|
|
#1
05-16-2005, 11:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
HOH EXPOSED
I just finished reading Harrington On Hold'em. I might be the only one, but I didn't think it was a
great book. I found it to be a book that's just okay with the potential to cause a lot of problems for its readers. There are computational errors, along with incorrect analysis. There is a further fundamental error in the book. The readership of poker books in some cases tend to be weak players whose problem is playing too many hands and going too far with them. If that's your problem and you have great difficulty laying down strong hands, then some of the recommendations of giving incorrect odds, are in fact giving your opponent correct implied odds. That is, your opponents are not making a mistake: you are. When you make mistakes, and your opponents do not, you go broke. Let me make it clear the book is right if you have good reading skills and the conviction to lay down a hand when you "know" your beat. Then you did in fact give your opponent incorrect odds because your not paying off subsequent bet(s). By the way, in the text it's not clear that your going to be folding later, and the weak player is certainly not going to infer it either. That's the books fundamental error. The other errors computational and incorrect analysis however cannot be explained and in some ways are intolerable. Lets look at a an incorrect analysis. pg 167 hand 4-9. Part A: "Against most opponents you should bet about $250 here. To call, he would have to put in $250 for a pot of $620, about 2.5 to 1 odds. He's more than 4 to 1 to hit his flush, so it's a blunder for him to call if he knows what you have." Part B: "A set of kings against a possible flush is just too good a situation to throw away." First he is much more than a 4 to 1 dog. Two of his flush outs make you a full house. This means he's more than a 5 to 1 dog. Secondly, if he moves in your calling so he's getting much better than 2.5 to 1 odds (considering implied odds), since you must call according to part b. In reality he's getting nearly 5 to 1 odds. One more comment, Mason likes to criticize books by others. Here is an example from GTAOT about Tom McEvoy's Tournament Poker, "...there are still numerous errors present. As an example, in the hold'em section the author points out that A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] with a flop of K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] where someone else holds a king is approximately a 2 to 1 dog. He forgets that your ace may be good, and thus you could have 12 outs instead of 9 (assuming that your opponent does not improve his hand). There are many errors like this throughout the book." This amounts to nothing more than a computational error and Mason prints books with these errors all the time. From hand 5-4 HoH pg 221 holding 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] and a board of T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] we are informed our opponent holds 17 outs (9 flush cards and 8 straight cards). He actually has 15 since the J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] and 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] are counted twice. There are a lot of errors dealing with pot size, odds etc in the book. I'll only give this example since i am not the paid editor of the work and it will suffice. Summation: i give Harrington On Hold'em a 6 out of 10 (with 10 being perfect) if the reader is an experienced decent poker player. I give it 3 out of 10 if the reader is inexperienced. It is poorly written with errors everywhere, including pot size, number of outs, what your actual pot odds are etc. Also it is not clear to the newbie that at times he's going to be laying down to a turn or river bet when the opponent makes his hand, otherwise you did in fact give your opponent the right odds. This is the part where Mason likes to chime in with the book was over my head and will suggest a more remedial poker book (oh goody for me) Remember the Emperor's New Clothes, but let the flaming begin 
|
|
#3
05-16-2005, 11:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HOH EXPOSED
[ QUOTE ]
Lets look at a an incorrect analysis. pg 167 hand 4-9. Part A: "Against most opponents you should bet about $250 here. To call, he would have to put in $250 for a pot of $620, about 2.5 to 1 odds. He's more than 4 to 1 to hit his flush, so it's a blunder for him to call if he knows what you have." Part B: "A set of kings against a possible flush is just too good a situation to throw away." First he is much more than a 4 to 1 dog. Two of his flush outs make you a full house. This means he's more than a 5 to 1 dog. Secondly, if he moves in your calling so he's getting much better than 2.5 to 1 odds (considering implied odds), since you must call according to part b. In reality he's getting nearly 5 to 1 odds. [/ QUOTE ] I don't have the book to hand so I can't see the example you are referring to. However: 1) Using your figures, you've just calculated that the opponent is getting 'nearly 5 to 1 odds' on a situation which you've said he's 'more than a 5 to 1 dog' so why then is he correct not to fold his hand, as you imply he would be? 2) Implied odds are calculated by taking into account the future amounts likely to be won based on the size of the current call. Therefore you compare the cost of calling with the potential amount to be won. Re-raising is not taken into account as you have done here. Depending on the stack sizes in the example there may be implied odds in the call, but if a flush card hits on the turn then its possible that KK can get off the hand. If the flush card does not hit on the turn then the flush draw will face another sizable bet to call on the turn with even worse chances to hit if he does. Therefore, it would be better to use the odds of hitting the flush on the next card only in the implied odds calculation here. Again I suspect this would point to a clear fold. 3) If the opponent moves in here, as you suggest, and is called then he gets even money on his bet (plus whatever is in the pot from blinds, etc) as a 'more than 5 to 1' dog. Such a move would rely on there being fold equity in making such a bet which, as you've already stated, is nil in this case. He does not get 5 to 1 implied odds as you state. Whichever way you look at it the advice in the book looks pretty solid to me. Perhaps a 'more remedial' book would not be a bad idea. Your understanding of implied odds appears to be flawed from the content of your post. Sheriff Edit: My original interpretation was that the 4 to 1 odds referred to the odds of hitting the flush on the turn or the river. However, on re-reading, it does look to be just the odds of hitting the flush on the turn. This means that some of my comments in section 2 are incorrect. I guess I need the remedial book too!
|
|
#4
05-16-2005, 01:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HOH EXPOSED
Right, I'm home from work now and have looked up the example quoted (which turns out to be A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] on a board of K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (I'd assumed from the reference to a set of Kings that it was KK being held with a 3rd King on the flop).
