Question on HoH2

[wmspringer]

Just got my copy of Harrington on Hold'em volume II, and I was thinking about something he says in the first chapter.

On page 65 at the end of hand 8-1 he says:
"The approach in this hand is more likely to be effective against weak players than strong players. At a table of strong players, a call is more likely to be interpreted as some sort of trap play."

Now, what I was thinking is, if your opponents tend to think that you're trapping from your preflop call, wouldn't they be more likely to fold to your bluff on the flop? Meanwhile, wouldn't a weak player who just flopped something like top pair weak kicker from the big blind be more likely to think he has the best hand and play back at you?

[wmspringer]

Guess I should clarify for those who haven't gotten the book yet; in this example everyone folds to you in the small blind and you call with a garbage hand, the big blind checks, then you're bluffing on the flop.

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
Guess I should clarify for those who haven't gotten the book yet; in this example everyone folds to you in the small blind and you call with a garbage hand, the big blind checks, then you're bluffing on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt need the second example to post as i was going to reply, but i just couldnt put the words on papoer that i was trying to say. In essence, yes i agree with your op. I feel that the poor editing of this text is a major downfall of it as there are situations that you may disagree with that could or could not be a result of it. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[BradleyT]

None of this applies at SnG's under $50 and probably not in many $50 - $100 situations.

First off you need thinking opponents for this play to work.
Secondly you need to be up against a strong player.

[curtains]

btw I hate the large majority of his sit and go hand examples. Or at least I hate some of them. Despite liking the book, I think there are numerous sloppy examples and thought processes throughout the book. I've underlined a few that if you really think about them they are simply ridiculous statements.

For instance there is one hand where you have Q3o in the BB and two people limp. He advicses against stealing with a raise, and somehow he finishes the sentence by saying that both players almost surely have you beat. Duh, of course they have us beat are we idiots or something? The point of raising isn't that we think our Q3o is the best hand. To sum it up by saying "both of the other players probably have a better hand than you", just seems stupid to me.

Note that I'm highly critical, but ok I have problems with like maybe 25-33% of the hand problems on average.

[EasilyFound]

[ QUOTE ]
Note that I'm highly critical, but ok I have problems with like maybe 25-33% of the hand problems on average.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate on some others? I've just started the inflection points section.

[maddog2030]

I agree. There are a number of examples I disagree with, or at least think his recommendation thought processes are fairly sloppy. Sometimes he seems like he's disagreeing with himself from earlier examples.

I think at some point he mentioned that you should just usually ignore the prize structure and play for 1st (although be aware of it so you can use it against your opponent who are looking to move up the prize ladder). That may well be fine in a MTT, or close to fine until the final table for most events (I don't know; I haven't played any MTTs in months, and that was before I took the game semiseriously). But in a STT, your strategy is all about the prize structure. There's a reason we use ICM so extensively. And simply calling off your chips on normal pot odds isn't a strong move.

I'd post examples of what I mean but I'm still at work for now.

[curtains]

Well one thing I like is that he clearly makes a dig at Mike Caro with one of his hand examples. Also I exagerated, Im looking through some examples now and just read through a stretch of like 10 where I agree with the reasoning, but okay they are all pretty obvious ones from the "inflection point" section, where you are shortstacked with a halfway decent hand, so you push. I said I disagreed with about 25-33% of the examples but I beleive this was a huge overstatement on my part.

More examples of hands I hate...

hand 9-25 - Brilliant hand, raise to 6k with a 12k stack, thus allowing your opponent to use a stop+go on you, and then once the SB calls and moves allin for 6k on the flop of 766 (actually they bet 3500), then you fold and save your last 6k in a pot that contains over 14k. You do realize that KQ wins 25% of the time approximately against something like 44, I just think this is a terrible, terrible way to play the hand. and very dangerous advice to tell people to raise half their stack and then fold to a stop and go type move with KQ on a 766 board.

Also the chapter starting on page 296 giving the stereotypes of different kinds of poker players....somehow the stereotypes just seem stupid to me. I mean for one player (The retired businessman) he basically says "If he opens a pot and you have a good hand, just put him allin, he'll call more often than not." What the heck does that even mean? That whole section seems unbelievably overgeneralized.

Then there is some hand where the flop is 863 and you are like a huge chip leader at a 4 handed table in a multi table tournament, and you check raise some internet qualifier allin (page 300). Now of course I have nothing wrong with the way he played the hand, but I just think his reasoning is faulty. I find it very unlikely that players this day and age are going to fold everything but trips on that flop as he suggests. People are simply not that wimpy, and "internet" players" and not going to meekly fold KK-JJ on the flop of 863 with just 4 players left, just to sneak into 4th place to an obvious bully type of raise from the giant stack. He even makes the absurd comment that your opponent might fold with bottom set!! BOTTOM SET!!!! 95% of players would have their money in the pot so fast there with bottom set or with AA it's not even funny.