more on Lee Jones

since there was some discussion of Lee jones' book recently I went back and read the 2000 edition of his book. It still has some problems with his preflop strategy. The following is not an exhaustive list. For example, I think his preflop strategy regarding small pairs is way too tight. For example he would have you only call in early position with no raise with 77 or better, and in middle position with 55 or better. Frankly in most of the low limit games I play in I would play any small pair in an unraised pot in middle position. Also, in many of the LL games even when it is raised it is worthwhile to play small pairs since there will frequently be enough multiway action, while he would have you fold.


Secondly, he says that if there is no raise in EP you can play A9s or better. In middle position you can player slightly worse aces, but why stop there? You can play almost any suited ace in most LL games if there is no raise. Similarly he calls Qxs a "trash" hand in most situations, when it can be played in many LL games in middle position if the situation is right.


While his advice is too tight, it is definitely better than if it were too loose. It also is decent advice to a real beginner at holdem as opposed to a more experienced player who plays LL, such as those that post here. His advice will probably turn as novice into a break even player at LL but you will not do much better than that,and will certainly not do better than a portion of a bet per hour. I do not think he gives enough consideration to the sometimes enormous implied odds that you can get in these games.


Pat

I think one of the biggest mistakes made by low limit players is over-estimating the implied odds on crappy hands and discounting the importance of position. It leads them to do things like call raises cold with hands that need good implied odds, and forgetting that putting in TWO bets cuts your implied odds in half. It leads them to limping early with bad hands and then getting trapped for one or two more bets before whiffing on the flop anyway.


In my experience, Lee Jones isn't nearly tight enough. And he doesn't explain the problem of dominated hands very well, which is crucial for a beginner.


Qxs from mid position? I don't think there are any successful players who would agree with you on that one.


natedogg

Pat:


I think that you have it about right. In games like you are describing, that is games that feature loose play and players who automatically go too far with their hands, all pairs become playable in almost all situations. I do think you may be pushing it with the Qxs, but it is certainly worth a play in late position in an unraised pot if many people are already in. (See HPFAP-21 for more discussion.) Just be sure that you can play it well.

I am not saying that I always play Qxs from MP. However there are many times where there is no raise in front and in the later middle positions that you can limp in frequently and not get raised in the low limit games I have played. In my way of thinking to call it trash is to say it can virtually never be played. He only allows Qxs to be played on the button or one off the button, but in some LL games these players will rarely raise,so it can be Ok to limp in.


As far as implied odds are concerned you frequently have excellent implied odds despite a raise simply because people will cold call raises with virtually anything and will call on the flop for one bet even if the flop doesnt hit them. If you are in the six seat and 4 players are already in for two bets would you fold 44? I wouldnt in most of LL games. In this sense his advice is too tight.


Also his advice on suited A's is also too tight in my opinion. I would definitely play A8s and many other suited aces in early position. Even if there is a raise after you there will frequently be enough callers to make it worthwhile to play.


But I guess thats why they make chocolate and vanilla ice cream..


Pat

Ditto Patrick!

<blockquote>in some LL games these players will rarely raise</blockquote> His advice is based on California hold 'em games which I understand (although I have never played there) tend to be overly aggressive. In a game where people are going to make in 2 or more bets behind you with a wide variety of hands, limping in early position with 44 or in middle position with Qxs is a big mistake.


Furthermore, you need to remember that his book is intended for novices. Even though you and I could play slightly more hands than he suggests, an inexperienced player would get into big trouble with them. His book is a survival guide for new players and he would be doing them a disservice if he told them to play hands that are only profitable when played by someone with enough experience that they won't be following his advice anyway.

"In a game where people are going to make in 2 or more bets behind you with a wide variety of hands, limping in early position with 44 or in middle position with Qxs is a big mistake."


While I agree with you on the Qxs, if you are getting enough multiway action you might prefer that the pot be raised. This helps to assure more action after the flop and gives you a better idea where the bets may come from.

If I was in a game where the pots were frequently raised i would not limp in with the Qxs.


I guess Jones' book might be OK for a rank beginner, but that is not its intent. He states in the intro that it is meant not just for beginners but also for experience LL players who are not satisfied with their results. Anyone who follows the advice he gives in the long term will not do as well as someone who plays looser than he proposes especially with the small pairs. Holdem is too complicated for his "cookbook" approach even in LL, although his approach is better than most peoples strategy, which is generally no strategy.


