learning pot limit?

[Moyer]

Do most players learn no limit before trying pot limit? How hard would it be for a limit player to adjust?

I've always played limit, usually 3/6 or 5/10 online. I know almost nothing about NL or PL, but there's a PL game at my local casino that looks interesting. They play mixed PL hold'em & PL omaha. I believe the blinds are 5/10 with a 500 buy-in.

Basically, I'm trying to find out what it's going to take for me to win in this game. Do I need to go through all the NL books first and play a lot of lower limit games online?

I realize this is probably too vague of a question. I just don't want to order a bunch of books, study, and practice in smaller games for 6 months before I'm competant enough at the game(which may or may not be that great). Not to mention learning omaha.

As far as books, I was thinking PL&NL Holdem by Rueben & Ciaffone, and How Good is Your PL Holdem? by Rueben. No idea about PL omaha books.

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]
Do most players learn no limit before trying pot limit? How hard would it be for a limit player to adjust?

I've always played limit, usually 3/6 or 5/10 online. I know almost nothing about NL or PL, but there's a PL game at my local casino that looks interesting. They play mixed PL hold'em & PL omaha. I believe the blinds are 5/10 with a 500 buy-in.

As far as books, I was thinking PL&NL Holdem by Rueben & Ciaffone, and How Good is Your PL Holdem? by Rueben. No idea about PL omaha books.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this is complex question. PL Hold'em is quite different from NL Hold'em.

1. You can't make big raises preflop without help from other people.
2. You can't go all-in on the flop unless the pot was raised preflop.
3. You have to build a big pot.
4. Position is more important.

IMHO, the best way to apporach this game for a beginner, is to try and see flops cheaply with speculative hands (pairs and suited connectors) that means you don't play if you would have to stick more than 5-10% of your stack in preflop and never ever be the first person in the pot.

Also, in most cases accept your free cards on the flop, and try to make your big bets on the turn. Flop betting should be used to set up big bets on the turn.

As you play, you'll start to develop skills of situational analysis and can start opening up your play, and doing cool things like stealing pots,making sweetener raises with 10+ out draws, manipulating pot sizes etc. All the cool stuff that you rarely get to do in NL because people will go all in on you.

In terms of books

I like Ciaffone/Reuben, McEvoy/Cloutiers PL/NL book, and Science of Poker by Mahmood N Mahmood.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Science of Poker by Mahmood N Mahmood.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your credibility might be tainted here - I have never heard of even a single person who has read this book who didn't absolutely loathe it aside from you just now.

[Beavis68]

I learned to play PL before any other form.

Most of the time, for decent players there isn't too much difference in ring between NL and PL. It actually is very good for teaching skillful NL play, as you cannot just shove all-in for 5x the pot.

Drawing hands pick up value, because by nature, the game is very implied odds driven. You can usually see a flop for a decent price, and if you and your opponent are decently stacked, you can see the turn for a reasonable portion of your stack with the ability to get a BIG raise in on the turn and river.

There isn't a lot written that shows a good differeniation between the two. NL concepts generally apply, but you have less worry of getting completely blown off a pot on the flop, and you can't make dramatic semi-bluff moves on the flop.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science of Poker by Mahmood N Mahmood.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your credibility might be tainted here - I have never heard of even a single person who has read this book who didn't absolutely loathe it aside from you just now.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know someone who is a very good player and has a very large poker library, and he really likes this book. Just because the groupthink on the twoplustwo website is to bash this book (and most non-twoplustwo books), does not mean that there are no poker players out there who like it.

[bobbyi]

I've heard that Reuben's "How Good is Your PLO?" is much better than "How Good is Your PLHE?". I haven't read it yet, but I am under the impression that is definitely worth reading if you are going to play PLO, even though the exact plays he make would not all be correct in a typical game online or a smallish game live.

I've read Ciaffone's Omaha book (out of print, but it is possible to track down a copy). It is short and I didn't think contained anything terribly insightful. Some people really like it though.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science of Poker by Mahmood N Mahmood.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your credibility might be tainted here - I have never heard of even a single person who has read this book who didn't absolutely loathe it aside from you just now.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know someone who is a very good player and has a very large poker library, and he really likes this book. Just because the groupthink on the twoplustwo website is to bash this book (and most non-twoplustwo books), does not mean that there are no poker players out there who like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that the entire "sample" was taken from twoplustwo users exclusively. Usually in the case of a non-2+2 book, there is a fair amount of "not published here" noise interspersed with the signal of honest opinion. In this particular case, however, this book was given an across-the-board review of utter trash by everyone I have ever heard or read discussing it. The fact that your friend owns a lot of poker books and happens to like this one makes him the outlier in this case. Here is a quote from a reviewer on amazon who is apparently in a similar positon - or, at least, I have as much evidence that he is a knowledgeable player with a lot of books as I do that your friend is - "This book is a perfect example of how a mathematician with little experience or understanding of poker typically approaches the game. The result, in this case at least, is a complete train wreck. I'm a professional poker player, a recent college grad, and the owner of about 50 poker books. I was excited but wary when I found this title recently; I've always thought there was a gap in the poker literature on this topic, approaching the game from a more rigorously analytical perspective. Many have tried, but just about all have failed miserably, and this is no exception."

