Off the Wall Question About HFAP 21st Edition

Here’s an off the wall question, Is Hold’em For Advanced Players 21st Edition a book that discusses mainly abstract concepts? Personally this is how I view the book. Perhaps that starting hands chapter is not quite as abstract (although I have noticed that it is evolving to include more abstract concepts) as the other chapters. To me abstract concepts are much more valuable than say a strategy that is to be learned by rote (an extreme example). In other words the more abstract concepts presented the better at least for me that is. The reason I bring this up is that from reading various threads on this forum and RGP people who read the book may have different expectations of the book than I do. For instance the much discussed T9 hand is an example of what I’m referring too. The negative comments that I’ve read regarding the play seem to be interpreting the recommended line of play as something that they should do as part of a memorized strategy. The positive comments that I’ve read seem to interpret the underlying reasons when the play is right and furthermore are able to apply those reasons to other situations where the same type of play could be profitable. Another aspect of this is that a certain poster, Card Player columnist, and author of a future book on hold’em Jim Brier is very negative on the play. I find it interesting that his Card Player column doesn’t discuss abstract concepts at all. I’m not picking on Jim and some may take this negatively but it’s the best example I can think of.


PS:


I think Jim’s column has a lot of potential and is probably one of the most valuable columns in Card Player because at least it gives the reader a chance to actually think about various limit hold’em situations.

Our view of hold 'em, and this is reflected in the book, is that it is a very complex set of concepts that sometimes contradict each other. Thus you must learn to balance them and realize which ones take precedence in given situations.


On page 5 of the introduction we wrote:


"Keep in mind, when trying to master hold ’em, that at times many of the following concepts will seem to contradict each other. For example, some concepts might recommend that you bet your hand right out, while other concepts will advise you to go for a check-raise. One of the keys to successful hold ’em play is to balance these ideas, which will help you select the best strategy the vast majority of the time."


By the way, I strongly believe that those of you who think in terms of a cookbook approach will only be small winners at best. Understanding the appropriate underlying concepts that govern play allow for a flexibility that the cookbook player cannot match.

It really does depend on how

many pages the cook book has.

I agree completely that the "abstract" approach is better. By this I don't mean that specifics shouldn't be used, but that it is not enough to memorize plays, you have to understand the underlying reasons for making a certain play so you can transfer it to other situations. If you don't understand the reason why you do something, then you will not be able to recognize what to do a vast majority of the time. If you are in a situation you have not read about in a book, you will have no way of even trying to apply logic in an attempt to solve it. I do think that is one of the things that is so great about poker, you are allowed to think. You just don't memorize something like "always split Aces and eights!" from blackjack. I got turned on to blackjack before poker, but grew bored with it very quickly, once I had memorized the basic strategy. I did not enjoy trying to count cards and did not enjoy even more having a disadvantage to the house, so I quit. The thing I love about poker is there is no mathematically "basic" strategy for a particular hand, it is fluid and ever changing, depending on countless possible variables. I do think that most beginning poker players search for a long time for a "cookbook" type approach, as if there is a magic formula they just haven't found yet. I know I searched for this. I think if there had been such a formula (an optimum way to play every hand that could be easily memorized), then I would have grown bored very quickly and quit.

I do think one of the greatest things about the Theory of Poker is that it deals with poker in this abstract way, even more than HPFAP does. In my opinion that is a primary reason why it is such a great book.

As an aside to this, I am sometimes asked by my friends at work to show them how to play hold 'em "during lunch hour", etc. They want me to teach them how to play so they can go up to the casino and win. These kinds of requests always make me wince, in my opinion the worst thing I could do is give them a few basic rules of play. In my mind this would be "giving them just enough rope so they can hang themselves." In poker, I think the old adage that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing is very true.


