Middle Limit Hold Em Poker still champion

[spurgeon]

I think I have read almost every book in print on hold em. My favorite book is still Middle Limit Hold Em Poker by Ciaffone. I do not know what it is about this book, but I feel I have learned more from it than any other. Maybe my mind learns best by quizzes rather than by theory. I feel that I have learned more from this book than hold em poker for advanced players. My second favorite book is small stakes hold em. This book kind of makes all other limit hold em books obsolete. In some ways it kind of makes hold em poker for advanced players obsolete. The writing is so much clearer in SSH than in HEPFAP. You just have to make some adjustments as you move up in limits, but SSH should still be applicable. If you play no limit, get Harrington on Hold Em. These are the only books you need! Just get these three and memorize them. It will save you a lot of money. I have every hold em poker book written in the basement, and these are the three best. Just rotate reading these three books. Do not waste time on any others (if you want to get a fourth book get theory of poker).

[chaz64]

Is HOH good for both SNG and MTT situations?

I have TOP and SSH now; if I get HOH and MLH, am I really set for the rest of my hold 'em life??

[AKQJ10]

I haven't read the Ciaffone book, but IMO HEPFAP would be a million times better with quizzes. (Also organize it better and take out that idiotic Hemingway note, but that can wait for another day....)

[surfdoc]

I am reading this now and surprised by what seems to be pretty weak tight advice in a number of areas.

[onegymrat]

Hi Doc,

Ciaffone and Brier wrote this back in 2001/2002, and their regular 15-30 to 40-80 games were certainly not as nutty as nowadays. This is especially true since they are not referring to any online play, to which most of the posters here now refer.

I still think that this book offers much to learn since it prompts you to think about all aspects of your hand. It is solid advice and should be used as a complement to other quality books out there. The book's advice may never change while hold'em itself will keep evolving, but the teachings can still be used in many games today.

Remember that Jim Brier is not extinct, he is still writing in the 2+2 magazine as well as Card Player, and his stuff is still great.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
I am reading this now and surprised by what seems to be pretty weak tight advice in a number of areas.

[/ QUOTE ]

What he said.

The number of times when the hand starts with "EP1 and EP2 fold/limp, MP1, 2 and 3 fold/limp) you limp...BB checks, just drives me nuts.

My absolute least favorite piece of advice has you holding AhQx in the CO, open-raising, getting 3 bet by the BB and foldin for one bet heads up on a flop of J8x with two hearts.

They also pick some really odd spots to get aggressive, such as check-raising the turn in a multi way, raised pot from the BB with Jc8c and a board (9c6x4x)Ac. Of course, if you hold AK as the PFR in this scenario, they might advise you to fold to this checkraise...

Anyway, these examples are from memory so the details may be a little off, but the general ideas are close enough.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, these examples are from memory so the details may be a little off, but the general ideas are close enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you think it's a bit unfair to critique a poker book by paraphrasing examples with details that "may be a little off"? If your examples are even a little bit off, you may be misrepresenting the point of the authors completely.

I like the book a lot. I rank it right up there as well.

-ptmusic

[sethypooh21]

By a little off, I mean saying a board of j8x when in the book it is j9x or something like that. Yes there is a difference, but it's not a huge one.

If you want me to go through and find everything in the book that I think is weak-tight, I can easily do so. That's not my point. I realise that most of my disagreement with MLHP comes from the fact that the games I play in do not resemble "tough, middle limit California Card Room" games in anyway, shape or form, so it is a book I certainly plan on revisting as I progress.

Also, I really dislike Ciaffone's writing style, so that influences me somewhat I suppose, and there is no accounting for taste.

To sum up, not saying its a bad book, jsut saying that I, as yet, have not derived a ton of use from it.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
By a little off, I mean saying a board of j8x when in the book it is j9x or something like that. Yes there is a difference, but it's not a huge one.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might be a huge difference. It also might be a small difference, but just enough to tip the scales toward a different decision. But I get your point.

-ptmusic

[helpmeout]

If you dont know much you wont get much from it.

Once you learn a bit about the game you'll see how good the book is.

The stuff about 1 card straight draws and overcards on connected boards is great stuff especially when you become over aggressive after reading SSHE.

The book is slightly weak-tight in parts, but opponents are assumed to be good players so you have to assess each situation based on your opponents, not play by the book.