HOH Volume 1 - Book Discussion Part 2

It is time for part 2! These are the sections we will be discussing:

Part 2 - Playing Styles and Starting Requirements

Introduction
Style 1: The Conservative Approach
Opening Requirements in Conservative Play
Style 2: The Aggressive Approach
Style 3: The Super-Aggressive Approach
Origins of the Aggressive Styles
The Art of Defense
The Hammer
The Rope-A-Dope
Showng Hands
Managing the Tournament
Varying Your Style
Pursuing A Balanced Strategy
Tournament Types: A Quick Review
Major Live Tournaments
Small-Stakes Multi-Table Online Tournaments
High-Stakes Multi-Table Online Tournaments
Live Single-Table Satellites
The Problems


Please refrain from copying and pasting sections from the book in our discussion. Let's discuss it in our own words.

***Part 2 Discussion Oct 9th - Oct 28th***

To ensure proper credit is given for the book:
"Harrington on Hold'Em" was written by Dan Harrington and Bill Robertie and published by Two Plus Two.

Feel free to start without me - I have a little bit of reading left to do.

I really like the way Don explains the Rope a Dope strategy... I've been using it for years, even the term, but saw it in print the first time here, and it's a strategy I like against super aggressive players -- just calling with yr monster hands while he keeps throwing punches, then KO them on the river. Point being here, if you raise him on the flop or turn, for instance, you risk losing him (super aggressive players are like schoolyard bullies -- they flee when they meet resistance).
I sometimes employ a variation of rope a dope in mid to late tourneys, hanging on the ropes, taking small shots, waiting for an opportunity to felt someone.

Ummm... not to take away from this thread, but, uh, should we not make this a followup to what was already started?:

http://www.cardschat.com/f13/harring...art-2-a-70322/

No - that was quite some time back and we are starting a fresh discussion. Though feel free to pull quotes and comments from there to discuss.

Being fairly new to NLHE, I like the way he explains the conservitve approach and lays out what hands to play in what position. Before this, I just played what I thought was the best, I never took into consideration when and what to play OR how to bet. I DO like the rope-a-dope as well, as I've used it already with success. And now I've learned the best way to bet---before I would just throw what I thought was a good bet, and found out, much to my chegrin, I was not only WRONG but on the short end of the rope-a-dope. I was the dope, but no more! I was told once---'They had my number' 'cuz I would lose more than I won, at least now I have a 'Strategy', at least, and pretty much know what to do---I DO need more practice, though!

Well, this pretty much summarizes the section quite well, as posted by Beriac:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckTs
Introduction: What is the key sentence in this section?

Well, without quoting anything, I'd say when he refers to poker as a game of misdirection. Increasingly I am understanding this concept, that changing gears is basically the key to playing high level NLHE.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckTs
Conservative style: What makes a conservative player? How do these characteristics and aspects of his/her game affect his/her play in poker? What kind of player would this style suit best?

Play less hands but make your life easier by seeing the flop with higher quality cards. Fittingly, the conservative style is good for conservative people.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckTs
Aggressive style: What makes an aggressive player? There are positives and negatives involved in a more aggressive style - what are they? What kind of player would this style suit best?

The reverse of the above, play lots of hands and bet aggressively. Positives are stealing and concealing your strong hands, negatives are difficult post-flop decisions and more volatile swings.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckTs
Super-aggressive style: What makes a super-aggressive (s/a) player? How is it that an s/a player wins his pots?

Any 2 cards! They can win by inducing a fold pre-flop, inducing a fold with a bluff post-flop, or winning with the best hand.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckTs
The art of defence: What are the two techniques mentioned for defending versus an aggressive player? How do they work?

You can use the Hammer (come over the top with a big raise versus a s/a player) or the Rope-a-Dope (just call with really strong hands, let the s/a player get himself into trouble).


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckTs
Showing hands: Under what circumstances, and for what purpose does the book suggest you show your hands?

