[hachkc]

Originally Posted by yeltzen

The major thing I took from Professional No Limit Hold'em is that you should have already decided you're committed before you actually commit. That has helped me a lot, because my tendency is to play it street-by-street, and I usually go for the most passive option. By committing before the money goes in, I can't out-think myself any more. I like it.

Is this good, bad or just an easy way out? Just asking.

and not enough time is spent on REM and general hand reading. That's the stuff that makes you a great no limit player. Knowing when and how to commit is great, and it will make you a consistent winner, but being able to put people on hands and take advantage of playing tendencies is what will make you a big consistent winner.

I believe REM is supposed to be a big part of book 2. Personally, the concept of introducing a topic in book 1 but then failing to talk about it much and telling folks that they'll need to get book 2 to "really understand it" irks me. Its an instructional book, I don't know why it needs to be 2 volumes but that's just me. Smacks of them baiting the hook so they can sell 2x as many books then if they made just 1 book.

[yeltzen]

Originally Posted by hachkc

Is this good, bad or just an easy way out? Just asking.


I believe REM is supposed to be a big part of book 2. Personally, the concept of introducing a topic in book 1 but then failing to talk about it much and telling folks that they'll need to get book 2 to "really understand it" irks me. Its an instructional book, I don't know why it needs to be 2 volumes but that's just me. Smacks of them baiting the hook so they can sell 2x as many books then if they made just 1 book.

First question, it's good. Very good. Even with this new mentality, I still occasionally get played off hands I shouldn't. It used to happen way more. There is a lot of talk about how TPTK is not a great hand in NL cash games, and this is true, BUT... it's not gospel. TPTK is still a good hand, and there are definitely situations where you want to get your money in with it. My problem is that I will usually c-bet and then be lost on the turn. Now, I plan my hand before the flop even happens, and I know when I'm committed. Unless something crazy happens (e.g. bet, raise, re-raise before the action gets to me), the hand is easy to play and I can't be bluffed. Knowing when to commit is a lot easier now, and I haven't run into many situations where I made a horrible commitment decision.

Second part, I totally agree. Nothing pisses me off more than reading (we'll have much more on this in Volume II). I didn't buy this book as an appetizer. You've been blathering on about how great it is for over 6 months... and now you're going to tell me "oh sorry, we'll talk about that stuff you wanted to hear about in a different book". I think that it worked so well with HOH that it's going to happen a lot more. Granted, I'm sure they have a ton of stuff to talk about and there's no way it could be in a single book, but still. Every time they get to something that would really be interesting, they say "wait until Volume II". I'm sure we can all think of an analogy here...

[hachkc]

Originally Posted by yeltzen

First question, it's good. Very good. Even with this new mentality, I still occasionally get played off hands I shouldn't. It used to happen way more. There is a lot of talk about how TPTK is not a great hand in NL cash games, and this is true, BUT... it's not gospel. TPTK is still a good hand, and there are definitely situations where you want to get your money in with it. My problem is that I will usually c-bet and then be lost on the turn. Now, I plan my hand before the flop even happens, and I know when I'm committed. Unless something crazy happens (e.g. bet, raise, re-raise before the action gets to me), the hand is easy to play and I can't be bluffed. Knowing when to commit is a lot easier now, and I haven't run into many situations where I made a horrible commitment decision.

I guess this is so much player dependent though. Against some players, I can commit with TPTK no problem on a draw oriented board because I know they will follow a strong draw right off the edge of a cliff. Against other players, a call of my cbet on the flop with TPTK or an overpair is a bit scarier. SPR isn't really helping me play these hands but the amt of respect that I have (or don't have) for opponent is. I know for fact that I've had table image used against me to take pots and I've used mine against players before in these sorts of situations. I believe this was your original issue with SPR that when taken literally can cause folks to play horrible like trying to get it all-in as soon as possible with TPTK or such and not taking into account your opponent or his range. Nothing like flopping Q96r with AQ and having a tight nit (8/5) check/call OOP your flop cbet when you yourself have been playing tight.

I love discussing the merits of book that I don't own and haven't read

[yeltzen]

Originally Posted by hachkc

I guess this is so much player dependent though. Against some players, I can commit with TPTK no problem on a draw oriented board because I know they will follow a strong draw right off the edge of a cliff. Against other players, a call of my cbet on the flop with TPTK or an overpair is a bit scarier. SPR isn't really helping me play these hands but the amt of respect that I have (or don't have) for opponent is. I know for fact that I've had table image used against me to take pots and I've used mine against players before in these sorts of situations. I believe this was your original issue with SPR that when taken literally can cause folks to play horrible like trying to get it all-in as soon as possible with TPTK or such and not taking into account your opponent or his range. Nothing like flopping Q96r with AQ and having a tight nit (8/5) check/call OOP your flop cbet when you yourself have been playing tight.

I love discussing the merits of book that I don't own and haven't read

Hahaha I'm actually surprised so few people here have read it. Oh well.

