How good is your limit poker is a joke!

[steamboatin]

Okay I am only on page 38 but I lost points for not three betting a rock. Their justification is you might make him lay down a decent hand and their qualification is this is a play you might try every thousand or so hands.

WTF! I don't want to know how to put a move on a rock that should only be tried once evey thousand or so hands. I want to learn good solid +EV poker that brings home the bacon on a steady and consistent basis. If three betting a rock without the absolute nuts or a monster draw isn't -EV then what the Hell is a bad play?

[Derek in NYC]

Nate gave this book a positive review and found it highly applicable to midlimit games online. I'm holding off on reading it so I can use it as a barometer for my own readiness to go to 10/20. A link to the discussion is here. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=books&Number=2738163&Forum =f19&Words=%2Bhow%20%2Bgood&Searchpage=0&Limit=25& Main=2738163&Search=true&where=sub&Name=&daterange =1&newerval=3&newertype=m&olderval=&oldertype=&bod yprev=#Post2738163)

[steamboatin]

That is the reason I bought it, I read that that thread and maybe I am jumping the gun but losing points for folding to a raise from a rock doesn't make sense.

Using a play that should only be used once in every one or two thousand hands as an example sucks.

[Luv2DriveTT]

Steam -

You played the hand wrong... the book is correct. I know the hand in question, and I would play it exactly the same way as recommended by Bryon Jacobs. You can't get pissed off because a concept is beyond your current level of understanding, I bet if you posted the very same hand in the Small Stakes forum many people there would agree with you, however the more advanced players would all agree with the book's advice.

I read an essay this morning by Mason in Poker Essays I (I read an essay or two every day when I wake up while sitting on the John, perfect bathroom reading IMHO) that discusses the merrits of including many scenarios in HPFAP that are not used in every day play. Mason's point was that although a pro may only encounter a specific scenario once every 6 months in a B&M enviroment, without prior knowlege of how to exploit the opportunity may result in less than stellar resuts. If you can get a hold of it, I'll post the page number later for you to read... its equally applicable to How Good Is Your Limit Hold'Em.

I have to admit I think Jim Brier made up for all his weak tight mistakes in MLP by being involved in WGIYLHE.... I rank it up there as one of the best non-2+2 books around. Its the book I wish Ed Miller would have written first, and hopefully will someday release none the less.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[raisins]

You are misrepresenting the boook. The part you have a problem with is Hand #3 Question #5. You are not losing points for folding to a raise from a rock. The rock is being forced out, possibly with a better hand, by your raise of a lag that the rock might not recognize as a lag because the rock just joined the game. You are also raising to get a free showdown on most rivers because you will have the better hand than the original better many times. You may also catch some rivers that will let you get another value bet in.

You've read little over 10% of the meat of the book. Calling it "a joke" based on your misinterpretation of a small portion is premature.

That being said I don't agree with all the answers in the book. I am curious which answers Nate tha' Great and Rory had issues with. Personally I find Hand #10 Question #5 a bit questionable myself.

raisins

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Mason's point was that although a pro may only encounter a specific scenario once every 6 months in a B&M enviroment, without prior knowlege of how to exploit the opportunity may result in less than stellar resuts. If you can get a hold of it, I'll post the page number later for you to read... its equally applicable to How Good Is Your Limit Hold'Em.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be a good argument for including the idea of three-betting every 1000 hands or so as a suggestion when explaining the answers in the back of the book, but deducting points for choosing the play that is going to be correct 99.9% of the time seems a bit silly to me.

[steamboatin]

I respect your opinion and I bought the book because I want to improve my game. I appreciate the feed back but I am going to have to let this one bounce around inside my melon for a while.

I still have a lot to learn and maybe the rocks at higher limits are different than the low limit rocks. If a low limit rock raises, He has the goods and he isn't folding. He only plays a very few hands and once he gets a hand good enough to raise, He ain't folding. He will most likely check and call but He ain't folding.

I did misread the hand, The flop is 277 rainbow and I have AJo, Mr Rock raises and the Maniac three bets. I'm folding everytime.

I'll reread the hand but it will take a while for me to understand how a reraise is a good play. Yes if MR Rock will lay down a winner, your chances improve but you have to be behind here most of the time.