Basically for misdirection, if you're a conservative player and you want to show a bluff to get action or an aggressive player and you want to show your good cards to earn respect for your raises. But, don't do it without good reason. Personally, I never show online. Offline, I will show occasionally, and often switch gears when I do.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckTs
Managing the tournament: What is the ideal style for tournaments?

Balanced strategy -- neither totally conservative nor totally aggressive, lest your opponents peg you for what you're playing and take advantage.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckTs
The tournaments types: What are the five main types of tournaments mentioned? What are the main aspects of these tourneys that should affect your general style of play in each?

- Major live events: Basically people are paying big bucks, so the action will be slower and more conservative to start.
- Small stakes online: Lots of people seeing the flop, not very much sophistication -- don't bluff!
- High stakes online: Similar to "Major live events".
- Single table SNG: Basically consensus strategy here: play only with really strong hands early, start to steal when the blinds go up and a few people are out.
- Live single table satellites: Like the SNG but everyone's fighting for 1st place and tells come into play again.

Sumpin' Funny--- I just came from PS where I played in 1-1.10 tourney--1-2.20 tourny and 1-4.40 tourny, the last 2 being SnGs. I did TERRABLE in each of those tournys, using the 'Conservitive' approach. I would get "playable" hands and bet according to position and what little I was able to read. So, I gave those tournys up and went to a .25/.50 cash ring and over DOUBLED my buy in 0f $15 to $32 using the very same style (Conservitive). So what I've learned from HOH works very well at the rings, at least for me, so far! But not so well at the tournys. Now, I know there's a big differance between the 2, but for now I think my best bet is to stick with the ring games. The same thing happened last month at Ultimatebet---I did REAL well at ring games, and lousy at tournaments.

As you can see, the emphasis is on "changing gears". Playing a style that differs from how you normally play is essential. As he said, "poker is a game of misdirection." As he explains the differences between styles, it should be noted that experience in Hold 'Em does become an important element. Personally, i find it difficult to read players online, for obvious reasons, however, betting patterns can sometimes be used imo. Reading online players and their play is not as straightforward as it seems but i think most authors, at their time of writing poker bibles, were oblivious to this fact. It would be interesting to hear some thoughts from some internet pros that are successful in live games or tournies. With that said, reading players or at the very least, an attempt to read players in brick 'n mortar games/tournies should influence your style of play. I'm looking forward to reading some thoughts on "the art of defense". I'm curious as to how many horror stories when you think someome is surperaggressive but actually just one lucky donkey!!

As Harrington had pointed out in the "Small stakes Multi-table Online Tournaments" review, 1. Don't depend on observation much. 2. Don't plan on running bluffs 3. Bet sizing and betting patterns don't get too much respect early on. 4. Crowded pots are the norm in the early stages and most late position raises will act only as pot sweeteners when there are a considerable amount of limpers. and then goes on in #5 as to what the optimal strategy would be for a conservative player.
I think this is where I go wrong most times in the early stages of tournaments, thinking that bet sizing should do what it's suppose to do then I'm disappointed in the end result when my bet sizes are called preflop when they shouldn't and I end up tilting sometimes.
As for using the conservative approach in a ring game, it's great, but you have to realize that the conservative approach works well for one reason and that is the players in a ring game are paying more attention to you than they would in a tourney, so your conservative approach garners more respect in a ring.

EXACTLY! This is EXACTLY what happened yesterday--what Shindown said in nos. 1-3-4 is what happened to me in those tournys I didn't do well in!Also, I need to pay more attention o what HOH says on pg. 39 that "every pot I enter has the potential of consuming all my chips". So now I'm thinking that I wasn't playing conservitavly at all in those tournys--I was REALLY playing aggresivly (because I WAS loosing all my chips early-on). Now that I've read what shinedown said and re-read what HOH is saying, I was really being aggresive in the tournys and consevitive in the rings! I wonder--do you think we who are involved in this thread and the book, could we set up some sort of FR where we could actually PRACTICE what we are learning?? 'Cuz I'm the type of learner that learns best HANDS-ON. It's hard for me to learn just by reading---I need to actually DO in order to get a full grasp on concepts and learn by doing. Some can READ and learn-Some can WATCH and learn and some can DO and learn (these are actual learning concepts--that's what I LEARNED while I was a Special Ed. major in college!)