But yeah, basing commitment solely on SPR is dangerous. What I'm talking about is more or less just knowing when committing is okay and when it's not. Like, if have AK in a 25NL game against a guy with $15 and typical stats (a little too loose preflop and a little too aggressive postflop), I will raise it preflop, knowing that I am committed no matter what if an A or K flops and the board isn't ridiculous (e.g. it's not JQK monotone). This way, no matter what he does, he can't bluff me off the hand. In the past, a donk-bet would scare me, and I would occasionally convince myself that I was beat on the turn.

My main points for commitment preflop are:

- The most likely hand I'll flop.
- Stack sizes.
- Read on who I'm up against.

SPR factors very little, although stack size is pretty much the same thing. I just don't really use that exact concept.

[EasilyFound]

The book was waiting for me when I returned from vacation. Will give it a read.

[EasilyFound]

Beware. The outs chart in the end of the book has math errors. Not terrible ones, but in a book like this, the math should be without mistake.

[yeltzen]

Originally Posted by EasilyFound

Beware. The outs chart in the end of the book has math errors. Not terrible ones, but in a book like this, the math should be without mistake.

That kind of goes without saying since it's a 2+2 book. They have a 5 year old proofread it.

[Savior17]

I'm done. Subconsciously, the concepts of SPR are what I and many other thinking poker players do. I try to get my money in with the best of it and try to be non-committal with draws. But this is what I think will get widely misapplied by the non-thinking players:

Adjusting to New Information, p. 246: ..."You flop and overpair, and your opponent moves in on you. Before SPR, you may not have known what to do....Now Just check the SPR. If it near your target SPR, you call...."

This may happen even though the succeeding paragraphs tell you how to adjust.

Now I have a major headache today because I can play like a champ somedays (on-line and in casinos), but play like a total donk at my home game. Last night ($100NL) I actually tilted a bit because I was card dead and when I had a hand I was summarily beat on the flop (eg: 88 OTB, raise, get a caller or 2 and the flop comes AKJ, then there is a bet and a raise and I fold - happened too many times). I wake up with AKh and raise OTB. I get reraised by SB and I reraise him basically committing my stack. He moves all in. What do you think he has???? Yes, he does have it. I have to call now because I only have to put in another $25. Of course I donked off all but $15 of my stack. You would think I would have either folded or just called his raise. This is where my brain left my head and went to the crapper. This is a fine example of tilting when card dead and completely ignoring the making adustments section. Now I am down $100 in my home game roll. The good news is (and I have to brag because it will make me feel better) I am up to $530 on FTP from $120 and took 4th in a tourney at the Showboat and then won $300 in the $1/$2 cash game.

[Poboy]

Got the book yesterday. I'm on ~pg.150. So far nothing ground breaking, but some concepts are put well, making it easy to reinforce the ideas and easy to put into practice at the table.
Pot size strategy has only been touched on so far.

[Clipper]

Have read about 1/3 of book. This certainly fills a void in poker literature concerning "planning your hand" (at least discussion to this depth). I have on many occasions found myself overcommitted late in a hand; when it is too late to get away from a loser - stuck due to pot odds. I guess I learned through trial and error a lot of the concepts they were talking about. To summarize: be circumspect early in the hand, tend to keep the pot small unless you have a very strong hand - particularly if your opponent has few outs. You can certainly minimize the times you get felted by following this advice. I am impressed that it is easy to read. In an un-Sklansky-like manner, it says a lot without confusing you or making you think very hard to get the concept. I think the world of E. Miller by the way; and predict he will be the up and coming "Sklansky of poker".

On the downside the book has taken a general idea and built an entire book around it in this volume 1. Overkill? Possibly, but I like the book anyway. Eager to digest the remaining 2/3 of it.

These ideas have been touched on elsehwere. Angel Largay has a very good book for NL Cash games (lower limits - 1/2 through 2/5) that discusses similar ideas with less ink. Angel's "Nuts with a Freeroll" (which this PNLH vol. 1 presents as if it is first in print or something) and then another chapter where Angel gives an example where he knows a guy is committed to the hand and Angel has the best hand currently is best played by seeing the river to make sure the board does not pair. Very counterintuitive, but correct reasoning by Angel. I actually played a hand recently at Bay 101 in a $2-$3-$5 game where I had a full house on turn, and correctly waited to see the river before getting all the money in (I wound up folding, correctly). I had 55 with an Ah, 5d, 6d board. I made a 1.5 times pot bet on flop and was called. Then the As came on turn. I checked the turn to see if the board paired (even though I knew I had the best hand on the turn). I knew he had an A (or potentially 66, A5, or A6) and simply was not folding even if I pushed. Another A came on river and I folded, saving about 2/3 of my stack (my opponent had quad aces). That A on the river turned my 55 into toilet paper. That was the exact type of situation Angel discussed.

The money behind is more significant than what is in the pot. This is why limit players often fail to understand NL theory. They tend to value bet medium stregth hands too much early in the hand, when the better play is often the more passive play - with the rewards with the passive play being a better chance to stack your opponent through aggressive action later in the hand. Basically, limit players put too much emphasis on winning small pots.

And of course Phil Gordon has covered similar concepts to PNLH V. 1 as well using fewer words.