Thoughts on NL/PL HE by McEvoy/Cloutier

[MicroBob]

Was just paging through it at a book-store this morning and I wasn't very impressed.
Thought I had seen some posts around here that gave it fairly high marks but I just didn't think it was very good (what I read of it anyway).

[MicroBob]

deleted.....posted erroneous info here. thought mason had given this a 1....but then saw he was referring to McEvoy's LIMIT HE book

[MicroBob]

I don't think I was terribly clear.

I was hoping to get OTHERS' thoughts on this book. Anybody like/dislike it?

[dogsballs]

it's kinda crap

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I was terribly clear.

I was hoping to get OTHERS' thoughts on this book. Anybody like/dislike it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Junk.

[KeyToTheMint]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I was terribly clear.

I was hoping to get OTHERS' thoughts on this book. Anybody like/dislike it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've posted on how this book is inaccurate and incomplete. However, I
can never stop being a critic of this book it's my sickness. Now, understand I paid 40 dollars for this book. I think its only 30 now and
headed in the right direction.

Let me continue, while im reading this book I am not learning anything
about big bet poker but at least I find out T.J. was an egg farmer or somehow in the egg business. Don't you know me T.J? I'm the guy
who had to read about the Louisianna man ( I liked that one)

Now getting to what you said about not being terribly clear. You were
quite clear but the book isn't , as always I will quote from the book. Before I do I want
you to remember the day when you didn't know about implied odds.
For some that may be today. Take my word, implied odds is a key
element to playing no limit holdem. Here's T.J.'s book covering this key
concept:

"When you are on the button or in the spot right in front of the button, with a lot of chips against a lot of chips, there is nothing wrong with calling a small raise with 45 suited, 67 suited, 78 suited."

Now one mans definition of "a lot" might differ from another's, but if you constitute what a large amount is by percentage of bet size with respect to stack size it becomes clear. Moreover, you can now go into a clear discussion of implied odds for the newbie. He doesn't do this leaving
the inexperienced player with just about nothing.

[submariner]

Haven't read the book but.. there is a thread on this about two pages back. I tried to link it, but couldn't get it to work.

[jtnt1096]

Cloutier's book does have quite a bit of solid information. It is not a "how to" book so to speak. It will not fill you with math or do this or do that when something happens. NL is much too complex for that. The book does provide a foundation on which can make a player better. Be sure to also read the pot limit section. Many people only read the NL section because that is what they intend to play, but the PL section provides some solid information that can be carried over to the NL game.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

I suggest reading Positively Fifth Street by James McManus. The parts of it dealing with his run to the final table in the WSOP main event has him studying T.J.'s book and applying its concepts, some of the time against Cloutier himself. McManus at times deviates from the book's advice and analyzes his own play, says what he was thinking and what the book would have told him to do differently.

It's an entertaining read, and you can get a sense of what Cloutier/McEvoy advises. If it sounds like the sort of concepts that you want to incorporate into your game, then go ahead and buy it.

Incidentally, I don't think it is a book for no-limit newbies. I think it is a nice, enjoyable account of how Cloutier thinks while playing his relatively tight game and its value is more in identifying leaks in your game than in telling you how to play.

[mistrpug]

I gives some decent info. Far FAR from perfect though. Buyer Beware.

[DonkeyKong]

It has NOTHING on pot odds, blind steals or short-handed play... Moreover, I have seen TJ on TV quite a bit and he seems to substantially deviate from all the rules he pounds on in the book ... Usually, this is because the table isn't full and so he has to loosen up but he should have addressed this in the book...

In a nutshell, TJ says to watch your opponent closely, play big cards and if you don't flop to something get rid of your hand -- unless you know your opponent and can bluff them. Nevertheless, the book was mildly useful.

'Pot-Limit and No-Limit Poker' by Ciaffone is ok, its more analytical and coneptually oriented...

[PokrLikeItsProse]

Poker is about who makes more mistakes.

I think that Cloutier advocates a tighter approach which he deems "semi-aggressive" that involves waiting for other players to make mistakes. I think that some players prefer a somewhat looser, more aggressive style that involves trying to make other players make mistakes by forcing them to make more tough decisions.

For those who find the book not very helpful, do you think you fall more into the second category? I think my fondness for the book stems in part from my playing along the lines of the first category.

[jtnt1096]

[ QUOTE ]
It has NOTHING on pot odds, blind steals or short-handed play... Moreover, I have seen TJ on TV quite a bit and he seems to substantially deviate from all the rules he pounds on in the book ... Usually, this is because the table isn't full and so he has to loosen up but he should have addressed this in the book...

[/ QUOTE ]

As I mentioned in a previous post, most people who read this book skip the PL section and only read the NL section. The PL section covers short handed play, playing a short stack (as does the NL section), bluffing (as does the NL section), loosening as the tourney moves on, etc. Maybe we didn't read the same book.

[KeyToTheMint]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It has NOTHING on pot odds, blind steals or short-handed play... Moreover, I have seen TJ on TV quite a bit and he seems to substantially deviate from all the rules he pounds on in the book ... Usually, this is because the table isn't full and so he has to loosen up but he should have addressed this in the book...

[/ QUOTE ]

As I mentioned in a previous post, most people who read this book skip the PL section and only read the NL section. The PL section covers short handed play, playing a short stack (as does the NL section), bluffing (as does the NL section), loosening as the tourney moves on, etc. Maybe we didn't read the same book.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

Writing a couple of sentences is hardly "covering" a topic.

[jtnt1096]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL

Writing a couple of sentences is hardly "covering" a topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Your comments went from "NOTHING" on those subjects to the above comment. Seems like some confusion there.

