My first complaint about Harrington on Hold 'em.

[UnderThe Gun]

The book is starting to fall apart. I've literally read and re-read some pages so many times that they're starting to come loose from the binding.

This isn't really a complaint. It's a pleasure to find a poker book that has the depth of information that justifies this kind of study, but it would have been nice if they'd spent a little more money on the binding. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Pulplife]

I love the book as well, but let me ask you (and others) a question.

Do you feel that it oversimplifies continuation bets? Not when or how much to bet, but folding to any resistance.

Harrington spends a lot of time giving examples of making a continuation bet after a pf raise, but utimately says you should fold if you get called (check/fold turn) or raised. It seems that there should be more on hte player and what he may have.

For example, you raise pf with AcKs and get one caller (you are first to act), the flop comes 2h5h9d, you make a conituation bet of 1/2 the pot, villian calls. Harrenton basically would say that you are behind and to fold if you don't improve. But what if you know the player tends to chase draws by calling 2:1 pot odds. Should you fire another barrel at the pot on the turn or check/fold to a bet?

What do you think?

Pulp /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[BlackAces]

Depends on how big the bet is...or whether he bets at all. Chasers (i.e. calling stations) aren't generally known for betting with nothing. And if the bet is too small, you may still have a pot odds call.

I'm not calling a big bet on the turn with ace-high, though, unless I have a dead read that the guy is bluffing.

[UnderThe Gun]

Well, I think there's almost nothing in poker that couldn't in some sense be called over-simplified.

Sure, the book could have spent more time dicussing the finer points of continuation bets (and just about everything else for that matter) and instead of there being two volumes we'd have 3 or 4 or ...well, it could literally go on almost forever.

Having said that, I think when the problems are studied closely, they do a very good job of fleshing out the spectrum of continuation bet type scenarios.

[Pulplife]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I think there's almost nothing in poker that couldn't in some sense be called over-simplified.

Sure, the book could have spent more time dicussing the finer points of continuation bets (and just about everything else for that matter) and instead of there being two volumes we'd have 3 or 4 or ...well, it could literally go on almost forever.

Having said that, I think when the problems are studied closely, they do a very good job of fleshing out the spectrum of continuation bet type scenarios.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that Harrington has to simplify to keep the page count below 1000.

The reason I bring it up is because after reading the section on continuation bets, I answered nearly all of the questions/problems correctly. It's nice to think I am understanding the material, but felt that the problems were easier than "real life" situations (maybe if I view my live tournament situations like book problems I will have it made /images/graemlins/grin.gif).

Anyway, just wondered if anyone else had that feeling while reading it.

Pulp /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Eratosthenes]

A while back there was a post here suggesting that we take books like HoH to Kinko's and have them spiral bound. That is not a permanent solution, since the pages will eventually tear from the spiral binding, too. This would make it possible to lay the book flat on my desk while studying the problems.

[UnderThe Gun]

Well, if you're going to go to that much trouble why not just buy extra copies fo the book? You know, as one wears out retire it to the books shelf and pick up the next.

The spiral binding would it make it easier to study, though.

[TransientR]

Don't spread the book flat on a table or crack the spine every time you open it and you solve this problem.

Frank

[pho75]

Mine is too. I find that all books (hardbacks included) seem to be made like crap these days.

[UnderThe Gun]

Yes. Well, I suppose I could also "solved the problem" by never having opened the book in the first place.

The problem, of course, is that it's difficult to actually read a book without to at least some extent "spreading" it. I haven't treated the book particularly roughly. I have, as I said in my post, read and re-read it repeatedly.

I'm not really complaining. The book is great and the binding is probably at least as good as most these days. But I still say it would have been nice if they had spent a little more on the binding.

[pipes]

Ugh, another one of these kiss azz "The only thing wrong with my 2+2 book is that the binding is not holding up" posts.

[UnderThe Gun]

Uh huh, ...well, I can see how you would spent alot of your time worrying about crap like that.

It's like, you know, SO important.

[pipes]

[ QUOTE ]
Uh huh, ...well, I can see how you would spent alot of your time worrying about crap like that.

It's like, you know, SO important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, I can get back to poker because I addressed this issue.

Its cool bud, it is a great book..but keep in mind the pages don't turn as well if they are sticky...

[UnderThe Gun]

OK. I'm sure you'd know more about that than me, but thanks for the advice.

By the way, can we end this now before you start describing how sticky pages and not laying books flat relate to each other?

[muckdumper]

get a scanner copy for personnal self and be happy!!!may your aces be cracked by me /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[paulish]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't spread the book flat on a table or crack the spine every time you open it and you solve this problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not solve this problem, but avoid this problem...

By the way, mine is falling appart as well. These 2+2 books should be ring-bound !
<font color="blue"> paulish </font>

[TransientR]

I understand that a lot of people like to lay a book flat on the table or spread the spine. I'm just one of those types who would rather risk blindness than crack the spine of a book...).

As I have said in an earlier post, I think it is less the quality of the binding on two-plus-two books that causes this problem, but the higher quality, heavier paper used that is superior to many paperbacks, but puts more stress on the binding.

The printing costs may be prohibitive, but maybe Mason and David could offer hardcover and/or spiral bound copies for people who have this problem.

But I, for one, don't want them switching to cheaper paper.

