HOH EXPOSED

[KeyToTheMint]

[ QUOTE ]
The mistake here is not in what he wrote, but in your interpretation of what he wrote.



[/ QUOTE ]

He told me I am giving my opponent 2.5 to 1 odds. I am giving
him up to 4.8 to 1 odds. I am not the one misinterpreting

[KeyToTheMint]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd have to reread the book to do this.

My main complaint is mostly for inexperienced players. Its
not clear to them in some examples that there are no implied
odds because we are not going to be calling a decent size bet
if the draw gets there, and in other examples just the opposite. We will be calling and there is no mention of the
implied odds (hand 4-9).

[grimel]

[ QUOTE ]
"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

[/ QUOTE ]

Last I checked a pot of 620 give about 2.5 on a bet of 250.

[The Legend]

The problem here is you are viewing this from a different perspective as Harrington was trying to portray in the book. The way you are explaining this is correct, from the view of a person who can see this entire hand from all points of view. If he will always call with the trip kings on the river, then you are giving the guy proper odds. The problem here is you have to look solely at the perspective of the individuals involved in the hand. To the player on the flush draw, he is getting the improper odds to draw to the flush. Because this is early in an online sng, the player has no reads on the other, and has no idea how much implied odds he has. To him, he is probably getting no more than 3 to 1.

Now, based on our decision to always call an all in raise even when the flush card hits, we are giving him proper odds. The problem is he(Mr. flush draw) dosen't know this, and there is a very good chance he isn't even on the flush draw at all, so in the end it probably is a +EV play to call.

One good thing about your post though is that is does challenge the authority that all these books are the word of God and we must follow blindly. We should be objective and challenge this information. That said, I love this book and am positive it helped my game.

Oh, and that 17 out error pisses me off, because you were right. But that error is subtle and doesn't affect the analytical value of the book.

[KeyToTheMint]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"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

[/ QUOTE ]

Last I checked a pot of 620 give about 2.5 on a bet of 250.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what?

I am talking about implied odds.

For the record I never said Harrington's answer was wrong.
The way he arrived at the answer (without any regard for implied odds) is wrong to do and it sets up the weaker players for a downfall.

It is only for this reason I can't call the book great.

Last time you checked was a straight and a flush draw 17 outs
as hand 5-4 suggests?

[trdi]

[ QUOTE ]
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."

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 he's a bad writer, you are a bad reader.
"He's more than 4 to 1 to hit his flush" --- to HIT his flush --- to HIT his flush. This is a 100% accurate sentence. Odds to HIT his flush are as written, these are NOT odds for winning the hand. If you think these are odds for winning the hand, please show me where is this written.

EDIT: I see that someone mentioned this before, but you still don't admit your mistake...

[trdi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Last I checked a pot of 620 give about 2.5 on a bet of 250.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what?

I am talking about implied odds.

For the record I never said Harrington's answer was wrong.



[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you did. You said "error", while all of his calculations in this hand are correct. All of them, including 2.5 to call (he can't know you are going to call his flush, can't he??? So he is making a mistake by calling 2.5-1. You seem to have problems putting yourself in your opponent's shoes...) and the flush odds.

Dan says: "This is not a beginner's book". He thinks that the reader knows the answer to this question:
If you on BB have 24o and 50000$ and SB raised the blind 3 times to 150$ (with stack 50000$), would it be correct to call if you KNOW he will call your all-in? The answer is, of course, yes, as you have great pot odds. But once again - Dan thinks that reader of his book already knows that. But thanks again for clearing that out for us...

[KeyToTheMint]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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."

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 he's a bad writer, you are a bad reader.
"He's more than 4 to 1 to hit his flush" --- to HIT his flush --- to HIT his flush. This is a 100% accurate sentence. Odds to HIT his flush are as written, these are NOT odds for winning the hand. If you think these are odds for winning the hand, please show me where is this written.

EDIT: I see that someone mentioned this before, but you still don't admit your mistake...

[/ QUOTE ]

My last attempt.
His analysis is poor. It does not discuss negation of outs. It should since the sentence reads "...if he knows what you have." Moreover in determining "...its a blunder for him to
call.." the judgement cannot be made without considering the implied odds. He doesn't consider or mention the implied odds. It's not so much what he wrote, but what he didn't write.

I give up now, I am not going to write anymore about this.

[trdi]

Yeah, but consider this: everyone else understands this hand like "being correct". You only understand it other way. You can't say the book can lead to misunderstanding if only you so far misunderstood it. There will NEVER be written a book which wouldn't be somewhere misunderstood by someone. I'll give it one more shot to explain this to you.
The author doesn't write about not being correct to call (even if he saw opponent's hand) because his odds would be 4 to 1. He would make a mistake because his FLUSH odds are more than 4-1, seeing what opponent has only further lowers his odds.
Once again - 99.9% of readers understand this the way I described. You have every right to say the book is not good, but your arguments are objectively not correct.

[Nuwanda]

As a general note, I've read HOH twice -- I think the book is great and it has significantly improved my play. For an immediate player, I rate it 8 out of 10.