I have a pet peeve too. (sort of long?)

[ansky451]

The obsession with Dan Harrington.

OK. That will turn some heads probably from you HOHaholics. I think his books are probably the best on tourney poker out there, and can help turn good cash players into good tournament players. I do however, think that all the "well Harrington said in HOH2 on page 63 bla bla bla," is usually a bad way to justify a play.

I have HOH1, and I've read through it once, and I skimmed through HOH2 at B&N. Don't get me wrong, I am NOT critisizing the books at all, I am critisizing the people who use it like the bible of all tournament decisions.

Getting better at poker is all about learning from YOUR mistakes. I can guarentee in a tournament you will encounter about 10000 situations which you will have to be creative about, and come up with your own decision... BY YOURSELF! Your reasoning behind every decision is more important then making a correct decision in that specific spot. If you are thinking about poker on the right track good things will happen. If you are a bot who just makes default decisions you will never win the way you want to, and against good opponents you will get absolutely destroyed.

Another problem I have with the application of HOH on these boards, is the unbeleivable misuse of some of his strategy. People see the 62o squeeze, and decide that everytime the pot has been opened and called, they have to push with 20 bbs. Well, you have to have a DAMN good read on both players to use it. Poker is a completely situational game, and you always have to recognize the current situation you are in. The squeeze may work in the wrong spot sometimes, which is another reason I say that reasoning is more important than the decision itself. You may pat yourself on the back when you get it to work, and they both fold. But for all you know there was about a 1/15 chance of it working given their respective ranges.

Another commonly misused thing, is the play with AK at the FT of the 2003 WSOP. I have seen multiple people justify cold calling with AK, then saying something about how Harrington did it. Well guess what, you arent at the final table of the world series. If you are in a 10 dollar multi, DECEPTION IS OF VERY LITTLE IMPORTANCE. Like I said, its all situational, and there are some situations for cold calling AK preflop. Guess what, usually you should jam with it. Sometimes you should fold it, sometimes you should just call. There has to be a damn good reason for any of the decisions, because it is a very common decision you will face.

So don't treat Harrington's book like it's the be-all end-all of poker wisdom. Have some balls and be creative, and figure [censored] out on your own sometimes. Harrington will help you get from level 1 to level 2, but you have to get past level 2. I don't know what these levels mean, I just made that up, but the point I'm making is clear I hope. Discovering your own strengths, and getting great reads on your opponents is up to you and only you. I play my style based on the way I feel I will perform the best. I'm probably LAG, maybe I'm a maniac. Yeah I call raises in position with 49s sometimes, I also might muck AJo in the same spot, but its all situational, and you HAVE to recognize what the situation you are in should lead you to do.

[MLG]

could. not. agree. more.

Many of the top players of this board have expressed the same sentiments.

[KneeCo]

I agree, but I think one important distinction needs to be made.

People saying "well Harrington said in HOH2 on page 63 bla bla bla," can be very irritating, especially since there's is little, if any, of that kind of advice in the HoH books.

I think the strenght of the books is that they don't try to layout a blueprint for winning NLHE MTTs rather try to teach you how to write your own. In other words, I think the books are structured in such a way that they agree with your point that individual reasoning and situational decisions are paramount to winning poker. The pet peeve is that a lot of people don't see it.

[benneh]

I honestly don't get all the spite and hatred for this because i've not seen one post that has said the stuff you pointed out.

[mlagoo]

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't get all the spite and hatred for this because i've not seen one post that has said the stuff you pointed out.

[/ QUOTE ]

people do apply a lot of the advice he has regarding deep stack tournament play to online tournaments though, which is fairly misguided

[adanthar]

Is this where I pimp my 'HoH2 kinda sucked' thread again?

Word. Not that I have seen many post of this sort but I have seen a few. I completely agree with you that every decision is unique and shouldn't be done on an automatic basis.

[Firefly]

Yup.
I haven't even read HOH (one or two) I will eventually, but for now, it's about playing MY game, in MY situations. Generally Harrington does have some good ideas (or so it seems to me) just that blanket applications of rules suck.

Great post.

I loved HOH1, and read parts of HOH2 in the bookstore much like you, and I think the greatest part of HOH1 is the hand problems where he walks thru each situation and gives reasons to why he would do this or that, and even has the player in the hand make a different decision to show what happens when you don't make a big enough bet/bet too much. It also shows that even playing an optimal strategy, you will lose some hands playing like that. Do I follow everything in that book to a T? Not at all, when I first started playing poker, I'd play almost every hand to a flop, and developed decent postflop skills, but was not aggressive at all (you could call me a calling station. Then I read SSHE and HEPFAP, and developed a tight game, and was a little more aggressive preflop, and aggressive postflop. Eventually I got more aggressive preflop when I started getting more confidence and played a good tight aggressive game, then I read HOH, and it said in there that tight aggressive is a good approach, but it's not the end all be all approach, and showed why other approaches could be good.

Now, I can play loose aggressive and tight aggressive fairly well, and switch gears seamlessly. I sometimes browse thru HOH, but don't use hand charts or tricky plays in there unless the situation calls for it.

Do I think HOH1 made me a better player? Absolutely. Do I follow his advice 100% to a T? Nope, not at all. I think his book and Sklansky's books helped my games tenfold, but I think the experience I got afterwards applying what I learned and putting my own twist on it is equally as valuable.

I wish all the other players would follow HOH to a T, it would be much easier for me to win, I could loosen my game up alot and take down lots of pots and know when to get away from a hand 4 out of 5 times.

And I 100% agree with the squeeze play too, I have used it to success before, and have used it to horrible results at the same time. It is not a play that I will go out of my way to find, and not something that is part of my normal game (much like the bluff check raise, I will use it on occasion, but not as much as I see some players doing it).

I have gotten off topic I think, I tend to rant alot.

[ QUOTE ]
Word. Not that I have seen many post of this sort but I have seen a few. I completely agree with you that every decision is unique and shouldn't be done on an automatic basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think context is irrelevant and poker can be played automatically, out of a book.

Come on. There may be posts here that imply that kind of thinking, but nobody thinks they think this way. Sort of like how everyone thinks "my style is pretty much tight aggressive".

Everyone knows they are supposed to think for themselves, it's the doing it that's difficult.