Here's another choice snippet from the same review: "
For hold'em, a good example of the terrible advice in this book is a discussion of "Q-7(s)", queen-seven suited. He is assuming you are in late position and that a player you somehow know has A-Ks has raised in front of you. He reasons that the hand becomes profitable and should be played if you can get at least four opponents, because it will win 21% of the time against AKs and three other random hands. This might apply if there was no more betting after the flop and the cards were just turned up, but that's not how poker is played. He also assumes that the other three players have average, random hands even though they've called a strong raise - totally unreasonable."

If that is true, how can you even try to tell me that this is a book worth practicing your origami on, let alone worth reading, let alone worth infusing into your game?

Not having read the book, I can't say with 100% certainty whether or not I agree with anything or nothing within, but based on the opinions I've read, I can with a fair degree of certainty conclude that it is a waste of my (and probably others') time. It's not necessary to read every poker book that comes down the pike, you know.

Sometimes conventional wisdom and the behavior of groups are considered for a reason. Or would you run toward the erupting volcano against the direction of the masses simply because you think the average person is stupid?

But hey, if you're correct, and all these people are wrong, then what a diamond in the rough this book must be - I'd advise you to keep a competitive advantage like this under wraps. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bobbyi]

Sorry, I hadn't realized that a random reviewer on Amazon disliked the book. I withdraw my comments. Out of curiousity, is it the same guy who that about SSH "This book's advice is a great way to burn through a lot of money making plays that are just plain stupid" or the guy that said "I returned [HPFAP] because it is so littered with caveats, exceptions and intricate variations that it's impossible to draw meaningful themes. Moreover, the jargon makes it very difficult to follow (because the jargon, itself, is vague and because the context in which it is used is difficult). For example, there are passages which advise you to play certain ways if the table is loose, but the players are aggressive, but the table is tough and the caller is tight. HUH???

I'm off to the bookstore to get another book!"

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I hadn't realized that a random reviewer on Amazon disliked the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

If what the reviewer said was true (e.g. that the book advises to overcall 2-3 callers of an early position opening raise with Q7), then the book is crap - it really doesn't matter what the reviewer's personal opinion was; the review could just as easily have read "Wow, this guy is really clued in to unique and profitable plays - for example, he says that you should call with Q7 after a raise from early position and 2-3 callers! Bet you won't find that money-making secret in any other book - the pros have been keeping it to themselves!" and the conclusion that the book is utter trash would be the same.

Kudos though on countering my rebuttal of your "my one random friend says its good" argument with "but this is just one random amazon reviewer" - hope you caught the irony.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science of Poker by Mahmood N Mahmood.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your credibility might be tainted here - I have never heard of even a single person who has read this book who didn't absolutely loathe it aside from you just now.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know someone who is a very good player and has a very large poker library, and he really likes this book. Just because the groupthink on the twoplustwo website is to bash this book (and most non-twoplustwo books), does not mean that there are no poker players out there who like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I bought it, read it and sold it. I got nothing out of Science of Poker.

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science of Poker by Mahmood N Mahmood.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your credibility might be tainted here - I have never heard of even a single person who has read this book who didn't absolutely loathe it aside from you just now.

[/ QUOTE ]

DocAz from the stud forum liked it. Some lemmings here in the books forum didn't like it. I suspect Mason won't like it either, but it's still one of the few books I've seen that has paid for itself.

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard that Reuben's "How Good is Your PLO?" is much better than "How Good is Your PLHE?". I haven't read it yet, but I am under the impression that is definitely worth reading if you are going to play PLO, even though the exact plays he make would not all be correct in a typical game online or a smallish game live.

[/ QUOTE ]

How good is your PLHE is an ok book, how ever it's has several hand hand examples taken from NL tournament play, which not at all relavent to either PL Cash or PL Tournament play.

Certain skills like escalating the pot are not emphasized in NL. For example it's not uncommon for a PL player to make a bet of 1/4 of the pot in position. This will often scare the bejesus out of people becuase it means that a flop reraise will let the opener go all in, and yet it sets up decent bet/raise on the turn. You can really put alot of pressure on people by carefully escalating the pot and this gives the flop betting alot of implied power that it doesn't have in NL.

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]
Not having read the book

[/ QUOTE ]

The defense rests.

[balazs]

"If what the reviewer said was true (e.g. that the book advises to overcall 2-3 callers of an early position opening raise with Q7), then the book is crap"

The PLO stuff is good for a beginner, which might interest the OP.

To OP: the NL/PL book by Ciaffone/Reuben is a must buy.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not having read the book

[/ QUOTE ]

The defense rests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, well the defense was shot down several times in my (and others') previous posts. You lose.

