Lindgren vs. Harrington

[tewall]

Harrington advises play which defines the situation, whereas Lindgren advocates playing in a way which leaves things less defines. To give a specific example, going from memory, in his book on getting to the final table Lindgren recommends check-calling to trap an opponent with a flop of Kxx and a hand of something like KQ. His reasoning is if you bet, you will cause a worse opponent to fold, but get action from an opponent with a better hand, whereas by playing passively you can induce a weaker hand to act. Of course this is a common play for a strong hand, but he's recommending it for a moderately strong hand. He says that you will lose more chips to AK by playing this way, but more than make up for it by inducing weaker hands to act. He reasons that if you're in a situation where betting will either get a worse hand to fold, or a better hand to raise, then this suggests checking.

Harrington throughout his books recommends actions which lead to clear-cut decisions. He says the mark of a good play is to play in a way where he avoids putting himself in a position of having to make difficult decisions for all his chips.

Lindgren, OTOH, seems to beg for these situations.

I notice that most of the posts here usually follow Harrington's logic. Particularly on-line, and multi-tabling, it may make sense to use an approach which isn't so read intensive, as Lindgren's is.

So which is it? Play for clarity, looking for clearly defined edges? Or play for max EV, regardless of the risk, and difficult decisions it brings? (or is this a fair summary?)

[splashpot]

Maybe you should ask this in the MTT forum. Both Harrington and Lindgren are talking about MTT play, if I'm not mistaken. The reason being that STTs and MTTs are totally different. STTs are all about survival. As long as you can steal blinds and stick around to get into the money, you're playing good SNG poker. Merely surviving doesn't cut it in MTTs. Trapping an opponent on a Kxx board with KQ has makes much more sense in a MTT because the risk you take by "not defining your hand" is rewarded by occassionally taking his whole stack. In a SNG, that risk of busting is too great and goes against the law of survival.

[curtains]

FWIW I liked Lindgrens book better, but probably Harrington's is more useful for most beginning players.

[tewall]

I've seen a number of posters, (for example in the what makes for a good player post) state that in the early rounds one should maximize EV as in a cash game. Given this, it seems to me the Lindgren's advice would apply just as much in an STT as an MTT.

FWIW, I agree with your comments. That is, my strategy is geared at blind stealing, playing good bubble strategy, and avoiding trouble early on. This is easily adequate for lower levels, but for the higher levels it looks like this isn't enough, since, as I mentioned, several posters emphasized maximizing EV in the early stages by using tactics one would find in cash games.

Appreciate your thoughts.

I think this is mainly dependent on how deep you are and the skill level of your opponents.

If your opponents suck, you should play in a way that allows YOU to define THEIR hand. (Defining your own hand to your opponent is rarely correct. Of course, there are times in freezeouts in which you should push with aces and turn your cards over because getting called is -EV for both you and the caller, but I'm ignoring this.). Frequently, this means playing in a way that would define your own hand to a good player.

If your stack is deep, defining your hand sucks because your opponent has high implied odds if your hand is hard to fold and tons of chips to scare you with if your hand is marginal. For example, in the cash game I currently play in, players tend to have ~200 BBs. There's a player whose preflop raising standards are something like TT+/AK, and he never folds an overpair. Against him, 44 = the nuts because I know what he has and how he'll play and he has no idea what I have or how I'll paly. If we had 50 BBs, or if this were an SnG with like 10-20BBs, my strategy would be very different.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I agree. I finished Lindgren's book last week and already feel it has helped my game. Both books have key concepts that can be applied to different situations. Everybody talks about being able to change gears, well, these two books are great examples of two different gears.

I liked Lingren's book alot and it is close to my style for MTTs. For STTs, I think tight agressive is the way to go (with my infrequent UTG raise with 78s for game theory/implied odds/bluffing reasons). There isn't much postflop play in STTs, so I'd just stick with Aleo's guide, eastbay's posts, and other advice (except for mine) on this forum.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
Harrington throughout his books recommends actions which lead to clear-cut decisions. He says the mark of a good play is to play in a way where he avoids putting himself in a position of having to make difficult decisions for all his chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Harrington is specifically talking about the conservative style of play when he makes comments about "avoiding difficult decisions." Near the front of HoH he clearly reviews the many different styles of play, and states that they all can be effective for a talented player. Then he goes on to say that he will concentrate on teaching the conservative style, since it is the easiest to learn.

I do not think Harrington would argue that Lindgren's advice is wrong, only that it is a different style.

To me it depends on who is in control of the hand...i.e. who raised pre-flop, or if no raise, who is in position. If I raised pre-flop, I will bet with the top pair. It's better to win a small pot than lose a big one. And one pair is just not safe in holdem. Plus, it keeps people from calling when you continuation bet after missing the flop.

If someone else is in control of the hand, I will check and call. I don't want them to stop betting if they missed, and I don't want to raise or lead out into AK or AA.

If I'm heads-up at the end of a tourney, I might slowplay top pair to try to bust a guy. But slowplaying top pair is almost never a good idea.

[pergesu]

I haven't read Lindgren's book...but I'm pretty sure Harrington would agree that if your opponent will only call/raise with better hands than yours, but be willing to bet a wide range of hands that are worse than yours, then you're much better off checking to him and either popping him on the flop or calling down until the river where you raise (his rope-a-dope). That's just basic poker strategy in general. Make the play that will get your opponent to put the most chips in on a weaker hand, or make the play that will get him to fold a better hand.