My OP states MR Rock three bets, that is incorrect, he raises and the maniac three bets.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mason's point was that although a pro may only encounter a specific scenario once every 6 months in a B&M enviroment, without prior knowlege of how to exploit the opportunity may result in less than stellar resuts. If you can get a hold of it, I'll post the page number later for you to read... its equally applicable to How Good Is Your Limit Hold'Em.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be a good argument for including the idea of three-betting every 1000 hands or so as a suggestion when explaining the answers in the back of the book, but deducting points for choosing the play that is going to be correct 99.9% of the time seems a bit silly to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jordon:

The OP misrepresented the hand. I suggest you get a copy of the book and check it out for yourself.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]

That being said I don't agree with all the answers in the book. I am curious which answers Nate tha' Great and Rory had issues with. Personally I find Hand #10 Question #5 a bit questionable myself.

raisins

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you here, the recommendation seems backwards to me. luckily both recommendations are worth nearly the same points, the author obviously realized this is a situation that could swing either way.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[steamboatin]

I had it backwards, the rock raises, then the Maniac three bets and I am supposed to reraise with A high, once out of every one or two thousand hands. Because I am playing the players, not my cards.

[raisins]

You got confused by the "hypothetical play" section. That can be misleading. Reread the hand and notice Question 4. Question 5 is set up assuming the flop went according to Question 3.

Volcano bets out.
You call.
Hypothetical Play
Question 4
Actual Play
MrRock just calls.

Watch out for that. It caught me a few times too.

regards,

raisins

[Luv2DriveTT]

The actuall play is as follows:

SB with AJo - 15/30 game, 8 players. Hero is in the CO, the Button is Mr. Rock - a solid yet passive player. BB is Volcano - a raging maniac. Hero knows both players, Mr rock just sat down.

Hero open raises, button 3-bets, and BB caps just to see the look on your face - which means he has .... and 2 cards /images/graemlins/smile.gif

3 to the flop for 12.5 bets.

277 - offsuited. BB bets out, hero calls with the intention of raising the turn if the scenario leads itself to doing so, button calls.

277T - rainbow. BB bets out, hero.... raises of course /images/graemlins/smile.gif

both opponents fold.
Hero played an excellent hand, and should be applauded for his bravery.

OP however should be booed for not grasping the important concepts of this hand, and dissing this most excellent book. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Read on Steam... you can learn a lot from this book, but beware because its also easy to misapply the logi behind the concepts presented within. Patience is a virtue... we are all rooting for ya!

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[steamboatin]

I will accept the boos, but I will have to grow a much larger set of balls before I go three betting with A high.

I won't quit on the book, I'm on a quest to see how good of a player I can become.

[steamboatin]

Thanks

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]
I bet if you posted the very same hand in the Small Stakes forum many people there would agree with you, however the more advanced players would all agree with the book's advice.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't mind, I am going to post your description of the action up to the three bet in the Small stakes forum and the high limit forum to see what happens.

[JTG51]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I bet if you posted the very same hand in the Small Stakes forum many people there would agree with you, however the more advanced players would all agree with the book's advice.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't mind, I am going to post your description of the action up to the three bet in the Small stakes forum and the high limit forum to see what happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you still misreading the action? I don't see a three bet anywhere post flop in the hand TT described.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I bet if you posted the very same hand in the Small Stakes forum many people there would agree with you, however the more advanced players would all agree with the book's advice.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't mind, I am going to post your description of the action up to the three bet in the Small stakes forum and the high limit forum to see what happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no three bet. What are you talking about?

And yes... feel free to post it. But so we give the author credit, at the end of the thread make sure you announce where it came from. I wouldn't want to steal his intellectual property unintentionally, he deserves full credit.

For those who haven't seen the book yet, Byron's hand examples are good, but his explanations of the hand play and the various choices that are recommended (there is no 100% correct decision in most choices) are very good.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[oreogod]

The book is right. Maybe it's your play u should be looking at before u start posting crap like this. I for one think this book is fantastic and think Ed Miller would also get behind it as well (maybe he will give an opinion someday).

EDIT: I dont mean to come off so harsh here, but TT is right.

[oreogod]

hey TT whats the page number of that essay you mentioned?