Frank

[gusly]

[ QUOTE ]

As I have said in an earlier post, I think it is less the quality of the binding on two-plus-two books that causes this problem, but the higher quality, heavier paper used that is superior to many paperbacks, but puts more stress on the binding.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that's the reason. I think the binding technique or the QC on the binding may be more to blame.

My copy of TOP printed in Feb 2004 has no problems at all, and it has seen the same amount of use as SSHE, which I bought at the same time. But my copy of SSHE is in very sorry shape. The quality and weight of the paper is the same, but the binding seems to be different. Looking at the top and bottom of the TOP spine, the glue is very even, and you can see distinct groups of 16 pages (publishing people call these "signatures of 16") where they contact the glue. I can't see if the pages are sewn together, and I'm not going to destroy the spine to find out, but I think they are.

With SSHE, I can see the threads between the pages in many places where the spine is cracked. And I can't tell how many pages are grouped together, or even if they're divided in the first place...

Somebody else suggested that 2+2 look into getting the books Smythe sewn. I googled the term and found that this binding technique is used mostly for hardcover books, but publishers of high quality paperback books also use it.

Assuming that the pages of my copy of TOP are sewn, I think it might have a Smythe sewn binding. If anybody knows otherwise, please correct me...

In any case, I'd be willing to pay a few more dollars for books that don't fall apart, just like most people are saying. I don't abuse books or force them to lay flat, and my copy of HOH that I bought last month already has the same problems as my copy of SSHE...

I think 2+2 should really look into finding a solution to this problem.

[plaster8]

The spiral binding makes it a hell of a lot easier to read/study. I had it done to HPFAP and SSH and plan to have it done for my other 2+2 books as well. I highly recommend it.

[MicroBob]

I don't diddly-dickeroo about books.

All I know is that I have some paper-backs with thinner paper that have just as many pages as 2+2 books that i can fairly easily lay reasonably flat and they don't fall apart.

With 2+2 books you would really have to crack them to keep them open.
I like reading them (or another book) if I'm at the diner getting breakfast or coffee or something. But with the 2+2 books it is really hard to keep them open 1-handed.
Whereas with a thinner book (ITH for example) I can pretty much put the ketchup bottle on one corner and the sugar-container or napkin container on the other...and voila, no-handed reading.


With the 2+2 books...when my breakfast arrives I'll pretty much put the book away and switch to the newspaper or something. It just seems like the pages are TOO thick. And perhaps too narrow...i wouldn't mind wider-pages also.

[TomBrooks]

I don't spread my books very widely when they are new. As they get more broken in, they will spread more naturally without stretching. =TomBk

[hackle]

[ QUOTE ]
I think 2+2 should really look into finding a solution to this problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I second this. I own around a dozen 2+2 titles, and have always been impressed with the
quality of the binding, until SSH and HOH. While my copies have yet to fall apart, my copy of SSH has broken at the spine.

Disappointing, considering the quality of earlier 2+2 printings and the cost of the books.

Hackle

[morgan180]

[ QUOTE ]
The book is starting to fall apart. I've literally read and re-read some pages so many times that they're starting to come loose from the binding.

This isn't really a complaint. It's a pleasure to find a poker book that has the depth of information that justifies this kind of study, but it would have been nice if they'd spent a little more money on the binding. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Take all of your 2+2 books to Kinkos and get them spiral bound for about 2 bucks a book. That way you can lay them flat or fold them over and hold them in one hand. They stay together nicely and make it much easier to read.

[CWilly]

I read a post by either Malmuth or Sklansky (in the thread where people were commenting on their books smelling like hash!) saying that twoplustwo use some special glue in the bindings of their books to make them extra strong.

[TomBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
books smelling like hash

[/ QUOTE ]They probably used paper made from hemp. (http://www.crrh.org/cannabis/industrial.html)

[BillUCF]

My book fell apart as well. I contacted the publisher and they sent me a new one for free.

[giddyyup]

think i wrote this on another thread /images/graemlins/crazy.gif but as well as kinko's, you can buy a $1.99 sheet of laminate plastic with glue backing at an arts/crafts store and put your pre-school skills to work. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
The book is starting to fall apart. I've literally read and re-read some pages so many times that they're starting to come loose from the binding.

This isn't really a complaint. It's a pleasure to find a poker book that has the depth of information that justifies this kind of study, but it would have been nice if they'd spent a little more money on the binding. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The glue isn't really a glue. It's actually a paste made from an instantly addictive designer drug that Sklansky and Mason are using to addict poker players to their books and turn them into mindless forum zombies.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that a lot of people like to lay a book flat on the table or spread the spine. I'm just one of those types who would rather risk blindness than crack the spine of a book...).

As I have said in an earlier post, I think it is less the quality of the binding on two-plus-two books that causes this problem, but the higher quality, heavier paper used that is superior to many paperbacks, but puts more stress on the binding.

The printing costs may be prohibitive, but maybe Mason and David could offer hardcover and/or spiral bound copies for people who have this problem.

But I, for one, don't want them switching to cheaper paper.

Frank

[/ QUOTE ]

I happily pay a price premium for books I know I am going to read many times or use as reference books. Good poker books very easily fall into that category.

In fact, for books I intend to use a lot, their being paperback is a strong disincentive for me to buy them, because I know they'll be quickly falling to pieces.

Ah, quality hardbacks ... well, I a fella can dream, can't he?

[Blarg]

That's why I don't lend out books anymore. People think you're supposed to be able to smash paperbacks flat and still not have the pages fall out.