Why that last post is even IN this disscussion for I dunno! Back to HOH---Now, please don't think me a complete dumb-ass, but I'm in this disscussion to LEARN, Ok? Now, in 'Opening requirements in conservitive play', he lays out when and where to place certain bets in different position---however, he only mentions 'RAISES'--nothing about calling or checking---But later on he DOES mention what to do in his 'Practice Hands'--and, I gotta say, I answered each of his questions the same way HE did(when he asks--"What do you do?") and checking and calling are mentioned there. Now , I KNOW he says we are the 'First to act' in the opening requirments--so are we to use checking and calling only AFTER the pot has been opened!? I'm SO confused! I mean, of course the pot has to be opened first, and I understand the part about making sure we have a BETTER hand than the opener by--if he opens in MP, we should have have one of the hands in EP before we raise---but can't we just call?? And if we DO open, couldn't we just check---should we ALWAYS Raise?

Aggression is one of the keys to good poker play, without the element of aggression you then become tight/passive and that is not the type of image we want at the table.
Aggression also helps us to define villians starting requirements.
eg: you're in LP with QQ, a MP player raises 3-4xBB, without a reraise into villian, you may not know what he could have but if you re-raise villian and he calls you most likely have the better hand but if he re-raises your re-raise then you could safely put him on AK or better based on your read of villian.

OK--I agree with the 'aggresion' part--that I get, Shine, and what you say here makes PERFECT sense--so no call, right---RAISE only, right? And if nobody raises, we DO in LP with QQ, maybe to thin out the field? and /or to get a better read?? True

You got it.

Wow! Yaaaay!! I'm learnin'! Now, on to the next part More to come! Tanks, Shine!

Ok--I have one more question on playing MP--lets say MP1 raises 3Xs BB--I am MP2 with, I dunno, lets say K-Q suited---Now, if MP1 is raising with what you would expect him/her to raise with (any of the cards he, Harrington, mentions)--would now be the time to merley call? Or should I raise anyway??

I don't have the book in front of be but you fold.

1. you need a better hand to call with than you need to raise with.
2. if person is tag then you would expect his range to AA-JJ, AKs-Ajo. maybe some suited connecters mixed in and possibly lower pocket pairs. The point being is your cards don't play well against his range as you could easily be dominated.

An aggressive move would be to reraise but that is reads and situation dependant, ldo.

Hmmm.....interesting, Steve---I get what you're saying--So it would be correct to fold in any situation when you are raised by someone who bets BEFORE you if your cards are not at least as strong as the position before the raiser, right?

Not as strong, stronger. Harrington talks about it later I believe, but what we are discussing is the "gap concept". In early positions theoretically you are opening with strong hands. UTG isn't going to raise 3xbb with 72o. Then to call that raise you need a stronger hand that that person needs to open it. So in your previous example of MP opening and you are in MP+1 you would want probably AK, KK, AA or QQ to continue by either raising or calling depending on the situation.

I will jump in on this tomorrow guys!

Ok--Now, with no real reads yet (new table where I don't know any of the players) I should consider them to all be TAG or Super aggresive at 1st?? And just continue to play a more conservitive style, at 1st, anyway? At least until I see how they're playing? Would sitting out and just watching for a number of hands be a good idea?

Sure this is all generalizations, I will raise 9/10s UTG so for you to call my raise you don't need as good of a hand. Reads change everything but you won't go wrong assuming everyone is TAG until proven otherwise.

