[w16227]

Originally Posted by hunterking

nice, but, hey, raymer was the 6th to get knocked out of the $550 + $30 limit o8 event of the wcoop today (730/735). yeah, books make me play worse, too. i guess i have my own system, and it usually works.

YAAAAY

I beat Raymer

lol

[yeltzen]

Originally Posted by Spaceman Spiff

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.

That's the whole thing, though... I have no idea what these players are like. I'm just saying there's a lot more people online who will call with anything than in live play. But the majority of the people at my table at any point in time (except in an SnG) are unknowns. They either haven't shown any hands/trends or they just arrived at the table. I'm gonna read Super/System and if that can't help then it's time to go back to my wuss games (limit) and find another hobby for when I get the urge for a tournament.

[SpeakEasy]

This thread has actually come around to some meaningful discussion, in particular jojo's post. Some general thoughts on the HOH books, after reading and putting the concepts into practice at the tables:

1. When (nearly) everyone reads the same books and incorporates the advice into their game, everyone's game get better, and the tournaments overall get tougher.

Imagine that you are playing in a 30-person tournament against 29 clones of you, all playing the HOH Conservative style. If everyone is focused and playing a solid game, who would win? The luckiest person who catches the most cards.

2. The HOH strategy is dependent on good cards. By definition under the Conservative style, you are folding the bad starting hands. HOH generally doesn't help much if you are running card dead. And, as we've all experienced, you can go a LONG time without catching good cards. In this situation in a tournament, you can start applying the HOH "red zone" concepts (because you've been folding junk and are being blinded to death), but you're going to have to get lucky to recover. Sound familiar?

The Aggressive and Ultra-Aggressive styles rely more on post-flop play, and building up a big stack early to fund your loose pre-flop play. If you're using the Conservative style, you don't see too many flops, so you're not as practiced at post-flop play. Also, unless you're catching some decent cards, you're not going to build up a big stack with the Conservative Strategy. I'm obviously talking broad generalities here, but this is the conundrum of the HOH Conservative style.

3. The HOH strategies require some serious thought at the table, and this is a serious challenge when playing on-line. On-line games give you about 15 seconds to make a decision before the panic alarm sounds and the coundown clock begins. We are conditioned, by on-line play, to make decisions with the reaction time of a skittish house fly. HOH requires a review of stack sizes, the calculation of pot odds and implied odds, memory of past hands, estimation of your opponents hand, estimation of what your opponent thinks you have, calculation of your outs, calculation of opponent's outs -- all in less than a minute, and your tournament life is frequently on the line.

When its your turn to act, how many times have you really been able to evaluate your decision to the same extent that Harrington does in one of his book examples? Nothing we can do about this on-line, but really implementing the HOH style typically requires more time than we are provided. Live play is much better for this style.

[MacGrad]

Having not read this HOH of which you speak...

I take it, from the tone of the discussion, that HOH is based more around NL than for Limit... however, does it have more of a ring game application than tournament? Part of the problem could be applying concepts not suited for the game being played...

(However, I imagine that Yeltzen is a smart/good enough player to know the difference... that question was more for my benefit.)

Also, it sounds like HOH may not be compatible with Yeltzen's "rock" style. Reading HOH might not help me improve, since elements in the "Conservative" style might conflict with my conservative tournament style; however, I will reread "System", Hellmuth, and Cloutier before playing in a major tournament, since I'll know how to play back against the systems of those big 3...

(And yes, I've heard all about how Hellmuth's book isn't that good. After three guys in my game kept talking about how they bought it, I figured I'd pick it up... I mean, if they're going to tell me how they're making their decisions, I would have been foolish not to read it.)

Then again, maybe Yeltzen will have to admit that he's a better limit player than NL...

