38 of 43 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
The authors are confused, November 28, 2005
This review is from: Mastering No-Limit Hold'em (Paperback)
The first two chapters reveal that the book is superficial, repetitive and confused.
The book says it is aimed at fixed and variable cash buy-in games between $100 and $500. On page 8, we are told "in all cases, we recommend you buy-in for the maximum possible amount. There is no reason to put yourself at a disadvantage . . ."
Just 3 pages later, on page 11, we are told "we strongly advise you buy-in for the maximum amount. First, many of your opponents will buy in for the maximum. Second, if you purchase the minimum, you will be relatively short stacked. Why put yourself at a disadvantage?"
Now, not only is this advice repetitive, but no valid justification is offered for buying in at the maximum.
The fact is that the bigger your stack, the better player you need to be. There is a reason for this. Any hand you open as a big stack, with a limp or a raise, gives implied odds for all those with position on you to call with a wider variety of hands. This is why Ciaffone/Reuben and later Miller suggest that newer players not play big stacks initially.
In addition, the book is confused. On page 2, we are told that bluffing is not a big weapon anymore in this level of game where people routinely call all their stack on one pair. However, on p. 21, we are told that a big stack is a weapon to be used to bluff with, citing with approval an example where a big stack raised 99 preflop, got bet into on an A83 board, and then reraised all-in, getting a player with AT to fold.
In reality, "big stacks as weapon" is much more of a tourney concept where the blinds increase and you can't go in your pocket. And the advice on page 2 is correct - many calling stations exist today, and attempting to bluff those players is incorrect.
Chapter 3 entitled "Know Your Foes" offers nothing new.
Chapter 4 entitled "Odds & Betting Strategies" is ill-conceived.
Discussion of pot odds includes an example where we are told to fold on the turn with a nut flush draw and 2 overcards in last position for $80 in a $220 pot because the pot odds are "approximately" 2.75:1 and that's not enough to call "even if we attempted to value the overcards."
First, $80 to win $220 is exactly 2.75:1. Second, if both overcards are live, we are 2:1 to win the pot, and are getting an overlay. If one of the overcards is live, we have 12 outs which is 2.8:1, enough to call especially considering implied odds.
Discussion of implied odds includes example of nut flush draw getting 3.5:1 from the pot on the flop. "However, if you make your hand, you believe you will be able to make a large amount of money on the river by traping a loose bettor for most of his stack."
I don't know about you, but unless it's flush over flush, I don't trap people for most of their stack when a flush hits. It's simply not hidden. A straight draw should have been used as the example.
One crucial omission: there is no discussion of odds with 2 cards to come, as in all in on the flop!!
Moreover, there is no discussion of how you go about finding yourself in an implied odds situation. The key is entering pots in position when a big stack (or two) has already entered the pot. In many ways,the authors virtually ignore stack size in their discussion of strategy. Stack size is paramount in NLHE
The discussion of betting strategies is little more than giving you a range to bet under certain situations. This material is nothing new.
Moreover, no consideration is given to how to bet draws. For example, with a flush draw and two overcards, you can bet the pot on the flop. Often, you will win the pot without a fight, and if you get called, you just got 2:1 on your bet with a 2:1 shot to hit your card on the turn.
"Relative position" is described by the authors as your position on the flop. In other words, if you were in the cut off seat, and the button folds, you have last "relative" position.
I guess that's OK, but it's not very helpful.
I didn't see where they discuss what most consider to be "relative position," ie your position with respect to the preflop raiser. Who cares if you have the button on the flop if you are first to act after the preflop raiser makes a continuation bet? This is why cold calling raises is usually so wrong.
Relative position means where you are relative to the preflop raiser. The best position, of course, is directly to the right of the preflop raiser, so if makes a continuation bet, he's betting the field into you.
I could go on, but bottom line, Ciaffone & Reuben's PL & NL Poker book is vastly superior.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
25 of 27 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Great Guide to No-Limit Cash games, May 29, 2005
This review is from: Mastering No-Limit Hold'em (Paperback)
If you are looking to play no-limit cash games (as opposed to tournaments) and your main experience with NL Texas holdem is watching poker on TV or playing sit-and-go or multi-table tournaments online, please get this book. The truth is that NL holdem against ordinary players is not a game that requires or demands a lot of fancy plays and bluffs, but rather mostly solid fundamentals. It might be "sexy" to play like Gus Hanson or Daniel Negreanu do on TV (at short-handed final tournament tables) but you don't want to play like this in the typical game. This book stresses these fundamentals of how to bet, when to raise/call/fold, how to play after the flop, etc.
I thought that I was a decent NL player, but I underestimated the differences between cash game and tournament style holdem. In the few weeks I've had the Fox/Harker book, my results playing NL holdem cash games, both online and in a casino, have been great.
