|
|
#1
02-03-2005, 08:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
My first complaint about Harrington on Hold \'em.
The book is starting to fall apart. I've literally read and re-read some pages so many times that they're starting to come loose from the binding.
This isn't really a complaint. It's a pleasure to find a poker book that has the depth of information that justifies this kind of study, but it would have been nice if they'd spent a little more money on the binding. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] 
|
|
#2
02-03-2005, 09:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My first complaint about Harrington on Hold \'em.
I love the book as well, but let me ask you (and others) a question.
Do you feel that it oversimplifies continuation bets? Not when or how much to bet, but folding to any resistance. Harrington spends a lot of time giving examples of making a continuation bet after a pf raise, but utimately says you should fold if you get called (check/fold turn) or raised. It seems that there should be more on hte player and what he may have. For example, you raise pf with AcKs and get one caller (you are first to act), the flop comes 2h5h9d, you make a conituation bet of 1/2 the pot, villian calls. Harrenton basically would say that you are behind and to fold if you don't improve. But what if you know the player tends to chase draws by calling 2:1 pot odds. Should you fire another barrel at the pot on the turn or check/fold to a bet? What do you think? Pulp [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]
|
|
#3
02-03-2005, 11:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My first complaint about Harrington on Hold \'em.
Depends on how big the bet is...or whether he bets at all. Chasers (i.e. calling stations) aren't generally known for betting with nothing. And if the bet is too small, you may still have a pot odds call.
I'm not calling a big bet on the turn with ace-high, though, unless I have a dead read that the guy is bluffing.
|
|
#4
02-04-2005, 12:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My first complaint about Harrington on Hold \'em.
Well, I think there's almost nothing in poker that couldn't in some sense be called over-simplified.
Sure, the book could have spent more time dicussing the finer points of continuation bets (and just about everything else for that matter) and instead of there being two volumes we'd have 3 or 4 or ...well, it could literally go on almost forever. Having said that, I think when the problems are studied closely, they do a very good job of fleshing out the spectrum of continuation bet type scenarios.
|
|
#5
02-04-2005, 12:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My first complaint about Harrington on Hold \'em.
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I think there's almost nothing in poker that couldn't in some sense be called over-simplified. Sure, the book could have spent more time dicussing the finer points of continuation bets (and just about everything else for that matter) and instead of there being two volumes we'd have 3 or 4 or ...well, it could literally go on almost forever. Having said that, I think when the problems are studied closely, they do a very good job of fleshing out the spectrum of continuation bet type scenarios. [/ QUOTE ] I agree that Harrington has to simplify to keep the page count below 1000. The reason I bring it up is because after reading the section on continuation bets, I answered nearly all of the questions/problems correctly. It's nice to think I am understanding the material, but felt that the problems were easier than "real life" situations (maybe if I view my live tournament situations like book problems I will have it made [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]). Anyway, just wondered if anyone else had that feeling while reading it. Pulp [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]
|
|
#6
02-04-2005, 09:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My first complaint about Harrington on Hold \'em.
A while back there was a post here suggesting that we take books like HoH to Kinko's and have them spiral bound. That is not a permanent solution, since the pages will eventually tear from the spiral binding, too. This would make it possible to lay the book flat on my desk while studying the problems.
|
|
#7
02-04-2005, 07:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My first complaint about Harrington on Hold \'em.
Well, if you're going to go to that much trouble why not just buy extra copies fo the book? You know, as one wears out retire it to the books shelf and pick up the next.
The spiral binding would it make it easier to study, though.
|
|
#8
02-04-2005, 11:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My first complaint about Harrington on Hold \'em.
Don't spread the book flat on a table or crack the spine every time you open it and you solve this problem.
Frank
|
|
#10
02-05-2005, 09:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My first complaint about Harrington on Hold \'em.
Yes. Well, I suppose I could also "solved the problem" by never having opened the book in the first place.
The problem, of course, is that it's difficult to actually read a book without to at least some extent "spreading" it. I haven't treated the book particularly roughly. I have, as I said in my post, read and re-read it repeatedly. I'm not really complaining. The book is great and the binding is probably at least as good as most these days. But I still say it would have been nice if they had spent a little more on the binding.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