Thanks alot, Steve, for all your help! This is the reason I joined Cardschat to begin with---TO LEARN! And it's folks like you who are not afraid to share their knowledge with us NOOBs that make this the BEST DAMN POKER FORUM ONNA INNER NET! That's what I tell all the new members in the intro section! Lemme buy ya a beer!---Rick

Okay - I finally got through part 2 except for the problems. I plan on doing thoise on the plane next week when I go to Niagara Falls.

The playing styles was interesting for me. As everyone here knows I am conservative - the most feedback I get is about being more aggressive. I have made changes in the past 2 years since joining Cardschat - but the most drastic changes have come in the past couple of months.

Understanding that I don't have to become aggressive - that I only need to mix it up with my natural style is huge to me. And I am finally learning when I need to do that.

His opening requirements are very helpful and I have been roughly using them as guidelines.

He gives a few good tips in the tournament styles - but a lot of the tournaments I play in do not fall in any of those categories.

One example is freerolls - I didn't really expect strategy advice from Dan on these lol. But - I am very surprised to be recently discovering that you really don't have to play them all that differently. I only play Cardschat freerolls - so the fields are smaller and you have the advantage of knowing a lot of the players. Of course they know you too. Or they think that they do.

By mixing up my conservative style with some of the aggressive style - I have taken first place in 2 out of the last 3 CC FT Tuesday freerolls. And I am finding that I am going deeper in most of the ones I am playing now on a consistent basis.

The other example are the Cardschat money added buy-ins. We have smaller fields than he is discussing - and again you know most of the players. They are almost like playing sng's. I had temporary success being more aggressive in those - but lately haven't done as well.

My favorite lines from this section:

"You will make your easiest money when you make plays that are the opposite of your normal style"

"Every pot you enter has the potential of consuming all your chips"

"Aginst a super-aggressive player, all your hands are stronger than they appear"

I quoted again.

Nothing wrong with quoting daks, in fact, for educational purposes, you can quote up to 10% of any given book or article without worrying about copyright.

Anyhoo, Im mixing it up more too, txs to 'Action Dan,' and am focusing on making myself harder to read (misdirection)... like a stealth poker player...

HOH came in the mail from Amazon today. Only $13.00. Can't wait to join the discussion.

Well start reading and catch up with me m- not much discussion going on right now!

hi, i would like to join this discusion since i reacently started to read harrinton on holdem vol1, and i'm getting very interested in the thing he puts in the book.
By now i started to try some of the things he says, but the one thing i can get to work for me is the mixing of the styles while you play, if any of you have managed to do it right please send me a few tips, because the book it's not very expecificic about it.

^^ don't be too concerned with mixing up styles right now if you are just beginning and aren't good at it. That is a part of your game that you can develop later after you have gained a lot more experience. For now being aware that not all players play the same way and being able to identify the differences is enough. imo

Like HOH said--basically get used to which ever style you are comfortable with FIRST! And then, after you are comfortable there, then start mixing it up. But 1st you need to learn just what exactly what makes those styles what they are, and learn how to use them properly!

Mixing it Up: I'm normally TAG, but thanks to Harrington and people like Hansen and Lindgren, I'm now playing more small prs and suited connectors (with gaps sometimes) when I can get in cheap. Playing marginal hands can flop you some monsters... I'll also play K or Qx sometimes, just to mix things up some more... then go to super tight for a few orbits.. I'm sure a lot of peeps think I am a donkey, but I ain't, and I'm glad they think I'm a fool when I take down a pot w Q9o...

Also pay attention to the inflection point and the M-zones.
Lots of good stuff and the tournament indicator supports this approach!!

We are still on Vol. 1 early on, that stuff comes later. Read whats happening before posting is always a good idea, and try to follow the discussion and add to it.

I have a little doubt about the styles part: When he suggest wich opening hands work for each style, doesn't explain what he means with opening. What is opening? Making a 3bb raise? Just limp? calling a previous limper? Raising a previous raiser?