Tim

Well, first of all, lets face it: HPFAP does not provide you with all that it takes to become a really good hold 'em player. And I don't think that you have claimed that either, Mason. It's not just experience that's missing, either; what's missing is a deeper understanding of WHY and WHEN to to apply the different "concepts" that are presented. Experience CAN give you the "feel" to act mostly right, but you still won't really UNDERSTAND _why_ what you are doing is right. My impression of HPFAP is that it's too shallow and vague and too MUCH of a "cookbook" - a cookbook of concepts - rather than too complex and deep. To me it feels more like an advanced introduction rather than the complete and perfect textbook on hold 'em that it seems like it is often depicted as. I do not say that it is a bad book, but there is plenty of room for improvement, in theoretical "depth" (like proofs and more specific and clear and complete reasons for conclusions presented) not least. It certainly leaves me unsatisfied, at any rate. There's certainly room for a more advanced theoretical book on the technical side of hold 'em. I would love to see such a book.


Let me be a little more specific about what I feel is missing. Let us take the section that most people seem to view as almost perfect: the pre-flop section. Am I the only one getting confused and not understanding the advice in this section? Am I the only one finding it both too unspecific and too non-general at the same time?


Let's look at the non-generality. The section certainly don't give any theoretical understanding of why the hand rankings are the way they are. It should be of paramount importance for a good hold 'em player to really have a deep understanding of how the different factors affect the hands and their rankings. No such theoretical understanding is attempted to be given to the reader. Instead we get a cookbook pre-fabricated ranking of the hands, that we are expected to "alter" ourselves, based solely on a few vague hints like "some hands, such as 87s, play well against many opponents". No attempt is made even to define what "many opponents" might mean.


What does this lack of theoretical reasoning lead to? It leads to the reader being largely left on his/her own to figure out how to "base" his/her "starting hand decisions [...] on the intrinsic value of each hand in each particular situation," as is stated that you really should do. What if the game isn't 8-11 players with an average of about 4 players staying for the flop (taken from Hold 'Em Poker as a definition of the basis for the hand rankings - and boy, when or where was THAT considered to be "moderately tight?")? "Small pairs and straight flush cards go up in value with many players. High cards and high pairs go down." OK, but in what manner, and how much under different conditions? And where are the dividing lines? And what errors have I made in my own theoretical investigations in which I could not find A SINGLE PLAYABLE HAND that lost value as the number of players increased? Had I known how the proper theory behind these statements (that high cards and high pairs go down with many players in the pot) I would know how to not make these errors in my calculations. I will hopefully find out sooner or later, and I'm not totally clueless(!), but you buy books on a subject to not having to reinvent the wheel yourself, to ease the learning and thinking about the subject. To not have to do basic research yourself.


So, my conclusion is that there is a great lack of theory generally in the poker litterature, HPFAP not excluded. Poker litterature seems to consist only of handbooks, not scientific, theoretical work (HPFAP too is nothing more than a handbook). I hope that this will change. I hope that there will be more scientific research papers and books that will present a deeper, clearer picture to those, like myself, that wishes to learn the subject, not just get the practical know-how of how to win in the games as they are played today.


One exception that I know of is the University of Alberta Computer Poker Research Group. I do not know, though, how knowledgeable these researchers really are. It's very sad to me that the foremost experts and theoreticians known to the poker playing public do not publish their pure research results, but only digested handbook style books. Or am I wrong? I'm still very much a beginner, and only have a few of your books. Please correct me, and direct me, if I'm wrong.

"Or am I wrong? I'm still very much a beginner, and only have a few of your books. Please correct me, and direct me, if I'm wrong."


Well, you could buy some more and find out. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

I will, Mason, I will. Don't worry - you'll get my money. I will buy your Poker Essays books next. But I think I will buy the new book from Ciaffone first - it sounds like it could be a really good handbook on hold 'em. What do you think? Have you received a review copy yet?


No other comments on my post? Any comments on the University of Alberta group? Have you read their latest paper, "The Challenge of Poker"? What's your opinion? How sound and useful are these iterated roll-out simulations? How can you improve on them? Have you and David used any similar techniques? What's your reply to their critique/opinions on your work (they seem to only have the 2nd edition of HPFAP)? Etc., etc.

