Just got Harrington on Holdem 2 [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

curtains

06-13-2005, 01:12 PM

I already disagree with the first hand example, I think betting the flop is fine. Situation is as follows:

Final table of major event with 65k in chips and we hold KJs, other stacks range from 60k-180k. Blinds are 600-1200, with 200 chip antes. Folded to the SB who is experienced and tenacious player who likes to set traps, and he calls. We raise to 3600 and the SB calls for 2400 more.

Flop comes AT5 with 2 hearts. SB checks, and now Harrington recommends checking behind. I just don't like it, I would bet a huge majority of the time here. I don't mind checking (I would almost never do it) but to say this isnt a good spot for a continuation bet seems a bit crazy to me.

His reasoning is that if you get checkraised out of the pot you lose the chance at your gutshot draw (Implying he would bet on an A95 flop), but honestly I think the chances of us picking up the pot uncontested are too great to be worried about getting checkraised when the board comes ace high and we are the preflop raiser and our opponent has checked to us. Our draw isn't strong enough for me to lose sleep over getting blown off of it.

45suited

06-13-2005, 01:15 PM

What is our hand? KQ?

pooh74

06-13-2005, 01:16 PM

His first book was better because he told us what our hand was. I'll still read it though, cards dont matter.

Rolen

06-13-2005, 01:24 PM

I'll assume the hand is KQ or QJ, doesn't really matter. Anyway, why not check? If he's setting a trap and planning on check-raising you then the last thing you want to do is bet, and if he's not then you'll have plenty of opportunity to bluff the turn or river.

zambonidrivr

06-13-2005, 01:29 PM

i agree. maybe that's why his name is curtains though.

curtains

06-13-2005, 01:34 PM

We have KJs, sorry about that. I don't think there's anything wrong with checking, but I think it's a bit much to call it a bad time to bet, as the chances of taking the pot down immediately are too high IMO.

I'm sure I could name a lot of world class players who would bet this flop about 100% of the time. Try to find a single example of Barry Greenstein checking postflop after he raises preflop. Again I don't think it's bad to check, I just don't think you can say it's bad to bet either.

durron597

06-13-2005, 01:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Folded to the SB who is experienced and tenacious player who likes to set traps

[/ QUOTE ]

If we get checkraised, we have to fold. So lets assume he checkraises any A, folds any PP/KQ/KJ/QJ. We know he doesn't have KK-88 because he would have raised preflop. Thus the only reason we bet is to get him to fold 77-66 and 44-22.

However, against these hands we are drawing to 10 outs and another 7-8 heart scare card outs. Thus we do have a good draw against the hands we beat and we are bleeding chips against the hands we are losing to.

Harrington is absolutely correct.

Edit: Ok we have KJs, so we want villian to fold KQo also. But if he has KQ, don't we want to see if we hit our queen?

curtains

06-13-2005, 01:37 PM

Let me put it this way, I'm willing to bet that Phil Ivey, Barry Greenstein and Howard Lederer are betting this flop most of the time. I understand that checking has it's merits but I just don't think you can say it's bad to bet here. Also a lot of the hands that might play with you, the SB would have often raised with preflop.

augie00

06-13-2005, 01:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Let me put it this way, I'm willing to bet that Phil Ivey, Barry Greenstein and Howard Lederer are betting this flop most of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly why the book is entitled "Harrington on Hold'em" rather than "Ivey, Greenstein, and Lederer on Hold'em"

SNOWBALL138

06-13-2005, 01:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure I could name a lot of world class players who would bet this flop about 100% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you consider Harrington to be a world class player?

I think checking here has two merits:
it allows us to hit our draw, so we win more when we are ahead, esp if vilain has AQ.

It allows us to lose less when we are not ahead. Getting check-raised can be expensive.

Also, villains preflop call is pretty suspect. He's going to be OOP the whole time, and he is facing a good sized raise from a tight player? Why isn't he folding preflop?

curtains

06-13-2005, 01:51 PM

No of course he is, Im just saying that I don't think the answer to this is as clear as he's making it sound.

freemoney

06-13-2005, 01:52 PM

villian does not have AQ, i think its not horrible to check here, i will with hands like KT on a K75 flop against the right type of players to control the pot real early, if villian realizes you are very capable of checking here with a good hand, then checking behind definitely is a very good option.

Rolen

06-13-2005, 01:55 PM

I don't know anything about the guy or what style he teaches, but as part of an overall plan to make opponents jump on your supposed weakness and to make them respect your bets more, it would be a bad move to bet the flop, just the same as it would be a bad move not to bet the flop if you want your opponents to be hesitent to bluff you and consider going over the top of your raises with weak holdings.

microbet

06-13-2005, 01:57 PM

Does he really just check the hand or does he check if the second hand on his watch is before the 9 and bet if it is after?

