HOH Vol 3

[Zybomb]

I've finally gotten into this book... so far I am about 1/2 way done.

I think his first two books were fantastic, the head of the class in Hold Em Strategy books -- but this book is ... I dunno...

I don't really agree with a lot of the advice he gives here, and he interprets some situations very strangely (and results oriented) One situation which comes to mind ....

We had raised preflop with J T from 5th position to $12,000. We received 1 call from behind us and 1 call from the BB.

The flop came A 5 5 . BB checked, option to us. Harrington awarded no points for betting and full credit for checking. Third player checks.

The turn came 8 . BB bet 18,000 (1/2 pot), we received no points for folding, and full credit for calling. Third player folds

River comes Rag and BB checks. We received full credit for checking and no credit for betting because "The BB had shown real strength in the hand" (real strength by checking the flop, betting 1/2 the pot on the turn and checking the river?) BB had 65 and scooped. Now Im not saying this is a good spot to bet here...all Im saying is that the BB did not by any means show "real strength" in this hand

Other advice seemed odd and calling station like (Raising preflop with Ace Ten and check calling 3 streets when an ace flops)

Raising preflop with AT, having a rag flop and not CBing the flop when checked to, or betting the turn when checked to.

There are several more examples as well.

Im still yet to finish it, but I find I'm disagree with Harrington on a lot of hands here --- anyone else have any opinions?

[Talking Poker]

I own the book but haven't read it. That is definitely a strange example you gave though...

[Invigilator]

I can understand the first check. Other than folding equity, our hand has no reall chance of winning unless it improves. The BB has called with somthing, but checked? He is often making a mistake here by giving a free card. I'll take that card and most hearts are going to give me the best hand IMO.

The other actions after the turn hits, yeah, I am not sure about that.

[PunkyChikn]

That bugged me when I read it too. It seemed to me that he advocates a REALLY passive style, way more so than the other two. I'm not really sure what the deal is with it.

[Invigilator]

I guess that is why he is sarcastically refered to as "Action Dan"

[MAYHEM45]

I hated this book. Really weird since the first two were amazing, especially the red zone chapters of the second book.

[Talking Poker]

Don't confuse tight with passive (or loose with aggressive). These are very different things.

[Invigilator]

too true, too true. The play described after the flop is definitely "passive" as opposed to "tight"

side note: I was happy to see that in the last week, the auto-rate feature on PT gave me a tighter rating. I feel so special when technology praises me.

[Kurn]

First off, this is a tourney and fold equity is your life's blood.

He raised preflop, got a A-paired rags 2-tone flop. Why would you NOT cb this flop? Fold equity is reasonably large, you have the draw, and a call by your opponent gives you pretty specific information (your J&T outs are probably not good *or* he also has 2 hearts). If you ask me, betting this flop makes the rest of the hand easier to play.

I have to go back and check the book, Zy didn't give stack sizes or player reads, so maybe Harrington is basing his analysis on those factors. The only thing other than that I can think of is, hero's been cb'ing alot, 2 opponents and a tricky BB reduce fold equity, and he's confident the player behind him will also check, which isn't bad since the free card is good for him.

[Invigilator]

Thanks. Of course, you are right. Playing more cash games lately has caused to see more of these differences. I don't claim to understand them all yet, but since I started out in tournaments I know what you mean by "life blood". Whenever I have won or gone deep ina tournament the number of pots won without show-down is very high, and many of these have to be attributed to CBing.