-mash', in replying to the question posed by mizzmazz.

Chunky · #87 07-26-2007, 10:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

We have informed both Pokerstars and Full Tilt that we have new books available. If and when they pick them up is not in our control. However, it doesn't hurt to email them asking that they carry our new books.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]
Already done. Stars said they are considering adding it but said that before a decision is made they "want to check the rating of the book in the market within the next 3 months, by this time [they] would know for sure."

DeepCroak · #88 07-26-2007, 12:39 PM

There's what appears to be an inconsistency in the book that I haven't seen discussed anywhere (if I missed it, please point me in the right direction).

The authors recommend a default bet size of 2/3 pot. Yes, I know that isn't always a perfect bet size, but since sometimes smaller will be better and sometimes larger will be better, I translate that as recommending "on average" a 2/3 pot bet.

However, in all the justification for why certain SPRs are good for some hands and bad for others, those SPRs are calculated based on full pot-sized bets. Wouldn't it be more consistent to use 2/3 pot-sized bets in all those SPR calculations?

A similar comment could apply to the recommendation to not put more than 1/3 of the stack in without being committed.

I know someone is going to respond "they are not inconsistent. Do you see why?". The answer is "No, I don't see why. Please explain."

Matt Flynn · #89 07-26-2007, 12:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The authors recommend a default bet size of 2/3 pot. Yes, I know that isn't always a perfect bet size, but since sometimes smaller will be better and sometimes larger will be better, I translate that as recommending "on average" a 2/3 pot bet.

However, in all the justification for why certain SPRs are good for some hands and bad for others, those SPRs are calculated based on full pot-sized bets. Wouldn't it be more consistent to use 2/3 pot-sized bets in all those SPR calculations?

[/ QUOTE ]

good eye DeepCroak.

pot-sized bets were used in the SPR section mainly because they're easier to follow. it IS inconsistent with the 2/3 pot recommendation. that inconsistency was a conscious choice on our part.

pot-sized bets aren't important to using SPR. you still have to figure out how much you can extract from opponents with lesser hands when you'd prefer to be committed (target SPRs). if 2/3 pot is the norm bet size for you, you work from that. there's a brief table in Betting to Get All-in that may help.

the commitment threshold is a little different. suppose SPR is 4. pot-pot gets you all-in heads-up. if instead bet is 2/3 pot, the logical move is still all-in. the overall argument still applies with a 2/3 pot bet. once 10% of the smaller stack is in the pot, two big bets gets the money all-in. therefore, you must be very careful about big bets once 10% of the smaller stack goes in (that is, once you are at the commitment threshold).

dafrk3in · #90 07-26-2007, 10:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The authors recommend a default bet size of 2/3 pot. Yes, I know that isn't always a perfect bet size, but since sometimes smaller will be better and sometimes larger will be better, I translate that as recommending "on average" a 2/3 pot bet.

However, in all the justification for why certain SPRs are good for some hands and bad for others, those SPRs are calculated based on full pot-sized bets. Wouldn't it be more consistent to use 2/3 pot-sized bets in all those SPR calculations?

[/ QUOTE ]

good eye DeepCroak.

pot-sized bets were used in the SPR section mainly because they're easier to follow. it IS inconsistent with the 2/3 pot recommendation. that inconsistency was a conscious choice on our part.

pot-sized bets aren't important to using SPR. you still have to figure out how much you can extract from opponents with lesser hands when you'd prefer to be committed (target SPRs). if 2/3 pot is the norm bet size for you, you work from that. there's a brief table in Betting to Get All-in that may help.

the commitment threshold is a little different. suppose SPR is 4. pot-pot gets you all-in heads-up. if instead bet is 2/3 pot, the logical move is still all-in. the overall argument still applies with a 2/3 pot bet. once 10% of the smaller stack is in the pot, two big bets gets the money all-in. therefore, you must be very careful about big bets once 10% of the smaller stack goes in (that is, once you are at the commitment threshold).

[/ QUOTE ]

So, assuming 2/3 PSB on the flop and the turn, a good SPR for a top-pair hand is 2.22.

So assuming 10-12BB pot preflop (ie standard raise sizes) with a raise and a single caller, optimal stack size is 22-27BB?