PrayingMantis

06-13-2005, 01:58 PM

I think the key reason why Harrington prefers checking is this:

[ QUOTE ]
SB who is experienced and tenacious player who likes to set traps,

[/ QUOTE ]

If by setting traps he means also that there's a good enough chance that SB is checking a strong enough hand here expecting you to continue-bet, or OTOH (although it might seem contradictory), able to check-raise you with air, then going for the free card might be powerful enough, here, even though betting looks like a more obvious move.

Anyway, I think it has a lot to do with previous dynamics between the 2 players, as with most blinds-wars.

SNOWBALL138

06-13-2005, 01:58 PM

Agreed. I remember a few vol 1. hands that I believe could have been played differently. Harrington writes in vol. 1 that in many of the examples he gives, he believes that reasonable alternatives to the recommended play do exist.

I can remember arguing with the book over a few hands in vol. 1, but what I liked about it was the thought process that he goes through on every hand.

curtains

06-13-2005, 02:01 PM

btw it's obvious the book is quite good after reading a few more pages.

SNOWBALL138

06-13-2005, 02:05 PM

also, with a player who is aggro like this, check calling can be a good weapon, because its hard to value bet players like this. Presumably you've check called him to death on previous hands, and you might be able to use that against him on later betting rounds. If he knows you are capable of checking a strong hand, checking the flop doesn't eliminate your option to semibluff the turn if he checks to you twice.
Plus, you get to have more info by the time the turn comes.

durron597

06-13-2005, 02:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Let me put it this way, I'm willing to bet that Phil Ivey, Barry Greenstein and Howard Lederer are betting this flop most of the time. I understand that checking has it's merits but I just don't think you can say it's bad to bet here. Also a lot of the hands that might play with you, the SB would have often raised with preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say they bet this flop most of the time. What would their logic be in betting?

Please don't say "I bet these players would do X" when 1) You have no idea whether they would do X and 2) even if good players X, Y, Z would do X it doesn't mean that good players A, B, and C would do X. Weren't Phil, Howard, and Barry out in Day 1 last year?

Please address what I actually say rather than appealing to authority when you don't even know what the authorities think.

SuitedSixes

06-13-2005, 02:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I already disagree with the first hand example,

[/ QUOTE ]

Color me surprised.

zambonidrivr

06-13-2005, 02:19 PM

as good as volume 1? I thought that book rocked

curtains

06-13-2005, 02:25 PM

At first glance it seems better than volume 1. I've only read like 30 pages though

Newt_Buggs

06-13-2005, 02:27 PM

I haven't read either but will have time this summer, which one do you guys think has more value for someone who's already beating $50 SnGS? I'm not sure if I'll get to both for a while, so does anyone have any recommendations on where to start?

curtains

06-13-2005, 02:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Let me put it this way, I'm willing to bet that Phil Ivey, Barry Greenstein and Howard Lederer are betting this flop most of the time. I understand that checking has it's merits but I just don't think you can say it's bad to bet here. Also a lot of the hands that might play with you, the SB would have often raised with preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say they bet this flop most of the time. What would their logic be in betting?

Please don't say "I bet these players would do X" when 1) You have no idea whether they would do X and 2) even if good players X, Y, Z would do X it doesn't mean that good players A, B, and C would do X. Weren't Phil, Howard, and Barry out in Day 1 last year?

Please address what I actually say rather than appealing to authority when you don't even know what the authorities think.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not so complicated, they would bet because they tend to bet a large % of the time after raising preflop, especially when facing just one opponeng whom has checked and in a situation when an ace flops and thus due to their preflop raise, it's reasonably likely that they have an ace.

I'm no longer arguing that one play is signifigantly better than another, I just think that it's going a bit far to call betting a bad play here.

curtains

06-13-2005, 02:30 PM

Anyway if I had restrained myself for a few minutes I wouldn't have made my first post sound quite like it did. Also when you check this flop you are giving a tricky opponent the chance to bluff you on the turn. I really don't mind checking the flop and after further thought would do so against some opponents, I'm just reiterating that I think it's a bit too much to call betting a bad idea here.

Beavis68

06-13-2005, 02:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I already disagree with the first hand example,

[/ QUOTE ]

Color me surprised.

[/ QUOTE ]

What would be the point of buying a book if you agreed with every recommendation the first time you read it?

curtains

06-13-2005, 02:35 PM

haha well I still disagree somewhat, but it would probably be unhealthy if I agreed with more than 80-90% of the actual hand play advice.

microbet

06-13-2005, 02:38 PM

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think your thinking and Harrington's (judging from HOH) are generally pretty similar.

curtains

06-13-2005, 02:42 PM

Sometimes yes, but sometimes not. There was a hand posted by Martin Aigner about one month ago where I felt like Harringtons advice made zero sense, or that it was at the least a bit lazy.