I have not seen the Ciaffone/Brier book. I suspect that the columns that Jim Brier has been writing for Card Player are either out of the book or related to it. Other than that, I'll see it when it comes out.


David and I sat down with the U of A people a couple of years ago. Our impression is that they are doing good work and are dillentgently trying to improve their models. As for their paper I haven't seen it and David and I have not approached poker the same way even though for stud we have used simulations to improve our understanding -- see SCSFAP.


Also, if they don't have the current edition of our book, they are certainly missing out since we added much new material to it. And finally, I felt your post was fine the way it was and didn't need any improvement from me.

Where can you get a copy of the paper? Is it on the net?


Pat

Yes, go to http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/ and you will find all their papers.


The papers are in PostScript format, as they normally are in the academic world, so you will need e.g. GSview to view it on your computer. It's free software, and you can download it from http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/ if you do not already have it.

Well I agree that HPFAP is not perfect, but it is the best hold 'em book that I have ever read, that is for sure. Having said that, I think it helps tremendously to read a lot of other texts too. Not only will reading the "introductory" texts by Jones and Krieger give you a base to start from, they will allow the concepts discussed in HPFAP make much more sense. In my opinion there is purposefully much left unsaid in HPFAP because there is a certain level of assumption there, that you already have a good basic understanding of the game. Or course this is not often the case for many people, even people who have been playing for years.

I do think that one day we will have a hold 'em text that fills in all the blanks that you were talking about. But until then this is the best book by far that we have, in my opinion. In addition, I think one benefit to it leaving some of the things you discuss out, is that even though it can be a pain to feel like you are "reinventing the wheel," it does force you to think more about the game and about the whys behind the recommendations. Granted this can be frustrating and take more time and lost money, but sometimes things don't really "sink in" as well if every single answer is presented to you on a platter. I have been struggling with my understanding of adjusting and readjusting my preflop strategy and understanding for several years. I feel my understanding is better than most but still has a ways to go to be where I would like it to be. Of course I would like to have a book answer all of my questions, but I don't know if such a book can even exist, this is such a complex game.

I do think that you DEFINITELY should read other books too to enhance your understanding of the concepts talked about in this one. I know you are doing that.

I agree the Ciaffone books are excellent. The mid limit book he and Jim Brier are coming out with in Jan (?) is said to have many pages of examples and sample problems in it, this should help a lot, kind of like the Q & A at the back of HPFAP. Improve Your Poker is also excellent (Ciaffone).

If hold 'em is your game, I think Winning Low Limit Hold 'em by Jones, and "Hold 'em Excellence," by Krieger are pretty necessary. Also "Hold 'em poker" by David Sklansky. In my opinion these 3 books are mandatory reading if you want to deepen your understanding of the game. If you totally absorb these 3 and then HPFAP, you will have a VERY good understanding of the concepts you were talking about. Also, 'inside the Poker Mind" is a great book (John Feeney), it is all about hold 'em and is great. Those 5 and Theory of Poker are must reading in my opinion.

Tim

Referring to the Ten-Nine Problem: "Jim Brier is very negative on the play".


I have a lot of company on this one. Specifically, Roy Cooke, Abdul Jalib, Linda Johnson, Dan Negreanu, Annie Duke, Jan Fisher, Bob Ciaffone, and numerous others have been asked about this play by me over the past year. They all stated that they would check and not bet. Only Phil Helmuth would bet. He stated that he would bet because the pot is large and everyone might fold.


This problem has been debated at length on several major threads over the past two years. David and Mason gave their reasons supporting this play. I gave my reasons stating why I disliked it. Since that time, I have talked to over a dozen prominent players and authors on this play to get other opinions. In my view, when you go for your annual physical and your doctor tells you that you have six months to live, it is worth getting a second opinion. When you get poker advice that seems counter-intuitive, I believe getting other opinions is worthwhile.

"when you go for your annual physical and your doctor tells you that you have six months to live, it is worth getting a second opinion"


I asked my doctor for a second opinion and he said I was ugly too.


BTW, there was a recent thread on RGP, in which David was involved, discussing the T-9 hand.