HOH: Inflection points vs. common sense

[gildwulf]

I was wondering if we could talk about Harrington's concept of Red Zone play (pp. 142-155 in HOH2). I have a few questions:

What do the solid players here think of his pushes and the justification? The jist of this section is he has an M of 1-3, he is at the final table of a MTT online tourney and is trying to make some moves. He doesn't give any reads. I believe the hands in order are

a. 6 people fold in front of him and he goes all-in with T6o
b. 3rd to act and Dan goes all in with 97s because of his "first-in vigorish"
c. he gets called down by a better hand, and the very next hand he goes all-in from 2nd position with 87o
d. Stealing blinds in CO from 64o.

Maybe I am just playing at the 20s where people have loose calling ranges, or maybe I don't play enough MTT tourneys, but I practically had to put my hands over my eyes while reading this section in fear for Harrington's tourney life. Is this kind of super aggression warranted when you are a relatively short stack? Does Harrington not understand fold equity? Can someone who has read HOH2 and is a better player than I am defend this or critique it?

I just feel that this passage just goes against everything I've learned (i.e. unlearned) at 2+2...

[MagnoliasFM]

[ QUOTE ]
Does Harrington not understand fold equity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's Dan Harrington? His book sucks I'll never believe that crap. He'll never make a WSOP final table in his life playing like that. If you really want to play poker like a master, read "Play Poker Like the Pros" by Phil Hellmuth. He's got NINE BRACELETS, BABY.

[rydazzle]

I think Harrington invented "fold equity" /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

He works out the math later in that section (or the following) showing a push with 4 average players left to act (with orange/red-ish stacks I think) is +EV.

When I first read this, then used it, I had great results. Lately I have situations where I wonder what frequency of pushes when the time is right is...pretty soon someone's going to look you up. I dont want to hijack your thread though on this topic though...

[rydazzle]

[ QUOTE ]
Who's Dan Harrington?

[/ QUOTE ]

enough said

[gildwulf]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Harrington invented "fold equity" /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

He works out the math later in that section (or the following) showing a push with 4 average players left to act (with orange/red-ish stacks I think) is +EV.

When I first read this, then used it, I had great results. Lately I have situations where I wonder what frequency of pushes when the time is right is...pretty soon someone's going to look you up. I dont want to hijack your thread though on this topic though...

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a lot of respect for Harrington's game or I wouldn't own his books.

What about the pushing from early position because of "first-in vigorish"? Or the pushing with junk directly after a hand where he pushed with junk and got called by a mediocre (and better) ace?

[rydazzle]

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone who has read HOH2 and is a better player than I am defend this or critique it?

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW, I didnt offer my post as someone who is "better than you" /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[rydazzle]

That is also what I've struggled with. I pushed with T4o one time with no callers and got dealt JTs the very next hand...do I push again, or 'play' this one? What I am saying when I push then call/normal raise, weak or strong?

[bkbluedevil]

I had the same question as you after I first read the book. The only reason I could come up with is because in the MTTs that he plays there is a much different pay structure than in the STTs we play. In MTT pay structure is much more exponential, so there is a lot more to be said for not letting yourself get too short. Guys like Harrington don't care about moving up the ladder when they are ITM, they want the win, or at least a final table.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
HOH2 rules...even with a couple sketchy hand examples

[/ QUOTE ]

See how it gets worse on a second read?

[1C5]

I am in the middle of reading the book qnd have since started becoming more aggressive with hands such as his listed in those examples. Been ok so far.

[gildwulf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
HOH2 rules...even with a couple sketchy hand examples

[/ QUOTE ]

See how it gets worse on a second read?

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

[Jbrochu]

I think Harrington is pretty much spot on with his Red Zone play. However, I do think you have to adjust the calling hands you put your opponents on according to where you play (less important) and to a greater degree what buy-in you play.

Harrington has 3 profiles of opponents: tight, looser, and loosest. For my $EV calcs I've created a 4th profile for the stars $22's called "nutbag" and credit this profile for calling with AA through 22, AK through AJ, A10s through A8s, KQ through K10, QJ, J10. The nutbags chance of randomly holding a hand in this category (and thus calling) is 17.3%.

Harrington also does state that your opponents stack size matters, as well as how often you've pushed. Don't push any two against a giant stack after pushing 3 out of the last 4 hands, etc...

[pokerlaw]

[ QUOTE ]

a. 6 people fold in front of him and he goes all-in with T6o
b. 3rd to act and Dan goes all in with 97s because of his "first-in vigorish"
c. he gets called down by a better hand, and the very next hand he goes all-in from 2nd position with 87o
d. Stealing blinds in CO from 64o.


[/ QUOTE ]

a. I HATE this push w 106o. In that hand, the BB has 2.5X BB and will most likely call with anything and the button has even less than that. if this stole the blinds 10% of the time, i would be surprised. then, he points out that it sucks that people saw 106o - haha.

b. i would like the push better if 1) i didnt just show 106o, AND 2) my stack was big enough to have any folding equity. The BB will have ~3:1 (9100:3200) odds to call - so this push isnt something I would do.

c. i dont mind the next push, i showed down crap the last two times, people might think i am due. Also, the blinds have big stacks, so i think their hand ranges are on the tight side. and...blinds taste good.

d. this is ok as well. position move given the stack and payouts, why not...

Those first two hands are something i would NEVER do on the games i play though. that said, good book and quick read overall.

[lacky]

I haven't read the book yet, been too busy playing basically. But, in mtt's you are always pushing against a full table. If I need to push from early or mid position I would much rather push 97s or 78o. Basically I want 2 live cards with decent chances, and givin the hands that are likely to call 97s is much better than A7.

Steve

[adanthar]

I agree BTW, the 97s push is fine. That is, it would be fine if you didn't just FPS away half your stack with T6o.

87o is marginal and I probably fold it especially given that your image is that of a moron at this point. 64o, you may as well.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
a. I HATE this push w 106o. In that hand, the BB has 2.5X BB and will most likely call with anything and the button has even less than that. if this stole the blinds 10% of the time, i would be surprised. then, he points out that it sucks that people saw 106o - haha.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good point - I didn't pick up on that on the first read. This push seems to contradict some of his own advice about being careful with desperate short stacks.

[gildwulf]

Ok, my brain hurts...so I am going to go with Adanthar on these and not change my game.

[rydazzle]

On the flip side, with the increase of HOH2 readers, what are calling req's for somewhat obvious red-zone moves?

[gildwulf]

I would be very surprised if anyone at the 20s read HOH2...or any books besides Curious George.

[1C5]

hahahahahaha nh

[microbet]

I haven't read the book, but maybe the 87o play is ok if your name is Dan Harrington. No one at his table is going to think he is an idiot and he might get more credit for a push after showing a bad hand.

[microbet]

I think you are kidding, but I'm not sure. That's probably my fault.

[rydazzle]

lol