HFAP and Ciaffone-Brier book different?

Well, obviously they are different books but I was wondering if they contain much of the same material or if there is stuff in the new book that David and Mason do not agree with. I have HFAP but I was thinking of getting the new Ciaffone-Brier book to see if there is anything groundbreaking in it. HFAP was also written with a mid-limit game in mind so I'm wondering what kind of different stuff there is in the new book besides the 400 problems.

The Brier/Ciaffone book has lots of questions and answers. HP4AP doesn't have a lot of concrete examples, and Brier/Ciaffone think that concrete examples are extemely important. One thing that I like about the Brier/Ciaffone book is that it really gets you to think about the game. There is, however, a lot of advice that I don't agree with. One thing that I kept thinking as I was reading was, "man, these guys fold a lot." Folding a lot pre-flop is good. I think that if you fold as much as they recommend after the flop, you're likely to get run over (speaking as someone who used to get run over at $8/16 hold'em). They seem to live in constant fear of the nuts. Mason has suggested that this is because Ciaffone plays a lot of big bet poker, where mistakes can cost you your entire stack. In limit, of course, mistaken calls only cost you a bet or three. I think another reason for this is that Ciaffone plays a lot of Omaha, a game in which nut hands are common. One thing that they emphasize is that if you're drawing, your draw should be to the nuts. Drawing to small flushes is usually OK, really. I don't remember the last time I made a flush and lost to a larger flush. It happens, sure, but it is not a commonplace occurrence. Again, in Omaha, you generally don't want to be drawing to a hand that is not the nuts. I think that HP4AP is the better book, and I think most would agree. I do think, though, that Brier/Ciaffone is worth picking up. It's $25, and if you're a middle limit player, that's about one bet.

There are over 400 problems in the book.Only about 25% of the answers are folds. There are more problems where the correct answer is to bet, raise, or check-raise than to fold.


We frequently recommend folding baby flush draws on the flop in situations where there are a lot of players (usually four or more) who are betting ,raising, and cold-calling in an attempt to take off cards and see the turn. In these special situations, we think the likelihood of being up against a larger flush draw is so high as to make playing on unprofitable. Problem #1 on Page 286 is a good example of this.


There are many examples in the book where we recommend playing a non-nut flush draw aggressively by betting or raising. Problem #3 on Page 109, Problem #6 on Page 111, and Problem #8 on Page 112 are all examples of taking aggressive action having a non-nut flush draw.

"There are over 400 problems in the book.Only about 25% of the answers are folds. There are more problems where the correct answer is to bet, raise, or check-raise than to fold."


Jim:


I think you are missing the point here, and it is one of the exact same points that I made the other night when we had our conversation. When I look at your book, and only consider the questions that you say to fold, I question the majority of the ones that I have read (and I have now read a little over half the book).


Now, just to set the record straight, when I say I question, it doesn't mean that I will always play. In some cases I would always play, while in other cases I would occasionally play.


I believe that this is what Andy B is referring to. The fact that you have other questions where the answer is something other than folding is not what he is addressing.


By the way, as I told you there are other questions where you say to call and I sometimes think that raising would be better. There are also many problem descriptions where you have the hero calling and I would have raised. A typical example which appears several times is when you have ace-king and only call a raise from a middle position player after someone else has limped in. In my opinion these are almsot all thre bet spots.

Well Mason, maybe I am missing the point. It sounds like what has happened is that a small subset of problems, where we recommend folding and others think playing on is right, is being used to make a sweeping generalization about the entire book. I have no problem with other people questioning our answers on a couple of dozen problems since this represents less than 10% of all the problems. However, someone unfamiliar with the book may not understand it this way and come to an erroneous conclusion.


"A typical example which appears several times is when you have ace-king and only call a raise from a middle position player after someone else limps in. In my opinion these are almost all three bet spots."


But on Page 36 of our book we clearly state: "The holding of A-K (nicknamed "Big Slick"), whether suited or not, is a flexible holding. You can either reraise or call depending upon a number of factors." Space does not permit a detailed discussion of when 3-betting versus cold-calling is correct. At the beginning of the book on Page 2 we state: "Although we have avoided using any problems where the preconditions involve an egregious error, this does not mean we endorse all the previous actions taken. The problems are taken from live games and sometimes a questionable play was made." So I think we address this in the book.

"The holding of A-K (nicknamed "Big Slick"), whether suited or not, is a flexible holding. You can either reraise or call depending upon a number of factors."


probably a number of people would take exception to this,

(although suppose UTG raises, 5 cold callers, youre on the button with AKo and here you might even wish you could fold /images/smile.gif )

especially in a three way pot.


but anyway, i plan on getting youre book, maybe partly because everybody is talking about it.


brad

If there is a limper, a raiser, and then it is your turn with ace-king,if you view this as a flexible holding I think you are making a big mistake. Your reraise can easily knock everyone else out (including the blinds) plus the limper might fold. Now you might be able to win without improving. I reraise here everytime.


What's puzzling to me about this is that in my conversation with Jim B I discussed this and other plays in his book where they always choose the option to save that bet -- this gets back to the folding too much. I think he should know exactly what I'm talking about which I believe is the exact same point that Andy B makes.

agree 100%. i auto 3 bet.


when i said (talking about smooth calling)


'probably a number of people would take exception to this,

...

especially in a three way pot. '


i was being generous.


brad

One thing. Even though you and I agree, and that the play might seem obvious to us, it doesn't mean that it isn't worthy of discussion. So if Jim wants to come in here I'll be back to check.

Suppose you are in a game where once two or more players seem committed, further raising will not fold anyone who was planning to call anyway. Especially if the blinds are loose and will usually come for one or two more bets. Your 3-bet may not be effective in thinning the field. I was playing in a Commerce $40-$80 game a couple of weeks ago that was like this.


Another situation is when the raiser is very tight and will only raise on AA, KK, QQ, or AK. It is rare to find someone who raises this tightly but such players do exist.

I came back to this thread for a different reason which I will get to below. But let me address your two examples first.


I think your first example is debatable. That's because if your opponents yet to act are playing this bad and are going to call with anything, you might be giving up too much before the flop by not three betting even though you can't thin the field.


The argument for not three betting is a spot like this is that it gives you some strategic advantages later in the hand which can help make up for the theorectical lost revenue before the flop. (See HPFAP-21 for more discussion.) But if they are playing as badly as you describe, I'm not sure if that's the case.


I disagree with your second situation. If the raiser is very tight and will only raise with AA, KK, QQ, or AK, I don't think that you should be calling. You should fold instead.


This was addressed in the Slotboom thread which debated a similar idea. But you are roughly even money against QQ and AK, but are a big dog against AA, and a smaller but still significant dog against KK. I don't think the blind money can make up for it.


Now the reason for why I came back to this thread. Even though I got involved in it, I want everyone to know that I am not yet ready to give an evaluation of the book Middle Limit Hold 'em Poker by Ciaffone and Brier. I need to finish it and have a lot more reading to do. So any comments I make are only preliminary in nature and my opinions may change significantly as I (very slowly) read more.


Also, just to set the record straight. My very slow read has nothing to do with the way the book is written. It has more to do with some other projects that I am currently involved in which are slowly getting finished.

Thanks Mason. That is good feedback. In the second case it might be correct to simply fold against an extremely tight raiser. However, I respectively submit that this case is different than the Slotboom situation because there is additional money in the pot due to the presence of additional players besides just the blind money.


For what it is worth, I usually 3-bet with slick in these situations anyway so I am not really disagreeing with you or brad.

you are a genuine hero jim..gl