[rakdesign]

Anyone read this book yet? (not affiliated with that site link)
I read and re-read the first two on a regular basis...wondering if anyone has read #3 and has any impressions to share...

[bolgenmod]

Funny you should ask this since I just finished my first reading of HOH3 yesterday and was wondering if anyone else had read it yet. But I will share my impressions.

Like you (and many others), I have read HOH1 and 2 more than once, so I was eagerly looking forward to HOH3. Although it is called a workbook, it is not so much a workbook as a series of hand quizzes similar to those found in HOH1 and 2. The workbook part I believe comes from the fact that the authors give you multiple choices for each decision and scores for each choice (eg, folding gets 2 points, calling 0, raising x amount 4 points). (This is, by the way, similar to the "How Good is Your" series -- I have only read the Limit Holdem book in that series.)

As the quiz progresses, they tell you the choices made by the person actually playing the hand, which are not always the best/highest scoring choices. Then they go over the hand in detail again, telling you what they (or he -- there are two authors of course, but I believe the strategy comes from Harrington, not Robertie) believe are the best ways to play each hand.

Many of the hands are taken from actual tournaments with big name players. This is one of the most interesting parts of the book -- Harrington analyzes the play both based on what he would do and what someone like Gus Hansen actually does. He is very respectful of the different styles of playing, but of course he also criticizes some of the other pros. (If you watch a lot of TV poker, you may remember some of these hands.)

There are a couple of points where he give a series of hands which is also valuable. For example, there are 3 hands with Negreanu vs David Williams from the WPT Borgata last year. These "series" hands of course demonstrate how each hand is not, of course, played in isolation: good players remember and learn from the hands that have gone before. There is also an Ivey/Helppi series from the Monte Carlo Millions, and a VERY interesting series of hands about bubble play in one table SNGs.

You can total your score, and see how you rate. There is also a section that categorizes the answers so you can see your weak spots, eg, loose play pre-flop, betting to much on the flop, etc.

I am not the best tournament player (I play rarely, almost all of my tournament play is in the CT tournaments), but I have to say that I found myself VERY occassionally disagreeing with Harrington's advice. I only mention this because I've noticed that the 2+2 posters agree with me, and many of these posters are solid tournament players. But of course, if I think that one of the choices deserves more points than Harrington gives, it also means that I AM thinking about the problems, so even this is valuable.

One other thing: Harrington has a nice new concept to wrap your head around: what he calls fear of flopping. He criticizes the amateur tendancy to move all-in preflop (obviously a Kill Phil slam) and has lots to say about why he thinks this is a poor idea. Of course, he doesn't mention the main reason some of us amateurs might do this: we don't want to match our post-flop skills against the likes of him! But he is, of course, correct: most of us could use work on our post-flop skills. Choosing which hands to play or fold is obviously the easiest part of Holdem; what to do with them post-flop is much harder!

In sum, this is an excellent book. It extends and explains the concepts of HOH1 and 2 while adding new material to think about. And the analysis of the play of other pros is very interesting too. My favorite was an Ivey hand where Phil (of course) makes an astonishing move. Harrington writes (trying not to spoil, so I edit): "score 5 for choice x...It's a world-class play, one that very few players are capable of making. No credit for y...Score 3 points for choice z, a play for mere mortals." Hilarious and true!

[*acesandfaces*]

Well written explination. Thanks. I will also be picking up HOH3.

Originally Posted by bolgenmod

Funny you should ask this since I just finished my first reading of HOH3 yesterday and was wondering if anyone else had read it yet. But I will share my impressions.

Like you (and many others), I have read HOH1 and 2 more than once, so I was eagerly looking forward to HOH3. Although it is called a workbook, it is not so much a workbook as a series of hand quizzes similar to those found in HOH1 and 2. The workbook part I believe comes from the fact that the authors give you multiple choices for each decision and scores for each choice (eg, folding gets 2 points, calling 0, raising x amount 4 points). (This is, by the way, similar to the "How Good is Your" series -- I have only read the Limit Holdem book in that series.)

As the quiz progresses, they tell you the choices made by the person actually playing the hand, which are not always the best/highest scoring choices. Then they go over the hand in detail again, telling you what they (or he -- there are two authors of course, but I believe the strategy comes from Harrington, not Robertie) believe are the best ways to play each hand.

Many of the hands are taken from actual tournaments with big name players. This is one of the most interesting parts of the book -- Harrington analyzes the play both based on what he would do and what someone like Gus Hansen actually does. He is very respectful of the different styles of playing, but of course he also criticizes some of the other pros. (If you watch a lot of TV poker, you may remember some of these hands.)

There are a couple of points where he give a series of hands which is also valuable. For example, there are 3 hands with Negreanu vs David Williams from the WPT Borgata last year. These "series" hands of course demonstrate how each hand is not, of course, played in isolation: good players remember and learn from the hands that have gone before. There is also an Ivey/Helppi series from the Monte Carlo Millions, and a VERY interesting series of hands about bubble play in one table SNGs.

You can total your score, and see how you rate. There is also a section that categorizes the answers so you can see your weak spots, eg, loose play pre-flop, betting to much on the flop, etc.

I am not the best tournament player (I play rarely, almost all of my tournament play is in the CT tournaments), but I have to say that I found myself VERY occassionally disagreeing with Harrington's advice. I only mention this because I've noticed that the 2+2 posters agree with me, and many of these posters are solid tournament players. But of course, if I think that one of the choices deserves more points than Harrington gives, it also means that I AM thinking about the problems, so even this is valuable.