The book is not an "intro" book. It assumes you bring a little something to it. If not, maybe No Limit Hold Em: Beginners Series is a better read first, then move to NL/PL Hold Em.

It is like the old saying, "Someone's junk is anothers treasure." I was a break even NL tourney player (SNG and MTT) at best until I read Cloutiers book a few months back. Since, I have turned a solid profit. It could be coincidence, but I have found value in the book.

[DonkeyKong]

Please point out the page numbers that have to do with pot odds from Cloutiers book. I am looking at pg 149-150 and I see 4 paragraphs that don't say anything useful:

"The math of poker should be in the back of your mind all the time." Then nothing.

I think TJ goes by feel after playing the game for 25 years. He doesn't think in terms of pot odds. He doesn't play drawing hands much so that makes it easy.

I thought the book was somewhat useful but it was not very analytical. It did not teach poker theory so while it has some good pointers, it is hardly an important poker text.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
"The math of poker should be in the back of your mind all the time." Then nothing.

I think TJ goes by feel after playing the game for 25 years. He doesn't think in terms of pot odds. He doesn't play drawing hands much so that makes it easy.

I thought the book was somewhat useful but it was not very analytical. It did not teach poker theory so while it has some good pointers, it is hardly an important poker text.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point the other poster was making is that the book doesn't attempt to teach theory. It expects you to already be somewhat grounded in theory. Sometimes a few pointers (if they happen to be the right ones FOR YOU) are just what's needed to make you a better player. I'm not trying to say this is a great book. Maybe for someone it is. But I don't think it's the piece of tripe some on this board have implied either. I'd bet TJ does think in terms of pot odds. But it's probably so automatic it's not even conscious. He may or may not be able to quote odds for hands, but I bet he's subconsciously is very close when decidsing to call or fold. Just my $.02.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
he's subconsciously is very close when decidsing to call or fold.

[/ QUOTE ]


if he only makes his decisions at a sub-concious level then why is he writing a book about it?

This statement is almost akin to saying that TJ can say "I have a good feel for the drawing hands because I've played for so long. but if you haven't played for as long as I have then you have no chance to play these hands as well as I do so I'm not going to bother trying to teach you. I'll just tell you to fold if you don't have anything good."

[KeyToTheMint]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL

Writing a couple of sentences is hardly "covering" a topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Your comments went from "NOTHING" on those subjects to the above comment. Seems like some confusion there.

The book is not an "intro" book. It assumes you bring a little something to it. If not, maybe No Limit Hold Em: Beginners Series is a better read first, then move to NL/PL Hold Em.

It is like the old saying, "Someone's junk is anothers treasure." I was a break even NL tourney player (SNG and MTT) at best until I read Cloutiers book a few months back. Since, I have turned a solid profit. It could be coincidence, but I have found value in the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

First DonkeyKong said it had nothing about pot odds. I implied it had
next to nothing on topics you mentioned.

Also if u went from losing to winning it may help others in the same situation. But remember this:

If situation A occurs ( you reading the TJ book) then
situation B occurs (you start winning at no limit)

This does not prove a correlation.
C (experience) could have caused both.

You gain experience everytime you play. TJ still gains experience
while he plays. He says so in his book. You have knowledge from other
sources other books, this forum , thinking about the game away from
the table etc. At best TJ's book is in fact a mediocre work. Look at the
thread SNG in the 1 table forum its got the TJ book covered plus more
and its free.

[jakethebake]

Good point.

[jakethebake]

Poot Odds Shmot Odds...I'm going with Andy Rogers' play from the gut and never fold strategy.

[JohnG]

For those that like the book and read his advice on draws, how did it affect your strategy with drawing hands?

[CarlSpackler]

[ QUOTE ]
For those that like the book and read his advice on draws, how did it affect your strategy with drawing hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

I try and play every pocket pair I get, unless it's unereasonable to do so. When I don't flop a set with the medium/small pp's, I chuck them. When I flop a set, I try and extract the most money I can from my opponent(s).

I avoid the suited connector hands early in tournies, unless I'm in the blinds, or trying to steal from the button. If I don't hit the flop hard (i.e. open-ended straight flush draw, open-ended nut straight draw, etc.), I'll usually muck them. When I have a large stack, however, I'll play a lot more suited connectors when I'm in proper position.

Depending on how I read my opponent(s), if I flop a nut draw, I may even semi-bluff and go all-in if the pot is sizeable, and I think I can take it down right there.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]
For those that like the book and read his advice on draws, how did it affect your strategy with drawing hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think of drawing hands as semi-bluffing hands. I also think that way about hands like AK and AQ because it just makes it easier for me to avoid traps. I often don't think in terms of whether or not I have pot odds to call with just a draw, or at least I don't calculate it to within a half, because:

1) T.J. is right. If you miss a draw, you have nothing.

2) If I am looking for reasons to merely call with a draw, that turns me into a calling station.

3) As I have moved up in limits, I have found that good players tend to automatically price out any obvious draws anyways and will not put a penny more into the put if you hit, so knowing that you have the pot odds to draw doesn't really help as much. Draws only work against bad players or against good players you have deceived into thinking you have something else. Against good opposition, you are better off drawing to a gutshot than an open-ender.

4) I don't play suited connectors except in situations where I feel confident that I can lay them down if I think someone has a higher flush, when I have no reason to fear a higher flush draw (such as when someone obviously has a pocket pair or has paired a card on the board in the suit I am drawing to) or where I feel it might be a good spot to bluff if I miss (suited connectors are also my favorite hand to bluff with from early position pre-flop).