Harrington says I'm too conservative

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]

As for the structured hand analysis, it is basically exactly what SNGPT does except it doesn't consider the effects of ICM.

[/ QUOTE ]

One thing I noticed about HoH is that it really doesn't address bubble play *at all*. It doesn't even say anywhere "assume you are playing for first so don't fold into money but this is how you take advantage of others who are". It's like it doesn't even exist.

As 2+2 knows well, cEV != $EV in many situations. But I don't think Harrington realizes (or chooses to address) this fact. Does barryg address this in AotR?

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
Does barryg address this in AotR?

[/ QUOTE ]

Barry hardly even talks about how to play poker in his book.

I still thought it was a very good book.

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any examples of specific situations where you are too tight?

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess would be something like:
7 handed, Blinds went up to 75/150 a couple hands ago.
Hero is UTG+1 with T8s and 970 chips, others have a standard range of stacks.

According to Harrington, we are clearly in the "red zone" and thus should push. You can push if you want, but its not a very good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dan is too logical for this. He is probably assuming the SNG is 'winner take all' in which case I would push that spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

either that or he assumes that the blinds go up at a less frequent interval then every 10 hands....

[brettthomas]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing I noticed about HoH is that it really doesn't address bubble play *at all*. It doesn't even say anywhere "assume you are playing for first so don't fold into money but this is how you take advantage of others who are".

[/ QUOTE ]

In Vol II he does briefly discuss bubble play for multi-table tourny's. He states that just inside the money pays so poorly that the bubble should be ignored and you should play to win. He doesn't discuss bubble play for SNG, which is a shame b/c the structured hand analysis is beautiful and he gives many SNG examples.