An applicable sentence for your crime would be to be forced to purchase and then read this craptacular book and in the process of so doing, trying to figure out what he means when he describes an Omaha hand as "A-T-K-Q(s)" and then applying his unique insight to overcalling a preflop raise with Q7s and also finding a game of pot-limit stud, which he apparently outlines strategies for.

The prosecution rests.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
and also finding a game of pot-limit stud, which he apparently outlines strategies for.

The prosecution rests.

[/ QUOTE ]

By your use of the word *apparently* is the prosecution admitting that it is prosecuting based upon evidence that it hasn't actually read for itself, basing its assertions soley upon hearsay evidence?

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and also finding a game of pot-limit stud, which he apparently outlines strategies for.

The prosecution rests.

[/ QUOTE ]

By your use of the word *apparently* is the prosecution admitting that it is prosecuting based upon evidence that it hasn't actually read for itself, basing its assertions soley upon hearsay evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, and in that spirit I hereby challenge you to prove that jumping from an extremely high cliff will result in death. Now off you go.

*edit* on a more civil note, that's why I prefaced any judgments I had with "if that is true, then the book is crap." Now I don't need to read every Harlequin romance novel or poker book that comes down the pike to know that there are some (or in the case of romance novels, all, probably) that have such a high probability of being complete crap that I'm not going to waste my time on them.

So, which do you think is more likely: that everybody save for a few select Chosen Ones are wrong, and this book is a diamond in the rough, or that most people are pretty much correct when they say that the book is crap and then give pretty compelling reasons why they think so?

If you honestly believe it's good, then buy it and crush the tables with your Q7. Otherwise, you're just being a troll.

[BluffTHIS!]

Not being a troll at all. In fact if anyone is being one it is you by regurgitating the thoughts of others, whether right or not, about a book you have no personal knowledge of. I do have the book since I buy and read lots of poker books and have already given my views in previous threads over the last few months. As I stated then, it is not perfect by any means, and does rely overly much on computer simulations. Nonetheless there are some valuable insights in it primarily regarding plo and which hands need how much odds on their money to be worth playing in what position. He also has a firm grasp of probability and expectation and that is the viewpoint from which he gives strategy advice. And as I said regarding the criticism of the space Dr. Mahmood devoted to pl stud, it is a game regulary played at the Vic in London where he regularly plays. He is a winning player in a game that features some of the highest stakes to be found anywhere, and that alone should give you some reason to read his book even if the valuable content is not as great as it could have been. And if you don't agree with this, then you might want to email Ciaffone or Reuben and ask their opinions of him and his book, which I am sure will be in line with mine.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
He is a winning player in a game that features some of the highest stakes to be found anywhere

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if he makes a habit of coldcalling raises with Q7. Besides, Amarillo Slim was a winning player in high-stakes poker games, and the strategy book he came out with was crap - what's your point?

edit:
[ QUOTE ]
In fact if anyone is being one it is you by regurgitating the thoughts of others, whether right or not, about a book you have no personal knowledge of.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the god-knows-how-manyth time, it doesn't matter what the thoughts of others regarding the book are, whether they liked it or not or what-have-you - if it's true that the book says to call raises cold with Q7o in late position in hold'em, then it's crap and not worth your time.

Again, you may feel free to prove me wrong and make tons of money at the same time by putting his strategies into practice and crushing high-stakes games with the computer hand.

[BluffTHIS!]

If you would actually read the book, you would find that Dr. Mahmood is an extremely tight player, much tighter that Reuben for example, who places much more emphasis on playing players he knows well than on just making pot driven decisions. The point he made regarding Q7s in the limit holdem chapter was that *if* you played it, it could only show a theoretical profit long term if you had at least 4 opponents and were in late position, and that you *played the flop well*. This is similar to advice in HPFAP regarding playing a K with a suited small card in certain situations, and assumes that you just don't blow money on top pair no kicker. This again just shows how much criticism of various parts of various books is based upon comments taken out of context, regardless of whether or not such a book does contain some errors or gives incomplete discussions of various points, and that such comments sometimes incorrectly quote the work as in this case regarding Q7 which was suited in the relevant comment, and in which he also said that any Q with an offsuit small kicker had a "pathetic" performance if played.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
If you would actually read the book, you would find that Dr. Mahmood is an extremely tight player, much tighter that Reuben for example, who places much more emphasis on playing players he knows well than on just making pot driven decisions. The point he made regarding Q7s in the limit holdem chapter was that *if* you played it, it could only show a theoretical profit long term if you had at least 4 opponents and were in late position, and that you *played the flop well*. This is similar to advice in HPFAP regarding playing a K with a suited small card in certain situations, and assumes that you just don't blow money on top pair no kicker. This again just shows how much criticism of various parts of various books is based upon comments taken out of context, regardless of whether or not such a book does contain some errors or gives incomplete discussions of various points, and that such comments sometimes incorrectly quote the work as in this case regarding Q7 which was SOOTED in the relevant comment, and in which he also said that any Q with an offsuit small kicker had a "pathetic" performance if played.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP