[yeltzen]

Originally Posted by scottoc

Ya, Cloutier's books are great. "Only play A,A" "Fold K,K if there's a raise" "Never play A,Q"

And in the next paragraph he'll refer to a game where he called a raise in 5th pos w/ j,8.

Not that I don't agree with you, but T.J.'s book was obviously written for old-time NL cash game play... before the influx of extremely aggressive players. That was how those games were played. When you raised preflop and someone came over the top of you, you were probably up against aces... and on the flop if you reraised and someone came over the top, you were probably up against a higher set. That's why Super/System was such a huge deal. No one advocated playing like that before.

The publisher probably saw the popularity of tournaments shoot up and decided to turn the book into a tournament book. I dunno, just a guess. Maybe it was meant to be a tournament book so that new players would suck and T.J. could take their money. But I've read parts of their 7CS tournament book, and it encourages a much more aggressive style of play, so I have a hard time believing T.J. wrote that entire book as strategy for tournaments.

I love how 2+2 took a shot at them in HOH1... as if the people buying that book didn't already know that Sklansky/Malmuth/Miller hate T.J.'s book. Kinda like how they take a shot at Lee Jones in SSH, as if the people buying that book didn't already read the 900-thread post on 2+2 trying to destroy Jones' credibility. Can't wait to see what they write about Super/System in the Sklansky/Miller NL cash game book... "If you're an old Texan who doesn't have a degree from MIT, how can you possibly give advice on NL cash games and how can anyone possibly trust you?"

[yeltzen]

Originally Posted by jojobinks

as a result of HOH, you are busting out early in tournies, eh? that makes sense, boris.



i know you're being sarcastic, but this is kind of a bad beat thread, isn't it? certainly the very conservative advice of HOH1 would not lead to early bustouts.

Not a bad beat thread at all. I had one bad beat that knocked me out of the tournament from the results I mentioned. I just don't think the advice in the books are very useful for online MT tournaments, except for maybe the Zone stuff when the blinds are really high (a la Sit n' Gos), but unless you've never played or watched a Hold'em tournament before, you already know you're supposed to play super-aggressive when the blinds are high compared to your stack.

Usually what happens is the blinds will be 15/30 and I'll have about 900-1100... so it's still early. I'll get AKs in MP and two guys will limp. So I raise to 150. I'll get two callers, so now the pot is almost 500. The flop will come 2 3 7 rainbow and they'll check to me. Well, gee willickers, what a perfect time for a continuation bet since the flop is so ragged. So I bet 250 or so and they both call. The turn is another 3. Okay so now the pot is like 1200 and what the hell am I going to do? It's really unlikely that either has anything, but I'm not going to put 300+ chips in to make sure when at this point I only have 500-700 left. So either one bets 300 or goes all-in and I have to fold, or they check to me and I have no choice but to check or risk all of my chips on A high.

When the continuation bet works, I win an OK pot. When it doesn't work, I lose 1/4 or 1/3 or 1/2 of my stack. I'm not saying it's always like this, but it's pretty often. Probe bets are the same way. I either win a tiny pot or they just call/reraise me and I can't go on. The bluffing section is almost completely worthless since you a) have to have good reads and see them fold to check-raises or scare-card bluffs or post-oak bluffs, etc, and you just don't see them that long in online MTTs, and b) have to play against people who can lay down top pair/overpair - and who in online tournaments does that?. The hand analysis stuff is great stuff, but how often do hands come up where you really have to think through a hand like that? Online players aren't that complicated.

I'm sorry I don't think it's the greatest book of all time. If I played in major live tournaments, my opinion might be different. There the blinds would be 1 hour or so long and I'd have time to slowly build a stack where I could put the concepts to good use and I'd be playing against good opponents after the first few breaks. But in online MTTs, if I play smart I'm playing very tight early to let the riff raff kill themselves, and when I finally get a raising hand it's 25/50. Well, then my standard raises/continuation bets are 1/2 my stack. Please forgive me o great one.

[jojobinks]

Originally Posted by yeltzen

Not a bad beat thread at all. I had one bad beat that knocked me out of the tournament from the results I mentioned. I just don't think the advice in the books are very useful for online MT tournaments, except for maybe the Zone stuff when the blinds are really high (a la Sit n' Gos), but unless you've never played or watched a Hold'em tournament before, you already know you're supposed to play super-aggressive when the blinds are high compared to your stack.

Usually what happens is the blinds will be 15/30 and I'll have about 900-1100... so it's still early. I'll get AKs in MP and two guys will limp. So I raise to 150. I'll get two callers, so now the pot is almost 500. The flop will come 2 3 7 rainbow and they'll check to me. Well, gee willickers, what a perfect time for a continuation bet since the flop is so ragged. So I bet 250 or so and they both call. The turn is another 3. Okay so now the pot is like 1200 and what the hell am I going to do? It's really unlikely that either has anything, but I'm not going to put 300+ chips in to make sure when at this point I only have 500-700 left. So either one bets 300 or goes all-in and I have to fold, or they check to me and I have no choice but to check or risk all of my chips on A high.

When the continuation bet works, I win an OK pot. When it doesn't work, I lose 1/4 or 1/3 or 1/2 of my stack. I'm not saying it's always like this, but it's pretty often. Probe bets are the same way. I either win a tiny pot or they just call/reraise me and I can't go on. The bluffing section is almost completely worthless since you a) have to have good reads and see them fold to check-raises or scare-card bluffs or post-oak bluffs, etc, and you just don't see them that long in online MTTs, and b) have to play against people who can lay down top pair/overpair - and who in online tournaments does that?. The hand analysis stuff is great stuff, but how often do hands come up where you really have to think through a hand like that? Online players aren't that complicated.

I'm sorry I don't think it's the greatest book of all time. If I played in major live tournaments, my opinion might be different. There the blinds would be 1 hour or so long and I'd have time to slowly build a stack where I could put the concepts to good use and I'd be playing against good opponents after the first few breaks. But in online MTTs, if I play smart I'm playing very tight early to let the riff raff kill themselves, and when I finally get a raising hand it's 25/50. Well, then my standard raises/continuation bets are 1/2 my stack. Please forgive me o great one.

since i'm "o great one," i feel free to respond in kind.

O yeltzen, you who are so very much "da man," who buys every book and reads every forum (and profits accordingly), and then tells everyone else how pointless it is to study and learn; you of the sophisticated wit and liberal use of sarcasm, who has a devoted following on these forums (for curious and mysterious reasons), who has been banned from at least two forums that i know of for generally being a ****...

in my last post i mentioned misapplication of the principals of a fine book. you just provided me with an example.

in a three way pot (which you raised), the flop came raggedy. pot-size is 500. with ak, you decide to make a continuation bet of 250. there are three very wrong things about hat.

1) harrington recommends that you often continuation bet against one opponent, but that you be more selective with as few as two opponents

2) your perception that online players call too much (implied in the above post), seems to indicate that a continuation bet isn't really being selective here

3) 50% of pot size isn't a HOH recommended continuation bet. he generally states that a value bet (or continuation bet) on the flop should be between 66-75% of the pot, in order to freeze out draws. a 50% bet gives opponents 3-1 odds, which is enough to call with some hands, and more if you think your implied odds are decent. most importantly, a bet of 50% won't make enough internet players fold.

yeah, internet tournaments are tough, but not b/c HOH doesn't apply or because players are so bad. they're tough b/c fields are huge, stacks are small, and the blinds go up quickly.

which brings us to HOH2...which is written for situations where stacks are small relative to the blinds. IMO, this volume is perfect for online tournies.

HOH1 is better for cash games or slow-moving big buyin tournies (as you mentioned above). i agree that these books aren't the best books of all time. just the best poker books. your welcome in advance for the help.

[d_p]

I've found it kind of tough to apply HoH to online tournies. Like Yeltzen said, the way people play so loose a pot-sized bet could end-up being 90% of your stack. If you get a nice sized stack built up, you can start doing that kind of thing, but forget about it in SnG's.

The chapter I found most useful about the two books were the ones on inflection points. Very good stuff there and it pretty much applies in all tourny types... online MTTs, SnGs, live shootouts, live longer-blind, etc.

Applying his strategies on IP's has actually made it work to my advantage if I am getting low in chips and we are playing for that first paid position since most people play extremely tight in that situation you can collect a LOT of blinds.

[yeltzen]

I think I'm just gonna go back to using the "System" from Tournament Poker for Advanced Players. I seem to get just as far with that as anything and I can browse my Vivid Video catalog in the meantime.

[yeltzen]

Originally Posted by jojobinks

who has a devoted following on these forums (for curious and mysterious reasons), who has been banned from at least two forums that i know of for generally being a ****...

The reason is obvious... haven't you been reading the forums? I'm da man.

And it wasn't for being a ****. It was for being too helpful.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I wonder if some of it might be a playing personality thing. What I mean is, my style before reading HOH was very similar to Harrington's. I'm most comfortable with a tight hand selection and I have a tight image in my game. To the point where I get "Uh oh's" when I enter a pot. So for me, reading Harrington was more of a refinement of a game I was already playing. It definitely helped me turn the dial more to the aggressive side and get away from a lot of those weak-tight leaks.
Now I don't know what style you like to play, but a lot of guys in my group are much more from the Negreanu/Hansen school of play. They like to mix it up and will play just about any 2, especially if they are sOOted! I can't imagine those guys reading HOH and getting as much out of it as I did. They would probably dismiss it as playing boring and go back to the game they're comfortable with.

The Zone concepts has really done the most for me I think. Since I play tight and since our game goes pretty quick with the blinds, I all too often find myself short stacked by level 5 or 6. Before reading HOH, I would have tried to hang on and still play some speculative hands. Now with knowing more about the concept of M, I can pick my spots and go on blind stealing runs when I still have enough of a stack to make an all-in matter. I've been able to cash in these spots more often now than I did before.

I guess as with anything it's one of those YMMV things. HOH was the book that finally opened my eyes to a lot of concepts I was missing in other books.

[yeltzen]

My style of tournament play is generally rock-ish. When I call or raise preflop, it's usually followed by, "oh, Boris... I didn't know you were playing tonight", etc. I think I'm just such a weak post-flop player that no book could possibly help me. You either have it or you don't, a book can't make you play well post-flop. That's why the System would be great for me - I wouldn't have to play post-flop.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Originally Posted by yeltzen

My style of tournament play is generally rock-ish. When I call or raise preflop, it's usually followed by, "oh, Boris... I didn't know you were playing tonight", etc. I think I'm just such a weak post-flop player that no book could possibly help me. You either have it or you don't, a book can't make you play well post-flop. That's why the System would be great for me - I wouldn't have to play post-flop.

Ah, I see you play with some of the same jackasses that I do!

I know what you mean, post-flop is definitely one of my weaknesses because I'm just not all that good at reading several of the other players in my game. Some of them are so wild you have no idea what they're holding. Like I said, they'll call you all the way down with bottom pair and then of course spike their 2 pair on the river.

Anyway, the idea of continuation and probe bets helped me a lot, but like jojo said, you have to pick your spots with those. If you're playing with a lot of calling stations or "Gamblors", I don't think those techniques work as well. Although, since I have the rockish image, they do still tend to work a little more often for me in my normal game.

[Cowtown]

I found my approach to be pretty similar to harrington's too, but when I read the first book my game picked up exponetially. I was winning typically at least one live game per week and moneying around 70% of the games I played. The thing that changed at the same time? I stopped playing all the time online, I only play once or twice a week now and if anything that's probably helped my game more.