Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread

[Jzo19]

so far the most useful application of SPR that ive used in my game is SPR dealing with drawing hands , im raising a ton from the co and button with SC's and s 1 gappers (6max) ),im calling raises from tight players in position and floating them with these hands...it's really added an extra dimension to my usually nitty play ....

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
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!

[/ QUOTE ]

Ciaffone's 5-10 rule example is that you have 98s on the button, 3 players limp and so do you. The BB, "a solid player" raises to 7xBB, and two of the limpers call. He writes:

"Your position is the best possible, but your don't have much of a hand. A good rule to follow is the 5-10 rule. When contemplating calling a raise because your position is good, you have a clear call if the amount is less than 5% of your stack, and a clear fold if it is more than 10%. In between those numbers, use your judgment." He then makes a comment about how the raiser has to have a deep stack, implying that 5-10 applies to the effective stack between you and the raiser.

Now, Ciaffone was stating that if you had ~70xBB-140xBB in the example, you had a decision to make. If you had less than 70xBB, it was a clear fold. More than 140xBB it was a clear call.

However, using PNL SPR analysis, we see that if we call, the final preflop pot will be 29xBB. Meaning our SPR at 70xBB will be ~2.5, and at 140xBB will be ~5. In other words, if we flop so much as a draw, the pot will be so big that if we put any more money into it, we will be committed to go all the way.

The problem is, so will anyone with TPTK or an overpair or a set or 2 pair or a bigger draw, etc. Usually, when the pot gets so big that 2 or more players are forced to commit on the flop, the drawing hand is taking the worst of it (unless it is a combo draw).

So, the 5-10 rule focuses on the size of the raise vs your stack. SPR focuses on the size of the final preflop pot vs. your stack, and is far more useful. It keeps you out of pots with 98s when your SPR is 3-5.

Further, the 5-10 rule gets misapplied all the time. People forget about the "good position" part.

Finally, if the pot is going to be heads up and you have a a drawing hand in position, I suggest that a better rule would be 2-5. You have a clear call if the raise is less than 2% of your stack, and a clear fold if the raise is more than 5% of your stack. In between, you have a decision. Why? 2% would lead to an SPR of ~25. 5% would lead to an SPR of ~10. Drawing hands play well for value at high SPRs. Drawing hands play well for stealing at medium SPRs.

Even if you call 8% of your stack heads up in position (as Ciaffone's rule implies you might), the SPR is going to be 6 which will be difficult to play when your foe crosses the commitment threshold with a continuation bet (be it a bluff or for value) on the flop.

[threads13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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!

[/ QUOTE ]

Ciaffone's 5-10 rule example is that you have 98s on the button, 3 players limp and so do you. The BB, "a solid player" raises to 7xBB, and two of the limpers call. He writes:

"Your position is the best possible, but your don't have much of a hand. A good rule to follow is the 5-10 rule. When contemplating calling a raise because your position is good, you have a clear call if the amount is less than 5% of your stack, and a clear fold if it is more than 10%. In between those numbers, use your judgment." He then makes a comment about how the raiser has to have a deep stack, implying that 5-10 applies to the effective stack between you and the raiser.

Now, Ciaffone was stating that if you had ~70xBB-140xBB in the example, you had a decision to make. If you had less than 70xBB, it was a clear fold. More than 140xBB it was a clear call.

However, using PNL SPR analysis, we see that if we call, the final preflop pot will be 29xBB. Meaning our SPR at 70xBB will be ~2.5, and at 140xBB will be ~5. In other words, if we flop so much as a draw, the pot will be so big that if we put any more money into it, we will be committed to go all the way.

The problem is, so will anyone with TPTK or an overpair or a set or 2 pair or a bigger draw, etc. Usually, when the pot gets so big that 2 or more players are forced to commit on the flop, the drawing hand is taking the worst of it (unless it is a combo draw).

So, the 5-10 rule focuses on the size of the raise vs your stack. SPR focuses on the size of the final preflop pot vs. your stack, and is far more useful. It keeps you out of pots with 98s when your SPR is 3-5.

Further, the 5-10 rule gets misapplied all the time. People forget about the "good position" part.

Finally, if the pot is going to be heads up and you have a a drawing hand in position, I suggest that a better rule would be 2-5. You have a clear call if the raise is less than 2% of your stack, and a clear fold if the raise is more than 5% of your stack. In between, you have a decision. Why? 2% would lead to an SPR of ~25. 5% would lead to an SPR of ~10. Drawing hands play well for value at high SPRs. Drawing hands play well for stealing at medium SPRs.