First of all I think the reference to being 'more than 4 to 1' to hit the flush is deliberately vague as an opponent might well count all 9 flush outs as clean in a quick calculation, concluding that he is a 9/46 (i.e. just over a 4 to 1) dog. Being nitpicky over the exact odds would have been appropriate if the book had incorrectly calculated the exact odds but this example doesn't do that. In reality, the pair on board on the turn should make any opponent wary of drawing to a flush as he should realise that he is unlikely to have 9 clean outs. At best he is drawing to 7 flush outs (assuming the bettor currently has only 2 pair). If the opponent has a King (as indeed he does) then 3 spades (9, 3 and his kicker) are no good to him and if he's up against KK, 99 or 33 then he's in even worse shape. Consequently, in my view, the most optimistic calculation the opponent could make here is that he has 7/46 outs, making him well over a 5 to 1 dog. Looking at the stack sizes quoted the bettor has $830 left after the turn card is dealt. Therefore a $250 bet by him would leave him with only $580 remaining. In this scenario, the current pot would be $620 with a potential for the opponent to win a total of $1,200. A $250 call therefore does not give sufficient implied odds to make the call correct. Sheriff
|
|
#5
05-17-2005, 08:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HOH EXPOSED
[ QUOTE ]
The other errors computational and incorrect analysis [/ QUOTE ] Can you identify the other problems or sections where there are mistakes. You need not explain what they are, but I'd like to know which other problems you found had what you believed were incorrect information. I'll review them myself for the kind of errors you have described. Thanks.
|
|
#6
05-18-2005, 12:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HOH EXPOSED
[ QUOTE ]
At best he is drawing to 7 flush outs (assuming the bettor currently has only 2 pair). [/ QUOTE ] Actually, at best he has a hand like Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], or J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], which gives him 3.4:1 odds. If his hand contains the A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] or 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], he has 4.5:1 odds. On the off-chance he has both, his odds are 4:1. This is sort of an exercise in looking for monsters under the bed, but I think it's useful, anyway.
|
|
#7
05-18-2005, 01:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HOH EXPOSED
[ QUOTE ]
He's more than 4 to 1 to hit his flush, so it's a blunder for him to call if he knows what you have." First he is much more than a 4 to 1 dog. Two of his flush outs make you a full house. This means he's more than a 5 to 1 dog. [/ QUOTE ] If you read the quote you provided above, he says he is a more than 4-1 dog to hit the flush. He does NOT say he is a 4-1 dog to win the hand. The mistake here is not in what he wrote, but in your interpretation of what he wrote. I did find his use of odds to win at showdown to validate calling preflop a bit suspect. (You will often have to fold before showdown so you should be at least taking into consideration odds of getting a favorable flop...) But, on the whole, I found the book to be very good. It has certainly helped my SnG game.
|
|
#9
05-18-2005, 10:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HOH EXPOSED
[ QUOTE ]
In this scenario, the current pot would be $620 with a potential for the opponent to win a total of $1,200. A $250 call therefore does not give sufficient implied odds to make the call correct. Sheriff [/ QUOTE ] This is not my point. My point is Harrington is telling the reader if your opponent is on the flush draw your giving him 2.5 to 1 odds. You are not. You are giving him almost 5-1 odds since Harrington is very clear your paying off if the flush comes in this example. In this particular instance he is totally ignoring implied odds when he gives the figure 2.5 to 1. This does not bode well for the inexperienced player. It is sloppy writing and easily fixed. Look at Mason's Mcevoy example. McEvoy basically left out the disclaimer you know you need to hit the flush to win. So Mason jumps on it and invents ace outs (which aren't clean) and suddenly we have up to 12 outs. It is so noteworthy to Mason it's in his review. In the Harrington example I am not inventing anything. I am giving my opponent up to 4.8 to 1 odds and it is written I am giving him 2.5 to 1. This is a huge difference. This is not a computational error. It is a fundamental error which makes it potentially so bad to the inexperienced player. Are we giving the opponent 2.5 to 1 or 4.8 to 1? Which is it? It can't be both. In problem 4-9 we have the best of it regardless. However, in many situations it will matter and knowing what the correct answer is, and how to get it will be the difference between winning and losing. For the record I enjoyed the book and I am glad Harrington/Robertie wrote it. I kind of felt bad writing my review but I thought my issue's were important enough to mention.
|
|
#10
05-18-2005, 10:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HOH EXPOSED
[ QUOTE ]
"Secondly, if he moves in your calling so he's getting much better than 2.5 to 1 odds" Really?? Much better than 2.5:1 if he moves in? How big was that pot again? [/ QUOTE ] Pot =620 Your stack remaining =580 Your giving him a chance to win 1200 (pot + your stack) for only 250. 1200/250= 4.8 to 1 odds. If you own the book and didn't know this, you just proved my point.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