One other thing: Harrington has a nice new concept to wrap your head around: what he calls fear of flopping. He criticizes the amateur tendancy to move all-in preflop (obviously a Kill Phil slam) and has lots to say about why he thinks this is a poor idea. Of course, he doesn't mention the main reason some of us amateurs might do this: we don't want to match our post-flop skills against the likes of him! But he is, of course, correct: most of us could use work on our post-flop skills. Choosing which hands to play or fold is obviously the easiest part of Holdem; what to do with them post-flop is much harder!

In sum, this is an excellent book. It extends and explains the concepts of HOH1 and 2 while adding new material to think about. And the analysis of the play of other pros is very interesting too. My favorite was an Ivey hand where Phil (of course) makes an astonishing move. Harrington writes (trying not to spoil, so I edit): "score 5 for choice x...It's a world-class play, one that very few players are capable of making. No credit for y...Score 3 points for choice z, a play for mere mortals." Hilarious and true!

[rakdesign]

Originally Posted by *acesandfaces*

Well written explination. Thanks. I will also be picking up HOH3.

Dude harrington should pay you a commision on the sale you just made..nice (incredible0 answer!

+ rep coming!!

[Wylecoyo]

Thanks for the great mini-reivew bolgenmod!!!!!!!!!!

[jojobinks]

Originally Posted by bolgenmod

Harrington writes (trying not to spoil, so I edit): "score 5 for choice x...It's a world-class play, one that very few players are capable of making. No credit for y...Score 3 points for choice z, a play for mere mortals." Hilarious and true!

i made the move for mere mortals, of course. as if i needed to be reminded that i'm not in ivey's league

i'm about 2/3's of the way through, and i mostly agree with bolg, including that i disagree pretty often, but i still think the book rocks. what i'm least happy about with this volume is that, taken as a whole, it's kind of incoherent. most of the problems have little to do with any others, and so it feels disjointed. it's still gold though.

[mac40k]

Originally Posted by jojobinks

what i'm least happy about with this volume is that, taken as a whole, it's kind of incoherent. most of the problems have little to do with any others, and so it feels disjointed. it's still gold though.

I don't have it yet, but to be fair, the description at the end of vol 2 said it was going to be a bunch of stuff that didn't really fit in anywhere within the topics of vol 1 or 2, so I'm not surprised to hear that it doesn't seem to flow as well.

[VARoadstter]

It has me thinking all "pokery" again instead of just playing on autopilot. For whatever reason, I am playing with much more clarity and with more reason since I started reading the book, which is about as nice a thing as I can say about a poker book.

Hoh III = +eeeee veeeeeeee

[yeltzen]

Aight aight aight, so I get the book yesterday and start reading it. I got up to problem 3 and went to bed. But problem 3 made me want to throw the book out the window.

I'm at work so I don't remember the hand exactly, but I think you have 9s8s and everyone folds to you preflop (you're in the cutoff?). It's a "high stakes" tournament, and the table is tight, so you raise to 4xBB to steal but get a caller in the small blind. So the flop comes K 5 4 rainbow. It's checked to you and Harrington lays out the possible hands he might have called preflop with:

- Ax where x is a Q or lower, but probably higher than a 5.
- KQ, KJ, QJ
- Middle PP
- Low PP
- High PP or AK is unlikely since he didn't reraise preflop but possible.

So the obvious choice is a continuation bet since the flop is crappy. You bet about half the pot and the small blind calls. The turn is an 8 (keeps the flop a rainbow) and he checks to you again.

Now, in my opinion, this is a ridiculously obvious check given the setup info. The table is tight, he called a preflop raise out of position, and he now called a postflop bet. The flop was pretty ragged, and the only conceivable draw he could have is 76s (if he's on the looser end of tight).

Okay, so now Harrington says these are his likely hands:
- JJ or TT. A tight player would probably reraise out of position, but it's possible they could call and check/call the flop with one overcard.
- 99 or 88 are fairly unlikely but possible.
- 77 or 66 could have made these plays.
- 55 or 44 would be weak preflop calls, but the postflop play would match it exactly.

My first question is: where are KQ, KJ, K10s? I know that a lot of players would check-raise that flop, but isn't that flop perfect for a rope-a-dope against the preflop raiser? I mean, damn, playa... not everyone tries to take the pot down on the flop with a massive check/raise. It's a rainbow with only one reasonable draw. A raise is almost certainly going to get the preflop raiser to fold if he has nothing. I'd check this hand twice occasionally when a fourth rainbow card hits.

So then, Harrington somehow says that "you are still beating a considerable number of these hands, so you should make another continuation bet". Uh, what? What hands from that set do you beat!? 77 and 66!! That's it! Is that a considerable number of hands? Uh, no. And that's not even including KQ, KJ, etc.

The rest of the hand I thought was reasoned well, but that FLABBERGASTED me. I couldn't understand that no way no how. Granted you get 3 points for checking, but still. WTF, mate!?

Someone wanna shed some light on this?

[gagners]

Originally Posted by yeltzen

Aight aight aight, so I get the book yesterday and start reading it. I got up to problem 3 and went to bed. But problem 3 made me want to throw the book out the window.

Someone wanna shed some light on this?

Whoa... The thinking Yeltzen... I'm not sure which is a surer sign of the apocolypse: Boris waxing methodical on poker odds, or the Red Sox winning the series...