Also I don't like a lot of his sit and go examples, he seems to try a bit too many moves in them, like raising to 300 out of the BB with 83o when someone limps UTG for 60 (youll read all about that in the new book). I'm overly critical though.

durron597

06-13-2005, 02:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's not so complicated, they would bet because they tend to bet a large % of the time after raising preflop, especially when facing just one opponeng whom has checked and in a situation when an ace flops and thus due to their preflop raise, it's reasonably likely that they have an ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

Against an unknown, sure. But what about against a player that would check here with AK upwards of 60% of the time, because they know you are aggressive (if Hero is Phil Ivey it's common knowledge that Hero is aggressive) - so even though there are two hearts on the board they check anyway because they are HU postflop and they know their opponent is aggro.

Against such an SB, do you still like betting?

FWIW, I bet against an unknown.

curtains

06-13-2005, 02:45 PM

Yes but simply put, even if the SB would check with an ace, it's just much more likely they don't have an ace. Also by checking you are giving them the chance to bluff on the turn, although I feel like most players won't do so.

SuitedSixes

06-13-2005, 02:46 PM

Sorry if I offended you, Beavis. There is a running joke between Curtains and myself where I have accused him of disagreeing with things for the sake of disagreement.

adanthar

06-13-2005, 03:57 PM

Vol 1 as applied to a Party SNG was pretty mediocre and had several hands I didn't like. What really made it go from 'good' to 'eh this is kinda inapplicable' was the varying PF raise advice.

It did have a lot of good stuff, though, and I wanna see what he has to say in this one.

ilya

06-13-2005, 04:04 PM

I dunno, I like checking behind. I don't think you're all that likely to take the pot down against a trapping player on this flop. Moreover, if you get check-raised, you don't just lose the pot -- you lose the opportunity to potentially stack the guy if he flopped something like a set or top two.

Sharksfan

06-13-2005, 04:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Let me put it this way, I'm willing to bet that Phil Ivey, Barry Greenstein and Howard Lederer are betting this flop most of the time. I understand that checking has it's merits but I just don't think you can say it's bad to bet here. Also a lot of the hands that might play with you, the SB would have often raised with preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe that's why they can't say they've made the final table of the main WSOP event the last 2 years in a row (the 2 with the largest amount of entrants ever) AND won it in 1995...Dan can say that.

But more seriously, I'm sure Dan doesn't expect people to agree 100% with all his examples. These are how he "suggests" playing the hands, he admits there is almost always more than one way to play a hand, that's what we have to do, figure out what works best for us.

Beavis68

06-13-2005, 04:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if I offended you, Beavis. There is a running joke between Curtains and myself where I have accused him of disagreeing with things for the sake of disagreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

What?

No offense.

As to SnGs and HoH, I haven't found it to be ideal. I think that SnG formats are different enough that strategy has to change more than he allows, especially Party SnGs.

Komodo

06-13-2005, 04:40 PM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar till:</font><hr />

We have KJs, sorry about that. I don't think there's anything wrong with checking, but I think it's a bit much to call it a bad time to bet, as the chances of taking the pot down immediately are too high IMO.

I'm sure I could name a lot of world class players who would bet this flop about 100% of the time. Try to find a single example of Barry Greenstein checking postflop after he raises preflop. Again I don't think it's bad to check, I just don't think you can say it's bad to bet either.

[/ QUOTE ]

The key is probably what harrington says in the text. The player in question likes to checkraise and set traps.

curtains

06-13-2005, 05:09 PM

btw after further reading I believe my style and Harrington's is not very similar at all. I would play many of the hand examples differently. Of course he's world champion and I'm not.

jgunnip

06-13-2005, 06:07 PM

I too thought that making a continuation bet on this flop was the right play. But given the general idea that Harrington is trying to convey here, that taking a free card when you have a decent drawing hand, instead of making a continuation bet when there's a somewhat decent chance you may get check-raised otu of the pot, I'm not going to argue with his example. Sure he could have found a better example, but his overall effort of dichotimizing when continuation bets should be made and when they should be avoided avoided is this example's true value.

I've only read a little more than half of chapter 8 and am loving this book so far. This chapter definitely should have been included in the first volume imo...well, i'll probably think that ALL of V2 should have been in V1 by the time I'm done reading it /images/graemlins/grin.gif

treeofwisdom7

06-13-2005, 06:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]

btw after further reading I believe my style and Harrington's is not very similar at all. I would play many of the hand examples differently. Of course he's world champion and I'm not.

[/ QUOTE ]

now that he wrote a book he must be making more money than you too. lol

i dont like the first book that much because the forum is much better.

maddog2030

06-13-2005, 07:48 PM

Just glancing through it looks like his inflection points are all very well known points for the STT/MTT specialists. I think Mason was way overhyping how big of an impact it would have ("My prediction is that there will be more debate on our forums over these ideas than we have ever seen before.").

I thought his inflection points were going to be a discussion of how chipEV deviates from $EV and how to take advantage of your opponents using that knowledge on the bubble, etc.(I imagined in my head a chipEV/$EV curve with the inflection point, much like a graph Bozeman had a while back showing how the bubble showed the greatest delta). I glanced at them and it looked like alls he was talking about playing was playing a shortstack.

In any case, the book still looks solid.