Harrington on holdem

[rfph1]

I read the above book over Christmas - overall, about 95 nothing new (which I suppose is a good thing - wish I had read the book a year ago though). But, there were 2 thoughts that I have been unable to come to terms with:

1. Harrington values pocket pairs far higher than I do - he frequently gets involved with 88 or below. This is not something I do, and would like some opionions. 88 or below often (not sure the %) results in overcards on the flop, and therefore you dont know where you are in the hand, which I hate. He goes on to advise betting with 1 overcard on the board, but not 2.

2. His bet sizes seem a little low - he talks about 50-75% of the pot here, and 40-60% there, but imo, online, a bet < pot (on the flop) does not normally push someone of a flush draw (even though it should). NB I am referring to early/mid stages of a MTT where the BBs are not a large %age of the players stacks. Has the level of aggression online increased in last few years to the point that Harringtons advice on bet size is out of date ? (Im not looking for a mathemetical justification of Harringtons bet sizes - I can follow his logic ok)

any advice ?

oh, I read Vol 1 (any views on vol 2 - worth £20 ?)

[rfph1]

right, after just losing 2 10plr STTs with 88 (vs 99 and KQ) respectively I am going to need some convincing about the benefits of low pairs !!!!

grrrrrr

[CitrusSR]

I read Vol 1 earlier this year and am about halfway through Vol 2 and would say Vol 2 is better than the first, as like you most of Vol 1 wasn't exactly new info.

For e.g the 'M' concept was something I had heard of but never really bothered to find out what it was! It is explained quite simply in Vol 2 along with other things.

As for advice on specific hands to play, etc I would recommend reading as many books as possible and taking parts of each style to ultimately create your own way of playing. I am currently reading Gus Hansen - Every Hand Revealed, whilst I don't think I could ever play in that way, I do need to be more aggressive when antes are involved, so thats at least one thing I will take from that book

[rfph1]

I suppose Vol 2 is as good a way to spend the Christmas &#163;&#163; as any.

PS CitrusSR - hows the PLO ROI ?

Username Games Played Av. Profit Av. Stake Av. ROI Total Profit Form Network Filter
rfph1 72 €0.7 €2 39&#37; €50 - IPN G=Omaha x

[CitrusSR]

I suppose Vol 2 is as good a way to spend the Christmas ££ as any.

PS CitrusSR - hows the PLO ROI ?

Username Games Played Av. Profit Av. Stake Av. ROI Total Profit Form Network Filter
rfph1 72 €0.7 €2 39% €50 - IPN G=Omaha x

You can normally almost get back what you paid for on Ebay with these sort of books aswell



Omaha Hi/Lo is a bit meh for me lately, not been playing it as much and gone back to NLHE mostly!! I was running like god at first (though I have no proof of this except an excel spreadsheet since it wasn't tracked on Sharkscope). Played about 50 games with a 50% ROI then since SS has been tracking them:

Username Games Played Av. Profit Av. Stake Av. ROI Total Profit Form Network Filter
CitrusSR 51 $2 $5 31% $78 - IPN G=Omaha SN


I still think this masks the fact that I am actually not very good at Omaha, it's just that others are so bad. Just playing like a rock gets you in the money most of the time

[Barnfather]

I think the pocket pair thing is simply a question of position. If you are in late position and first to act, or earlier to act and don't mind limping to see a flop on a tight table then low pocket pairs have great value if you hit a set. Pockets 4's are well disguised if you hit a flop of 10-4-A and you would almost certainly get action against your trip 4's.

Any big pre-flop re-raise or missing the board with overcards appearing and seeing a raise would almost certainly be a situation to fold though

[lev1athan]

I may be a bit retarded in having done this, but I've only read Vol II, not Vol I. And there's plenty in there to make it well worth reading in its own right whether or not you've got Vol I, provided you've got something resembling a clue of how to play poker.

One thing that did confuse me slightly was his description of Q, without then using it in any way in any subsequent analysis IIRC.

[wilfuljoker]

I read Harrington Vol 1 when I first started playing and then read Vol 2 about 6 months later. I think they are excellent books (I've probably read another 20 books and numerous magazines since then and few come anywhere close tbh). One real value to them is that you will see a lot of what I call "Harrington Players" in deeperstacked tourneys. This means that you will have some insight into how they are playing and so be better placed to play against them. I was very much a HP for the first couple of years but have taken the advice given above to read and incorporate different styles of play. I also think that he is weaker on post-flop play and, as we all know, this is where you will win or lose tournaments. This is born out by his valuation of medium pairs. Its knowing how to play them post-flop which will make or lose you chips. I'm sure Harrington knew what to do with them but wasn't so good at explaining it.

[rfph1]

Have ordered it - looking forward to the chapters on HU / Short table play too.

I will experiment further with the pocket pairs b4 making my mind up.

[daldai]

I've read both the harrington books and found them invaluable - can't recommend them enough.

As far as low pocket pairs are concerned i think you could write a whole book on just how to play them in diferent situations (position, number of and nature of opponents, stack sizes, previous betting etc.) - for me there are no rules here and instinct plays a big part.

The bet-sizing descrepancy is more simple - there is generally much higher implied odds in low to mid-stakes on-line tournaments than in the sorts of games action dan is used to playing in - not always though and observing table dynamics is crucial to getting it right.

regards,

daldai.