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

[LearnedfromTV]

I agree, both that the books are very good and that there is a general trend toward overappeal to authority here, particularly Harrington. The most annoying part of this to me is the notion that inflection point theory and M was revolutionary. Anyone who has read the SNG forum knows that a great deal of highly developed work on push/fold poker had been done by posters there prior to HOH II coming out. Suddenly everyone starts using the M vocabulary like it is a brand new concept.

There were definitely things I learned from in HOH II, a lot of things, but there were a lot of things I already knew, a few things I disagreed with, and a few things that weren't developed as well as I would have liked. I think he shortchanges the more aggressive playing styles. There *is* thorough analysis that can be done that support a broader playbook than Harrington advocates (his one-paragraph dismissing of the bluff check raise is one example of an oversimplification).

I think it will be interesting when Raymer's book comes out, partly because I am sure he will present some ideas that differ from Harrington's, and partly because those who don't think for themselves will have a new set of thoughts to parrot.

amen to that. Harrington's books are guidelines to work from at best, although you can't say they were not helpful.
Using a watch as a Randomizer (for those hands when there is a certain percentage to raise and call and fold) was something that caught my eye as a bit too...silly and mechanical. I find that situation and the current status and mood, etc. of the other players at the table is a better randomizer.

Mike

[ QUOTE ]
amen to that. Harrington's books are guidelines to work from at best, although you can't say they were not helpful.
Using a watch as a Randomizer (for those hands when there is a certain percentage to raise and call and fold) was something that caught my eye as a bit too...silly and mechanical. I find that situation and the current status and mood, etc. of the other players at the table is a better randomizer.

Mike

[/ QUOTE ]

Something told me he added that part in so that next time he plays, everyone won't know exactly how he is playing, and still puts a random quality to his game. Sort of like his comment about raising with suited connectors under the gun sometimes, I think they were just a way for him to not completely give his game away so he can still be sucessful.

(Never used a watch as a randomizer, I'm with you on table dynamics being my main factor).