Cloutier/McEvoy NL/PL/Tournament books?

AcesKracked · #1 06-27-2005, 11:51 PM

I picked up the NL/Pl book the other day and am about half way through. What are the thoughts on this series?
AcesKracked

betgo · #2 06-28-2005, 12:01 AM

Do a search. It has some good information in it, but some misinformation. There is a lot of ridiculous weak/tight advice. Of course, TJ likes to take advantage of weak/tight players. McManus doubled up against TJ and took the lead in the WSOP by letting TJ bluff, figuring McManus would fold AK on a low flop as his book recommended.

The McEvoy/Daugherty books on no limit tournaments and satelites are much better, but not very advanced. "Harrington on Holdem" is the best NLHE tournament book.

The following are some selections from Cloutier/McEvoy.

You should only reraise preflop with AA or KK.

Say you reraise with AK and get two callers. The flop comes AQQ. You should check/fold. While a good player would fold QQ to a reraise, it is likely someone called with QQ and has quads.

Making a big overbet push from late position with a small pair is a bad play. It is better to put in a standard raise. Then you can fold if you are beaten or outdrawn.

Unsuited connectors are as good as suited connectors. You are likely to lose money by making a flush that is not the nuts.

If you raise with AK and miss the flop you should fold. It is obvious your opponent(s) are ahead of you with small to medium pocket pairs.

Say you call a raise and flop a set. Your opponent leads out. You should make a big overbet raise to get your opponent to fold, so he won’t be able to catch anything to beat you. The book indicates that in particular this is the proper way to play against TJ.

Don’t try to steal in particular from late position. Late position steals are too predictable.

avatar77 · #3 06-28-2005, 12:54 AM

the points made are very valid.

However, you must remember that No Limit Hold'em was played much differently when TJ's book was released.

During the pre-poker craze, most players played extremely tight. Even Dan Harrington mentions this in HOH.

Therefore, TJ's book was probably much more relevent to the game played during that era than it is played today where players generally play much more loose and aggressive.

Hold'me · #4 06-28-2005, 10:26 AM

T.J. Cloutier deserves to be shot.

bygmesterf · #5 06-28-2005, 10:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I picked up the NL/Pl book the other day and am about half way through. What are the thoughts on this series?
AcesKracked

[/ QUOTE ]

The question isn't what other people think, it's what you think.

As for what I think, I think that learning the solid approach that TJ/McEvoy advocate is good starting point for a new player. Far too many people are distracted by WPT theatrics to realize that good solid play usually takes down the money.

Because Cloutier/McEvoy play mostly tournamets and before that NL/PL against tough opposition they advocate a solid style that avoids trouble.Because WPT aside, in tough game or tournament if you get out of line you will get snapped off at some point.

AcesKracked · #6 06-28-2005, 09:03 PM

my thoughts,3/4 the way through are that it is a very solid yet overly tight/passive style. I think in a large skilled tournament their game would get you near the end, but I can't see me changing my style. However, it is interesting to read multiple winning players explanation behind their play.

betgo · #7 06-29-2005, 08:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As for what I think, I think that learning the solid approach that TJ/McEvoy advocate is good starting point for a new player. Far too many people are distracted by WPT theatrics to realize that good solid play usually takes down the money.

Because Cloutier/McEvoy play mostly tournamets and before that NL/PL against tough opposition they advocate a solid style that avoids trouble.Because WPT aside, in tough game or tournament if you get out of line you will get snapped off at some point.

[/ QUOTE ]

There a lot of bad loose players, but that doesn't justify a manual advocating a weak/tight approach.

There is NLHE tournament advice in Harrington, Sklansky, and the McEvoy/Daugherty books that I disagree with, but on the whole the material is correct. In this book there are many examples of bizarre and completely wrong advice. There is good material in this book, but it is hard to trust it.

bygmesterf · #8 06-29-2005, 10:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In this book there are many examples of bizarre and completely wrong advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as?

betgo · #9 06-29-2005, 10:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In this book there are many examples of bizarre and completely wrong advice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Such as?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please refer to the following thred where I discuss them in detail.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...36#Post2756884

bygmesterf · #10 06-30-2005, 04:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In this book there are many examples of bizarre and completely wrong advice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Such as?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please refer to the following thred where I discuss them in detail.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...36#Post2756884

[/ QUOTE ]\

Posting a link to your post in same thread is lame.

Non of the advice that you cite is at all unreasonable if you are playing in fairly tough PL/NL Hold'em game. If you give action in cases where you are likely to be beat, you will lose your money.

Reraising (putting in a decent 3rd bet without AA/KK) is a bluff, since you'll get reraised if they have a big pair, and most of the time they will fold otherwise. Sure in 25max you may get action but most of the time you'll only get more action (alot more) if you are beat. There is hardly a better situation than to put the 3rd bet with AA/KK on somone who foolishly raised with AK or AQ.

If you reraise with AK and get two calls, A flop of AQQ is not something you want, because if you bet what will they call you with? AJo? Again, you're only going to get action if you are beat. TPTK isn't a hand to go broke on.

Making a big overbet push from late position with a small pair is a bad play. Because if you get raised your small pair is toast. If you regularly put more than 1/8th of your stack in preflop, you won't have enough implied odds to make playing a speculative hand profitable.

Unsuited connectors are as good as suited connectors. You are likely to lose money by making a flush that is not the nuts. Flush boards tend to kill the action, in a way that a straight board does not. If you get action on a flush board, chances are somone else has bigger flush than you, or maybe a draw at bigger flush than you. Being suited adds some value to your hand, but not as much as most people think.

If you raise with AK and miss the flop you should fold. It is obvious your opponent(s) are ahead of you with small to medium pocket pairs. Bluffing with AK when you miss is a big flaw in most people's game.

Say you call a raise and flop a set. Your opponent leads out. You should make a big overbet raise to get your opponent to fold, so he won’t be able to catch anything to beat you. Slowplaying too much is big big big mistake and also very common. I would estimate that 71% of bad beat stories at PL/NL Hold'em involve slowplays that backfired. If you have a set, you want to get action on the flop, not later in the hand when you might be beat.

Again nothing that TJ/McEvoy say is at all controversial, it might seem weak tight, but again reread the chapter on knowing your opponents. If they get out of line, you can get out of line, but if they play in the lines, you had damn well better do so to.

And as is usual when people critize the Championship series, (TJ,McEvoy,Stern,Johnson,Daugherty), the championship authors have about 15 more Bracelets than the critics do.