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to know how to put a move on a rock that should only be tried once evey thousand or so hands. I want to learn good solid +EV poker that brings home the bacon on a steady and consistent basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

www.monster.com (http://www.monster.com)

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi steamboatin:

This may not be right and I haven't read the book. But there are a lot of maniacs who do their maniacing early in the hand, not on the later streets. You need to make that distinction before making a play like this.

best wishes,
Mason

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
The book is right. Maybe it's your play u should be looking at before u start posting crap like this. I for one think this book is fantastic and think Ed Miller would also get behind it as well (maybe he will give an opinion someday).

EDIT: I dont mean to come off so harsh here, but TT is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

oreogod: Steam is a good guy, his game just needs a lot of work and he is just beginning to come to terms with it. We all have those moments in our chosen poker path (most of us have it numerous times), some need extra prodding to walk to the light. Steamboating happens to be one of them, but thats ok as long as he walks to the light eventually. Since Evan posted ion this thread I'll give him some credit, being around him was a big part of my second "awakening" and its possible he didn't even know it.

Mason's essay from Poker Essay's Volume I: Page #107 - Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players - A Few Comments. I'll quote just a small part of it because it's relevant to this thread even though he is discussing HPFAP(ps: buy this whole series, fantastic side reading):

"First, the book may encourage some players to play too loose. This is because a lot of the hands to play are only playable in certain situations. And these situations - Even though they occur often enough to make them worth mentioning - occur only a minority of the time that you hold these hands." - The essay goes on to explain that a good player must understand these situations even though they rarely occur to take advantage of them when they do. Conversely the logic(and thats what poker is really about in the end) used in these extreme scenarios can be applied to many hands that are played that may not be as extreme.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[oreogod]

I know what you are saying. But to post a thread with this kind of wording in the title about a fantastic book, when it is in fact the OP who has things backwards, is not really cool IMO.

I dont know, to me its like someone starting a thread w/ the title "SSHE is the biggest joke of a poker book ever seen!" when in fact ppl who have read the book, with decent knowledge of the game, actually really appreciate it and think its a great great text.

I honestly think this should be one of the books that should be required reading 6 months after you've been playing and reading 2+2 texts. It really helps grind it into you how to take the concepts and apply them postflop, all in quizz format. Reading the book, there was only one hand I scored below a 90 percent on, this is not to brag, but it actually made me feel more confident in my play. You always here ppl say in general terms "when u get to be good, or decent, you will be able to outplay ppl postflop." -- now I knew the concepts of the game, but before this, I always had a confidence issue...I know Im good, but can I really outplay ppl (kind of a stupid thought really, but it was always in the back of my mind, Im self depreciative, what can I say)? Reading this book, really kind of made me smile, it also helped me in my play (one thing I was not doing was leading the flop enough).

I think after you have been playing for a while, this is the book that will really help hold a torch to the concepts you have been learning, thinking and trying to wrap your head around...and it illustrates them in an interactive step by step way. AND THE ADVICE IS GOOD! What more can u ask for.

There are a lot of ppl who read these forums, and a lot of books are sold because of them, so its kind of offensive to see a thread with this kind of title, when in fact there is no truth to it. SSHE has legs of its own, and can with stand this sort of crap...but a relativly unknown book cannot, even if its good, its not one of the "household" texts as of yet.

Anyway, this is a rant, I came off harsh because I found this to be offensive. Sorry about that, but the thread should be title more appropriatly such as "problem with How good is your holdem." or "I dont understand what IM MISSING here."

--Dustin

Also, thanks for the pg #s.

[bobdibble]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to know how to put a move on a rock that should only be tried once evey thousand or so hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think winning an extra pot of this size (8BB on the turn, I believe) every few thousand hands will do for your BB/100?

[MicroBob]

we were previously talking about some hand where there was a 3-bet and a cap.
that is obviously not happening in this hand

If i'm not raising the flop then I'm considering a raise on the turn here.....the rock might be passive enough to fold a pair of 5's here or something.
and he might fold something like K9 or something so now I just have fewer outs to dodge against the maniac.


Mason is correct that a more accurate read on the maniac would be helpful.
the kind of maniac that would be ideal would be one who will cap several flops with ZIPPO but will eventually fold if shown ANY kind of strength while they are holding nothing.
If you've just suckered him into calling you down while you were holding big hands (or at least decent winners) then shooting for this kind of bluff is certainly a decent game-plan.


Based on what I've been hearing lately I think I need to get this book.



Thread Hijack - Why is that when Steam mentions 'bouncing melons' I am strangely aroused?