Even if you call 8% of your stack heads up in position (as Ciaffone's rule implies you might), the SPR is going to be 6 which will be difficult to play when your foe crosses the commitment threshold with a continuation bet (be it a bluff or for value) on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what you are saying in 99% of the post. However, just if we flop a draw and have the odds to call doesn't mean that we are committed. This is one of the exceptions that the book refers to.

[threads13]

I played for the first time since reading the book last night. I was alarmed how often people put 1/3 of their stacks in and then folded. I was also caught off guard by how quickly the commitment threshold happened and how careful I had to be around that time.

[Jeff76]

I am almost through the book now, and my feeling about it is that I wish I had known the authors personally, gotten them to teach me privately, and somehow stopped them from writing it. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

I guess I'll settle for being one of many who will profit immeasurably from it and cling to the hope that the majority of other poker players will overlook/misapply it.

Thanks for the book guys, this is really good stuff. It is already changing the way I look at the game.

[threads13]

[ QUOTE ]


I guess I'll settle for being one of many who will profit immeasurably from it and cling to the hope that the majority of other poker players will overlook/misapply it.



[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget disregarding it. I think a lot of good players will see the examples of min-raising and disregard the content. I don't believe that is correct or a reflection of the quality of this work, but I wouldn't be surprised if that happened.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I guess I'll settle for being one of many who will profit immeasurably from it and cling to the hope that the majority of other poker players will overlook/misapply it.



[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget disregarding it. I think a lot of good players will see the examples of min-raising and disregard the content. I don't believe that is correct or a reflection of the quality of this work, but I wouldn't be surprised if that happened.

[/ QUOTE ]Good point. Already my mind has been blown about PF action (and I wasn't necessarily against minraising). I've always thought of PF in terms of charging opponents and trying not to be exploitable. I never really considered how effectively you can control the direction of the hand by managing PF bets well. To be fair, though, I really wouldn't have had much of an idea of what I was trying to accomplish anyway or how to get there without the rest of the information in the book.

[jeffnc]

One thing the book doesn't seem to address much is how relative bets are viewed by your opponents. It cautions early on in the basics section to view bets as relative not absolute, but it doesn't deal much with opponents who make this mistake. I recall one comment off the top of my head where the text is something like "if your oppponents will let you get away with smaller bets in this situation, then go for it."

But the theory revolves mostly around bets of 2/3 to 4/3 of the pot, or roughly pot-sized bets. Yet many players in the games I see are smaller bet players. Larger bets simply mean something different to them. There have been times I've wanted to point out the size of the pot when I make a bet. I bet $60, and I want to point out "hey that pot's getting pretty big, it's a hundred bucks now."

But the bet was $60, and that's a lot bigger than the preflop raise was. If the preflop raise was $20, then $20 bets seem "right" to these guys.

It works fine when you're drawing or want to see cheap showdowns. But what about when you're going for target SPRs and plan from there, but your opponents fold to "big bets", except when they have you beat, but you don't find that out until you're committed?

I know one answer is "steal with big bets more", but as to an overall SPR strategy, what adjustments would you make for these sorts of players?

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
I know one answer is "steal with big bets more", but as to an overall SPR strategy, what adjustments would you make for these sorts of players?

[/ QUOTE ]

You would adjust your target SPRs way down, then ignore SPR and rob them blind. And play far more hands when you can get it heads-up. And isolate with preflop raises. And get more money in preflop whenever it will be heads-up postflop and your opponent is unlikely to have a big pair, because you will win almost all games of chicken, so you really want to be playing a lot of chicken.

Mmmmmm, chicken.



Put another way, instead of planning hands around commitment, you should plan them around stealing.

[tagWAG]

[ QUOTE ]


Mmmmmm, chicken.

Put another way, instead of planning hands around commitment, you should plan them around stealing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, I think this is a really excellent and ground breaking book. That said, it should have been even better. It actually feels like half a book. Half a book that's far and away better than any other NL book out there, but still half a book.

Matt, I can't help feeling you have so much more to say but weren't allowed the space to say it. I'm sure you have lots of great ideas on how to play 'chicken', how to plan hands for stealing, in fact how to plan all sorts of things unmentioned to manipulate opponents into awkward situations. It just seems that the book is a bit 'TPTK and suhweet news the flop hit me...' lop sided. Yes I know Vol 2 is on the way, but you only have to read Matt (in particular) and Sunny's posts to imagine just how illuminating Vol 1 might have been.

Btw, if space was the issue, why do 2+2 have to stick to that large font/ amateur layout/ children's typesetting for all their books?

Personally I'd have loved a book twice as long, who knows, it would probably have been the greatest poker book ever written!