Has HOH2 hurt anyone else?

[wegs the wegs]

[ QUOTE ]
You need to go and learn about variance in MTTs. They come back and read your post. You will be embarassed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I figured that this response would come up. I do understand that calling the sample size small is an understatement. I do know about variance.

The topic I'm trying to hit on here is not "I haven't cashed in awhile and Vol2 is to blame. I apologize if it came off that way. In the tournaments I have played lately I have had NO shot of winning, where before reading Vol 2 I always felt like I had at least a shot to contend. Now it seems like my hand is always going in when I'm an 80/20 dog due to me making a move with QJo or 67s once too many and running into a much much better hand. Doubling up with a solid hand is certainly easier than trying to double your stack with multiple steal attempts.

Overall I'm just becoming the player that the good players love to run into in the second hour of an online tournament. A maniac trying to run over the rest of the field without the cards to do so.

Thanks for all the responses so far. I will work my way through some of the MTT threads that were recommended for 'M'. Any more thoughts?

[Niediam]

This makes little sense to me. You are saying that you have a shot to win when you are low on chips but decided to be blinded to death but when you try to increase your chip stack you have no shot to win? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Jbrochu]

I would recommend that you search the MTT forum for posts regarding the M concept. There has been a lot of good discussion regarding applying (and misapplying) M.

Also, search for a post by "adanthar" where there is a very good discussion regarding some poor examples in HoH2. I think this thread is in the one-table-tournament forum.

My own thought on M is that it's just a measuring device for how aggressive you should be, and this device needs to be properly calibrated for the tournaments you play. This takes some practice and experience.

I've also noticed that many players pick up on the aggressiveness Harrington advocates, but forget about the situational considerations he discusses. For example, one hand might be a clear push had you been playing very tight for the last couple of orbits, but a clear fold if you had just pushed the last 3 hands.

[betgo]

I don't agree with with what HOH2 says about playing aggressively in the orange zone. I think you don't have a lot of options with that stack and need to play tight. I don't think winding up in the red zone is something that should be particularly avoided.

I started a thread about this in the MTT forum and was called dumb, stupid, and retarded for saying a red zone stack can be played more effectively than an orange zone stack.

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]
The topic I'm trying to hit on here is not "I haven't cashed in awhile and Vol2 is to blame.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, I don't know how anyone could have gotten that impression. Oh wait, they read the title of your post.

I will second the motion that you do not understand how much variance is involved in MTT's. If you understood the high level of variance, you wouldn't have made this post.

P.S. It is NOT Dan's fault!

[rockythecat99]

OH jeez. Here we go again. Maybe just maybe you are misapplying his concepts. HOH1 was like a cookbook. If you followed it to a T you would get descent results. HOH2 is more about making you think about situations and not a abc guide to how you should play.

[wegs the wegs]

Alright, I'm going to try one more time to redeem myself in this thread by trying to make my thoughts and my words say the same thing, it hasn't worked so far. If I still get flamed out so be it and that's the end of this thread for me.

First of all, I am not blaming anything, repeat ANYTHING, on Harrington. I apologize for giving this impression. In no way, shape, or form am I trying to argue that Harrington is wrong, is giving bad advice, or that I know better. Again, this isn't an "HOHv2 is to blame" thread.

Second, I know that I am misapplying the concepts. I understand that the book was trying to get the reader to think more creatively in the back half of the tournament than just "Wait for the nuts". I know that I'm trying to be too creative and too aggressive, misapplying the ideas stressed in the book. It is all my fault.

Third, I do understand concept of variance. I reread my posts and they do come off sour, but that was just my words not catching up to my thoughts. Playing your absolute best every single tournament and you'll still nearly always flame out. What I'm trying to get at here is that I am no where near playing my best poker at this time. Not even close. I'm making mistakes that I have never made before, which pretty much kills any chance of me having success in tournaments. Is HOHv2 the culprit? Go back to my second point for the answer. I am trying too hard to use his advice and that has turned me into a bad tournament player. Once again... all my fault.

Overall, I was looking for advice on where to turn to get myself to stop misapplying the advice that Harrington has given. Thank you to Jbrochu for pointing me in a very good direction with the HOHv2 hand example thread. This is the type of stuff I was looking for.

Other than that I think I'm done and I hope I'm no longer misunderstood. Thanks again one and all.

[Shandrax]

An interesting fact is that in this years WSOP the pros did much better than in the last years. You can be sure that all amateurs have read HoH2. The M concept was created by Paul Magriel and while X-22 is pretty good, his results don't put him in the top 20 to say at least.

Personally I think HoH2 is awesome, but who am I to judge it?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Shandrax:

HOH2 wasn't released until the second week of June. That makes it very unlikely that more than just a small percent of the entrants at the WSOP would had read it. next year, however, should ba a different story.

best wishes,
Mason

[eboller]

[ QUOTE ]
The M concept was created by Paul Magriel and while X-22 is pretty good, his results don't put him in the top 20 to say at least.

[/ QUOTE ]

M is just a measurement.

Eric