Pat

I just wanted to strongly defend Lee Jones book from a pure -- and I do mean pure -- beginners view. I started playing not a year ago, never even heard of Texas Hold 'Em, and Lee Jones really helped me jump start my game. Being quite a poor guy I really had no room for much "trial-and-error" to learn the game, and Lee's book really taught me the basics of how to play for a sure win. You see, I already had The Theory of Poker and HPFAP and HP, but these books could not teach me as a pure beginner how to....well....begin. I didn't have the slightest idea of how to play in different situations, you see. I found The Theory of Poker to be quite a well written book, but especially HPFAP I found, and still find, to be a very poorly, or should I perhaps say 'unclearly', written book. Things like "If a game is loose, but still very aggressive, you should not be in many pots." Mhm. OK. And how many would not many be? Oh -- do I need to read between the lines a little here and a little there all through the book to find out the answer to that question? And then get a lot of experience? Oh, I see. No -- HPFAP is a mess. It's a good mess, but it's still a mess.


No, Lee's book was a much, MUCH, easier read for a beginner, I can tell you. It gave me some kind of foundation to start building from -- and building upwards from day one. And it is very clear to me that Lee has written the book with the beginner in mind. And I'm still alive and well and climbing higher on the poker skill ladder, thanks to Lee.

Ok, well, I just wanted to defend BOTH Lee Jones's book and HPFAP. I think they are both great books. I think the problem may be that if you try to read HPFAP before you have read Jones or Kreiger or a similar low limit text, you will be a bit overwhelmed and indeed it will seem like a "mess." I don't mean just read Jones once, either, and then go right into HPFAP. I tried to do this, and I still found HPFAP very confusing. But as I grew in my knowledge and read Jones more and more, HPFAP began to make more and more sense. As the title suggests, it is an advanced text; if you try to read it before the beginner text has been thoroughly absorbed, it will make no sense at all. It would be like trying to learn Algebra before you learned the multiplication tables. Hold 'em is a fluid, situational game, so an advanced text cannot give you precise rules for how to play. A beginner text will tend to lean more toward this, because they know you don't have the understanding to absorb more than basic rules of thumb. Once you have the basic rules of thumb memorized, the many exceptions and variations make sense. As far as the criticisms of Jones goes, I do think that small pairs are undervalued a bit perhaps. But you have to remember the context in which he is teaching this. He is concerned about people playing too loosely up front (like most novices do), so he is perhaps intentionally making his guidelines a bit overconservative to guard against this. This is what I think, anyway. Anyway, I think they are both great books, but you have to read the one before the other. If you attempt to read HPFAP before thoroughly understanding the basic skills detailed in Jones, I think the book would seem like a nightmare.


Tim

I think part of the problem here is that you are misinterpreting Jones' intent with these starting hands. That is, many of the guidelines he gives are set up in a somewhat inflexible way to ensure that beginners who use them don't play too many hands. Since it is most people's instinct (especially when they start out) to try and find an excuse to play any hand, it would be counterproductive for him to tell a novice something like, "you can play this hand if you are sure you will have 5 opponents". Instead of relying on the reader's ability to figure out how many people will be in a given pot based on the action ahead of them and the way the texture of the game, Jones gives guidelines which take into account his experience with typical low limit games, thus preempting the reader's analysis of how many people are likely to call. Likewise, his insistance on extremely tight play up front is to prevent the beginners who read the book from getting into situations which are over their head, such as when to fold a pair of aces with a weak kicker.


***As far as implied odds are concerned you frequently have excellent implied odds despite a raise simply because people will cold call raises with virtually anything and will call on the flop for one bet even if the flop doesnt hit them. If you are in the six seat and 4 players are already in for two bets would you fold 44? I wouldnt in most of LL games. In this sense his advice is too tight. ***


If you go back and read the guidelines he gives at the end of each preflop chapter (at least in the newest edition of the book) you will see that Jones would recommmend a call in this spot with 44-22. He gives extra hands with which you can call in middle or late position provided there are enough players in already with no raise.


Again, the reason he says Qxs is a trash hand is that it is difficult to make a winning hand with it and even when you do you can frequently have made a 2nd or 3rd best hand. Thus, it is a hand which requires good judgement to play correctly, and even then it is only marginally profitable. So my conclusion is this: If you are reading Jones' book and find yourself saying "my god, why won't he let you play (insert crap hand that you always play) in this spot!?", just take a deep breath and say to yourself, "I know how to play this particular hand in this spot for profit, so Jones' advice not to play it is not meant for me, it is meant for a novice who doesn't have a good idea of which hands are profitable." I think that if you remember to do this as you read, you will be able to extract the information which is useful to you (and I believe there will be some, unless you're already a pro), without being constantly angered by Jones calling your favorite hand "trash".

