A sample chapter
Here's a chapter from an upcoming book on nolimit holdem poker
The chapter is on twoplustwo magazine, and they only keep their stuff up for about 3 months, so download it or print it now if you think you might want to refer back to it.
I'm not impressed so far. The chapter starts out with
What the hell does that have to do with no-limit? Are they suggesting you don't need to plan your hands in limit? In limit I think a plan is probably more important. Plans are important in no-limit but they are also much more fluid and really don't need to be that complete, they just need to be re-evaulated at every step.
In The Complete Book Of Hold 'Em Poker: A Comprehensive Guide to Playing and Winning
I pretty much say that the most important concept in no-limit hold'em (actually in no-limit poker) is simply
I still think that's true most of the time. Against some opponents it's not true, against some opponents you're better off check calling than you are betting, but it's still the basic idea.
Then, after talking about planning, they jump right away to the idea of finding a balance between risk and reward, and use a really bad example to do so.
They have two read aces on the big blind, the small blind limps, they raise, he calls, the flop is a 3 card straight in spades, the small blind goes all in, the stacks are very deep.
What do you do?
They talk about risk/reward tradeoff only in terms of the amount of money, they never, not once, bring up the players.
Against some players I'm calling here every damn time. Against some players I know for sure he has a naked flush draw, he doesn't even have as much as a pair and a flush draw. Against some players I know for sure they don't have more than 9 outs because with a hand better than that they're checking to let me bet.
They don't even talk about that. So what the hell do they mean by risk? They mean how much money is involved.
The next example is almost comical. They give a of having KK in mid-position and opening for 15, getting two callers, one behind you, one in the blinds.
Then they go through an analyze a particular flop where you bet and the player behind you calls, and you get in an iffy situation on the turn where you're probably best but don't want to commit all of your deep stack.
Then they re-look it and decided that you made a mistake with the raise to $15, you should have raised to $30 and gotten two callers, then on the turn the pot would have been large enough to be pot committed.
All I can say to that is
The chapter is on twoplustwo magazine, and they only keep their stuff up for about 3 months, so download it or print it now if you think you might want to refer back to it.
I'm not impressed so far. The chapter starts out with
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we had to summarize no-limit strategy in a single sentence, it would be this:Plan Your Hands
What the hell does that have to do with no-limit? Are they suggesting you don't need to plan your hands in limit? In limit I think a plan is probably more important. Plans are important in no-limit but they are also much more fluid and really don't need to be that complete, they just need to be re-evaulated at every step.
In The Complete Book Of Hold 'Em Poker: A Comprehensive Guide to Playing and Winning
I pretty much say that the most important concept in no-limit hold'em (actually in no-limit poker) is simply Don't Call
I still think that's true most of the time. Against some opponents it's not true, against some opponents you're better off check calling than you are betting, but it's still the basic idea.
Then, after talking about planning, they jump right away to the idea of finding a balance between risk and reward, and use a really bad example to do so.
They have two read aces on the big blind, the small blind limps, they raise, he calls, the flop is a 3 card straight in spades, the small blind goes all in, the stacks are very deep.
What do you do?
They talk about risk/reward tradeoff only in terms of the amount of money, they never, not once, bring up the players.
Against some players I'm calling here every damn time. Against some players I know for sure he has a naked flush draw, he doesn't even have as much as a pair and a flush draw. Against some players I know for sure they don't have more than 9 outs because with a hand better than that they're checking to let me bet.
They don't even talk about that. So what the hell do they mean by risk? They mean how much money is involved.
The next example is almost comical. They give a of having KK in mid-position and opening for 15, getting two callers, one behind you, one in the blinds.
Then they go through an analyze a particular flop where you bet and the player behind you calls, and you get in an iffy situation on the turn where you're probably best but don't want to commit all of your deep stack.
Then they re-look it and decided that you made a mistake with the raise to $15, you should have raised to $30 and gotten two callers, then on the turn the pot would have been large enough to be pot committed.
All I can say to that is
What?
Labels: bet size, complete book of holdem poker, ed miller, position, pot size
posted by Gary Carson at 10:21 AM
2 Comments:
I am gagging to read your no limit book, Gary! Hurry up and write it ;-)
The thing is that 2+2 books tend to take a technical approach, which will work more often than not, whereas you like to keep us thinking about the situation. I think both approaches have something to offer, but you're right that 2+2 rarely considers the opponent.
The opponent is everything in nolimit.
When I played nolimit draw, guts to open, everyday there were some players who I'd throw away 444 before the draw if they opened, othe players I'd re-raise with AA (openers where required to open with a raise).
But that makes it really hard to do a good book.
A card-based approach is important as a fundemental base-line. But that base-line is actually pretty simple and doesn't take a book to cover.
If you look back in the history of poker thought you'll see people making a contrast between Caro having a people focus and Sklansky having a math focus.
But the reality is that Caro did just as much math as Sklansky, he just didn't give it more attention than it deserved. Sklansky just couldn't get past it -- getting past simple math just got too hard, too fast for him.
But readers prefered Sklansky, because he told them things were simple and well-containned and that makes readers feel comfortable.
I don't think 2+2 books take a technical approach at all. I think they tend to take a superficial approach using psuedo-technical language.
It sells. But it's not good work.
Post a Comment
<< Home