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]

Based on what I've been hearing lately I think I need to get this book.


[/ QUOTE ]

You would be correct.

Also, the book provides pretty solid reads off your opponents in the hands.

[steamboatin]

Its in the hypothetical play portion. I am in the cut off, Mr Rock is the button, Maniac is in the Big Blind. Maniac bets, I call, Mr Rock raises, Maniac three bets and I lose points for not capping with A high.

Okay, I can live with that, but then they gone to say.
[ QUOTE ]
However, please be aware that conditions have to be absolutely right for a play like this to be worthwhile. This is not a play you make three or four times a session; it is more like a play you might try once every thousand or so hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the way I chose to play the hand is correct 999 times out of every tousand or so hands, I can live with that and if they want to knock my score down for not capping with A high after it is three bet to me, that is okay also.

The one advantage of this is, it has really made me think about this situation and maybe that is what they wanted me to do in the first place.

[steamboatin]

What do you think capping the flop with A high will do to your win rate?

[oreogod]

I do want to say if I came off like an ass, Im sorry.

[steamboatin]

The way I chose to play the hand is right 999 times out of every thousand or so hands, per the author. I can live with that.

[steamboatin]

Its okay, I have learned more from people ranting over my posts, than any other situation here on 2+2.

[steamboatin]

Thanks, I'll be writing a cash offer on a small house this week. I don't think a job is in my immediate future.

[raisins]

[ QUOTE ]
Its in the hypothetical play portion. I am in the cut off, Mr Rock is the button, Maniac is in the Big Blind. Maniac bets, I call, Mr Rock raises, Maniac three bets and I lose points for not capping with A high.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may want to sit down and read the chapter again before posting more about this hand. While you do have the action right this time for Question 4 you have completely misrepresented the position of the book again. You do not lose points for failing to cap the flop. You lose points for picking any other option but to fold on the flop with a weak hand in the face of strength from two players. It looks unlikely that your opponents will fold a better hand and your hand can't continue on its own merits. The Question where you lose points for not raising (the play you should do rarely) is #5. It takes place on the turn and does not involve capping but making it two bets to go after a 1 bet flop.

By the way, raising on the turn is not right 1 time out of a thousand it is right every time in that situation. Likewise, capping on the flop would not be correct if you did it 1 out of 1000 analogous situations. Folding is correct there every time. There are certain situations where you want to play similar hands differently to mix up your game and avoid leaking information. One of the reasons you can do this is because an alternate line is close in value EV wise. The two situations above are not like this. There is one correct play for them both, all the time. The reason the author uses the line 1 out of every 1-2000 hands is so you do not think that the situation of forcing out a better hand by playing off a maniac with a fairly weak hand is more common than it is. If you try this without making sure the situation fits you will drop a lot of chips. That being said when you actually are in that situation there is one correct way to play it.

regards,

raisins

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Based on what I've been hearing lately I think I need to get this book.


[/ QUOTE ]

You would be correct.

Also, the book provides pretty solid reads off your opponents in the hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good reads which we haven't included in full of course, because those reading this thread should buy the book instead of living vicariously through the thread /images/graemlins/smile.gif

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Luv2DriveTT]

You are right, it was a poor choice for a thread title... we should be encouraging people to buy this book in addition to their otherwise mostly 2+2 library.

Steamboating should apologize to Byron Jacobs now that he has become a 2+2 poster, its the right thing to do even though I don't think his error was intentional.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think capping the flop with A high will do to your win rate?

[/ QUOTE ]

again... NOWHERE in the hand example does it advocate capping the flop. Steam.. you really need to go back and re-read the hand, the entire hand. The book actually says in Question 4 - the Hypothetical play Volcano bets out on the flop as the first player to act, hero calls, Mr. Rock raises, and Volcano 3-bets. Byron gives 10 points for folding, 2 points for calling (even though the hero does not have the outs to do so, as is pointed out in the book's answer), and ZERO points for capping.

So please be more careful before you continue to misrepresent the author's work, its not fair to him that the hand has been butchered so badly.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[steamboatin]

I was discussing question four but had the answers to question five. I am a dumbass and I am sorry.

[cwsiggy]

Not to bump this thread, but I love this book. I'm already doing poorly on the quizzes, 70% or so, but learning a lot. I really hope HOH3's quizzes are in a similar format.