Conceptual errors
On page 14 of Harrington on Hold 'em Expert Strategy for No Limit Tournaments, Vol. 1: Strategic Play
they say
That's just a fundamentally wrong statement that I'm not sure how a book that starts out with that idea has any credibility at all. The power of TV I guess.
The stunning error in the statement is about the idea of betting without the correct pot odds. Pot odds have nothing to do with betting. At least not your pot odds. Here's some of what I say about pot odds in The Complete Book Of Hold 'Em Poker: A Comprehensive Guide to Playing and Winning
Pot odds are about calling with the worst hand. In limit poker it's often a mistake to fail to call when you're getting a good price.
In no-limit (what the Harrington book is supposed to be about) you're seldom betting a really good price. It's not unusual in limit to be getting 10-1 on a 4-1 proposition. That's a pretty good price. It's really unusual to get that kind of price in no-limit.
And how big a mistake it is to call with the right price depends on what price you're actually getting.
If, for example, you habitually called with a 11-1 gutshot draw getting 10-1 pot odds is that a big mistake? If it's not for all your money it's not even a mistake at all, implied odds certainly make up for the very slight shortfall.
Even if the call is for all your money it's a mistake, but not a very critical one.
That's Harrington's other conceptual mistake in that sentence. He attaches way too much importance to getting the "correct" pot odds.
In no limit you're not making a huge mistake if you just don't even worry about it, just focusing on making accurate judgements about when you're beat and throwing your hand away if a better hand bets into you.
Am I being unreasonably critical of Harrington?
they say There are a variety of mistakes one can make in poker, but one of the most serious is to make a bet or call which is not correct given the pot odds available to you ...
That's just a fundamentally wrong statement that I'm not sure how a book that starts out with that idea has any credibility at all. The power of TV I guess.
The stunning error in the statement is about the idea of betting without the correct pot odds. Pot odds have nothing to do with betting. At least not your pot odds. Here's some of what I say about pot odds in The Complete Book Of Hold 'Em Poker: A Comprehensive Guide to Playing and Winning
Money odds
The concept of money odds is often confusing to beginning poker players. It's really not that difficult: At any given point in the play of the hand there are three sources of money, and each needs to be considered separately. There's money that's already in the pot. That's called "pot odds". There's money that's going into the pot in the current betting round. I call that "bet odds". And, there's money that will be going into the pot on future betting rounds. That's called "implied odds".
Past-----pot odds
Current--bet odds
Future---implied odds
All of these money sources are important, but their importance needs to be considered in different ways.
Pot odds
Pot odds are an important consideration when you're deciding whether to call with a hand that's probably not the best hand. It has nothing to do with betting. That's Harrington's major conceptual error in the statement.
Pot odds are just the ratio of the amount of the current bet to the amount of money already in the pot.
Pot odds are about calling with the worst hand. In limit poker it's often a mistake to fail to call when you're getting a good price.
In no-limit (what the Harrington book is supposed to be about) you're seldom betting a really good price. It's not unusual in limit to be getting 10-1 on a 4-1 proposition. That's a pretty good price. It's really unusual to get that kind of price in no-limit.
And how big a mistake it is to call with the right price depends on what price you're actually getting.
If, for example, you habitually called with a 11-1 gutshot draw getting 10-1 pot odds is that a big mistake? If it's not for all your money it's not even a mistake at all, implied odds certainly make up for the very slight shortfall.
Even if the call is for all your money it's a mistake, but not a very critical one.
That's Harrington's other conceptual mistake in that sentence. He attaches way too much importance to getting the "correct" pot odds.
In no limit you're not making a huge mistake if you just don't even worry about it, just focusing on making accurate judgements about when you're beat and throwing your hand away if a better hand bets into you.
Am I being unreasonably critical of Harrington?
Labels: Dan Harrington, pot odds
posted by Gary Carson at 8:33 AM
5 Comments:
I think you are right and wrong, as usual, Gary. Harrington is thinking of situations in which you are sure you will be called. You ignore that you can lay as well as take odds.
If I push with a bare nut flush draw against a villain who I am sure will call, and will not get about 2 to 1 odds on my bet (or slightly better if it is realistic that he has a set), I am making a mistake.
I think it's important that one realises that this is nearly as wrong as calling bets all in without the correct pot odds. It's only not as wrong when you are sure you're going to be called when you are wrong, and the villain folds. Which would be cause for adjusting your expectation of the villain dramatically!
Odds on a bet are not pot odds.
If the pot has $100 in it and I bet $50 and get called I'm getting even money on the bet. I'm not getting 3 to 1.
The money in the pot is there whether you bet or not.
Harrington seems to not understand that.
There are strategic reasons to bet if you know the opponent will bet if you check, but that's not what he's talking about.
The odds you get on a bet come from the number of callers, not the size of the pot. I explain that in detail in my hold'em book.
I think he refers to the odds that the opponent is going to be getting after you bet. Something he deals with extensively in later chapters.
For example, a lot of beginning players didn't realize that they shouldn't overbetting or underbetting pots. But they stop doing it after they read his book.
If you're supposed to manipulate the pot odds your opponent is getting then you'd have to sometimes overbet pots and sometimes underbet pots.
Those two parts of your comment don't reconcile.
BTW, Ferguson thinks you should often underbet pots.
Harrington uses different terminology than you do, Gary. Specifically, "pot odds" are a broader concept in the way he defines them.
Had you read carefully, and more importantly understood what you read, you would not be making this error. In other words, you're being intellectually lazy. Am I surprised? No.
Post a Comment
<< Home