This book assumes that you will be playing in a "restricted" buy-in NL holdem game against average opposition, which is the type of game you would play online (with a $25-$200 buy-in) or in a casino (where the buy-in is usually in the $100-$500 range). Unlike Doyle Brunson's SuperSystem, Harker and Fox do not assume you are playing with a huge stack of thousands of dollars against players that are scared to death of your raises. They also do not assume that you are a world-class player in terms or putting your opponents on a hand.
I gave the book 4 stars instead of 5 because I would have personally preferred a lengthier discussion of "implied" and "reverse implied" odds and more mathematics (although most will probably find plenty of math for their taste).
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
18 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Bad writing and worse advice, April 22, 2007
This review is from: Mastering No-Limit Hold'em (Paperback)
I play poker for a living and online no-limit cash games between 2/4 and 5/10 are currently my games of choice. I have read probably 15 poker books and this one (MNLHE) is far and away the worst. I think the only reason it ever got decent ratings is that for a long time there were very few books on no-limit on the market. This has changed. No Limit Holdem: Theory And Practice (NLHE:TAP) by Sklansky and Miller is now the Bible on cash no-limit, and Phil Gordon's Little Green Book and Little Blue Book are also very good.
As other reviewers have noted, this book endorses the bizarre idea that a short stack is an inherent disadvantage (as opposed to simply a less profitable choice than a deep stack) in a cash game. This commonly believed idea was debunked once and for all in NLHE:TAP.
MNLHE's problems get much worse than that, though. You only have to reach page 18 before this stunning advice appears. You're sitting in a $2/$3 NL game with $60, having just lost a pot, and:
"You look down at 9d7h in the cut-off position. An early position player raises to $7 and 4 players call. Normally you would fold this hand but in this situation you might elect to call. It is likely your cards are live. If you hit the flop you can win a large pot."
If you haven't played much no-limit you'll have to take my word for it that this is unbelievably bad advice. I feel silly even explaining why, but: with a deep stack of say $300, a call could be justified, but with a stack as small as 20 big blinds, your payoff when you hit the flop in a big way is far too small. You have good position, but that is worth a lot less when you're short stacked. The pot is going to be something like $40 on the flop and you only have $53, so your choices are going to be limited to allin or fold. It's also worth noting that in a loose game there's absolutely no reason to believe that "your cards are probably live".
Wander over to page 21 and we see the authors endorse the idea that having a stack of $400 facing two players with stacks of $70 and $125 is any different than having a stack of $125 in the same situation. See NLHE:TAP if you don't understand why this is wrong.
Turning to the quiz on page 161, the authors ask:
"You hold QQ in the cutoff seat. There are two limpers to you, you raise to $20, and only one of the limpers calls you. The flop doesn't appear threatening: 7h7c3s. However, to your surprise, the preflop limper bets $30 (he has you outchipped). It's your turn to act; what is your action?" (You began the hand with $150 in a $2/$3 game)
This is an utterly trivial hand, but the authors start their answer:
"What does your opponent hold? Is he bluffing? Hands like this are why some of us get grey hair!"
Um, really? You guys must be easily stressed.
"If your opponent is tight and solid, a fold is probably correct; he likely has one of the hands that beats you."
Are you serious? What is a "tight and solid" player doing splashing around preflop for over 1/8th of the effective stacks, out of position, with 33 or a hand that includes a 7? And if he does have one of those hands (or is slowplaying aces or kings) why is he betting straight out at me instead of checking and giving me a chance to put more money in the pot if I have something like AQ? Folding here is just ridiculous. The pot is $48 and your stack is $130 - there's no way you're doing anything on a flop like this except getting the money in. You should either raise or call here depending on the tendencies of the opponent, but in either case your focus is squarely on getting all the money in the middle.
Those are some of the more egregious examples; I could go on, but my point should be made.
The writing is terrible, both in terms of correct use of English and in terms of clarity and readability. There are grade-school grammatical mistakes like "not that great of a situation" (rather than "not that great a situation"). The narrative is tangled and often wanders off on little tangents of questionable relevance. It is frequently anecdotal rather than dealing with underlying theoretical context. This adds up to a very confused presentation of ideas which the authors (given some of the jaw-dropping advice) probably don't have much of a grasp on in the first place.
I felt compelled to write this lengthy review after ordering MNLHE from Amazon on the strength of the reviews. I learnt nothing from this book and its presence on my bookshelf is nothing but an irritation. I'm not one of those people who trawl Amazon looking for things they can give one star to, but I really do think that is what the book deserves. Buy NLHE:TAP instead, or if you already have that, save your money and reread it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