I agree with you completely....almost. I still find HPFAP messily written though. Hey! -- S&M themselves even "apologizes" for this on page 9. They do it mostly for "the English", but I believe that the "taped conversations" origin of the book probably is much more evident in the larger structure of it. I really feel that the information it holds could be presented in a much more clear and structured fashion. But maybe there are some benefits to the style it has: you are forced to really think about what you read and bring order to it yourself. Which of course is good. I still wish that it was presented in a more easily digestable form, though... As I said above, I find The Theory of Poker much more clearly written and better structured. It probably does not stem from taped conversations... :)


OK. Hey, Mason, I hope I don't angry you with this criticism - - maybe it's just me that is stupid in addition to being utterly lazy... ;) I don't write perfectly either.

<<<If you go back and read the guidelines he gives at the end of each preflop chapter (at least in the newest edition of the book) you will see that Jones would recommmend a call in this spot with 44-22. He gives extra hands with which you can call in middle or late position provided there are enough players in already with no raise.>>>


Yes but you can play the hand for profit even when the pot IS raised. Why give beginners bad advice? Surely he can tell beginners that it is OK to call a raise with any small pair if there are 4 callers of the raise before you in late position. In most LL games you can call a raise with any small pair in middle position since most of the players after you will cold call and will call hopelessly on the flop even when you make a set. Granted this is not every LL game but it is true in most of them.


If your experience is different in the games you play then that is Ok also and perhaps a tighter strategy is correct. But not in the games I have played in.


pat

For your information HPFAP did not grow out of taped conversations. The original work for the book which was mostly done in 1986 and early 1987 was based on written notes that I created based on conversations that David and I had.


In the 1990s as we continued this work, there were some taped conversations which got converted into notes. But they only account for a small portion of the book.


I suspect that the reason you have some difficulty with the material is simply the fact that some of this material is very tough. We took the approach of working with concepts rather than a cookbook type formula. This allows for more situations to be accurately addressed but you as the reader do need to learn how and when to balance concepts appropriately.

in Mason and Dave's defense, the book is not really poorly written, it just has a few minor "proper english" blemishes here and there. The point of this book is not to demonstrate what terrific writers they are, but to instruct you as to how to THINK about the game of poker. Personally, I would not have them change very much of what's in the book. I think their writing style does just fine for what they are writing about. Most things written on these forums are not particularly well written, at least as far as proper english and grammar goes. Whatever, it's not necessary to get the point across. That does not mean that these texts are not well written though. If they do what they were intended to do, then I say Job well done.


Dave in Cali

I do have some difficulties reading HPFAP, mostly in the form of questions that arises in my mind that I cannot find answers to in the text. A lot of "why"s and an urge for deeper explanations. I want to really KNOW the subject. I understand that one book cannot cover it all, so my question is what other books you would recommend that might help me fill in the picture? I'm thinking about the technical, "mathematical" side of the game now. I'm the kind of guy who would like to see the proofs, and not just the theorems. I have HPFAP, HP, Lee Jones' book, Super/System, and The Theory of Poker. Unfortunately I can't say I have read them all thoroughly. What should be my next few books? Or what should have come before?


I guess my "dream book" would be some kind of 1500 page great thick hold 'em "textbook" with theorems and proofs, hard facts and numbers, and a lot of examples and exercises. Preferably accompanied by some good tutoring software where some great player looks over your shoulder while you play example hands, telling you what you do wrong, or right, and why. Wouldn't that be a great idea, Mason?


Well -- I guess I'll never see such a textbook, so I guess that I'll have to do my own thinking and research and gather bits and pieces where I can find them, like everyone else.


Thanks for your time, Mason. Appreciate it.

I'm sure Mason finds it comforting that you are comparing the kinds of mistakes you find in 2-3 paragraph informal postings made by mostly non writters to the errors in the books he publishes.

>>I guess Jones' book might be OK for a rank beginner, but that is not its intent. He states in the intro that it is meant not just for beginners but also for experience LL players who are not satisfied with their results.>>


The book can be useful without being optimal, especially for "experienced LL players who are not satisfied with their results." This description could be quite broad, but I take it to mean those who have played recreationally over many years and are overall losers. There are probably many who fit this description.


Jones's book was important and useful for me. I feel I've "outgrown" it, but that doesn't make it any less important.


I recommend it to all players who think they need it. If you're a new or losing player, it won't hurt. If you never evolve beyond it's advice, then at least you'll play better than 75% of the players out there.


I guess we probably agree, but I just wanted to butt in with my two cents, and your post inspired me to do so.