[yeltzen]

Right, and was that not my point?
The only thing that would be particularly useful for online play is the Zones concept... and if you've ever read an article on Sit n' Go play (or read a post about them), you already know it. The shorter your stack in relation to the blinds, the faster you play. It's not rocket science. But that's not going to win you a MTT, it'll just get you back from the dead if you catch a hand or two (it'll win you Sit n' Gos though). Some people just have great instincts after the flop and those are the people who win MTTs (aside from the very lucky players who double up every time they hold a big pair and win their AK races).

Playing like a rock worked for me; I made the money pretty consistently. I dunno why I felt like I had to revamp my game.

[yeltzen]

Originally Posted by MacGrad

Having not read this HOH of which you speak...

I take it, from the tone of the discussion, that HOH is based more around NL than for Limit... however, does it have more of a ring game application than tournament? Part of the problem could be applying concepts not suited for the game being played...

(However, I imagine that Yeltzen is a smart/good enough player to know the difference... that question was more for my benefit.)

Also, it sounds like HOH may not be compatible with Yeltzen's "rock" style. Reading HOH might not help me improve, since elements in the "Conservative" style might conflict with my conservative tournament style; however, I will reread "System", Hellmuth, and Cloutier before playing in a major tournament, since I'll know how to play back against the systems of those big 3...

(And yes, I've heard all about how Hellmuth's book isn't that good. After three guys in my game kept talking about how they bought it, I figured I'd pick it up... I mean, if they're going to tell me how they're making their decisions, I would have been foolish not to read it.)

Then again, maybe Yeltzen will have to admit that he's a better limit player than NL...

I will happily admit I'm a better limit player than NL player. It's not saying much though - I'm a friggin' horrible NL player. You can read me like a book. "Boris made a raise... I can now rule out 152 of the possible hands!"

HOH is for NL tournaments... that's what the cover says. But volume 1 I believe is better suited to a ring game since the blinds are constant and relatively small. The book should be compatible with me, since the basic strategy says to throw away the worse hands and play the better ones aggressively. That's usually what I do. But you can't win MTTs playing like a rock, so I've been trying to play a bit more aggressive after the flop... I don't know why, though, I did okay playing like a rock. I'm not doing very well trying to put HOH into action. Maybe I just don't understand it... I did go to Pitt after all.

[MacGrad]

I agree: it's very difficult winning MTT if you're playing like a rock. However, it's also very difficult to be eliminated quickly...

I can't speak for playing online - with 2 casinos nearby, I'll play live - but the "rock" style seems to work well for me. The tight table image I earn in the early stages helps later in the tournament, since my raises will get more respect once the "no fold-em hold-em" people are eliminated. Near the middle of the tournament, I'll start playing hands I would have thrown away earlier, but only to generate more action for my usual hand selection.

Granted, I never have a huge chip stack or chip lead, but I make sure I start opening up before the blinds become an issue. I've played one MTT in a casino, and several one-tablers, and have only finished out of the money twice, so that style seems to work for me.

[Q10 soooted]

Originally Posted by jojobinks

and to balance out my "you're wrong" post above, i'll say this. i think that HOH 1 and 2 are the best poker books i've ever read, and i think i'm a much better player in the last 6 months as a result.

in that time, my homegame bankroll (mostly $20 stts, and some $40s mixed in) has gone from $120 to $650 since i read HOH1.

that's a sample size of, i'd guess, 50 tournies, which isn't huge but isn't so bad either.

Don't forget though that you have had me as a fish to help out your home game wins!

[jojobinks]

Originally Posted by Q10 soooted

Don't forget though that you have had me as a fish to help out your home game wins!

it hasn't hurt, QT, but you've only played in a small number of our tournies over that time. EV+ 2%, maybe...

and you aren't fishy, you just haven't run well...you're clearly strong for the field.

[R Deckard]

Originally Posted by jojobinks

it hasn't hurt, QT, but you've only played in a small number of our tournies over that time. EV+ 2%, maybe...

and you aren't fishy, you just haven't run well...you're clearly strong for the field.

*jojo puts a check mark next to Q10 soooted's name on his "Set-Up for the Long Con" list.*