Harringtons advice

Im reading harringtons book" harington on cash games vol 2". And am alittle sceptical about an example of a hand he gives , what do you guys think about this.
In vol 1 he explains that in cash we should control the pot size relative to the strength of our hand , so with a small hand which includes top pair and overpair , we should bet less streets and bet less than pot size , and with a strong hand , sets and above we should build the pot as quickly as possible. Preety good advice I think.
In Vol 2 he gives this example :
5-10 live game rel. stack 800
hero has KK in early pos. and raises to 30
Mid pos player and CO both call. (both have us covered 1000&1200 stacks)
FLOP (105) Jh8s4c
hero bets 100 MD folds , CO calls
Turn (305) 9h
Now to me the board is getting very wet and we need to bet here 1 for value 2 charge draws , somewhere around the 170 mark looks to me like a good value bet.
But Harrington suggests that because one pair is a small hand we should check and keep the pot small so that we do not get pot committed , and bet the river if a blank hits.

Do you agree with Harrington here or is his advice a little outdated , for todays game as ranges are wider and play in more aggressive.

kanselau said:

Im reading harringtons book" harington on cash games vol 2". And am alittle sceptical about an example of a hand he gives , what do you guys think about this.
In vol 1 he explains that in cash we should control the pot size relative to the strength of our hand , so with a small hand which includes top pair and overpair , we should bet less streets and bet less than pot size , and with a strong hand , sets and above we should build the pot as quickly as possible. Preety good advice I think.
In Vol 2 he gives this example :
5-10 live game rel. stack 800
hero has KK in early pos. and raises to 30
Mid pos player and CO both call. (both have us covered 1000&1200 stacks)
FLOP (105) Jh8s4c
hero bets 100 MD folds , CO calls
Turn (305) 9h
Now to me the board is getting very wet and we need to bet here 1 for value 2 charge draws , somewhere around the 170 mark looks to me like a good value bet.
But Harrington suggests that because one pair is a small hand we should check and keep the pot small so that we do not get pot committed , and bet the river if a blank hits.

Do you agree with Harrington here or is his advice a little outdated , for todays game as ranges are wider and play in more aggressive.

Click to expand...

This is all the more reason for us to go ahead and check back a street in the above example to preserve our equity and not get blown off a hand.

I play 2/5nl and 5/10nl live all the time. Players in teh 5/10nl game are typically NOT stack off monkeys like 1/2nl players who think TPGK+ is the stone cold nuts and will stack off 150bb+ without even blinking...

When you have KK vs 2 competent villains then a
FLOP (105) Jh8s4c
Turn (305) 9h

Board sucks pretty bad because there are a lot of combos out there that can shove back on you that merge very well with hands that have you beat that can shove on you.

When playing 5/10nl stacking off 100bb with just TPGK or an overpair is pretty meh... Again, your villains aren't stack off monkeys so if you shove with an overpair can a lessor hand call?

And that is a principle that indirectly merges with "small hand small pot big hand big pot"

You want to make bets that lessor hands can call.

and at 5/10nl, too many of your villains just aren't going to call you with QJ or JT in these spots if you bet turn. JT or T9 type hands are not calling a turn bet but rather are going to shove back on you on turn because they will have fold equity. The problem though is this merges well with hand combos that have KK beat. If you can range villains such that you are ahead equity wise, then by all means, go ahead and bet turn. But if you can't, then checking back turn isn't bad in this spot.

Similarly, if we inflate the pot on turn we are ensuring that we are playing a "big pot" with a hand that isn't all the "big". So if we have the option, we definitely don't mind checking back this turn so we can get to a showdown on river.

Remember, even with the board being so wet, majority of rivers will still favor us...

Basically, it comes down to our villains and the situation. If we bet this turn then all pot control is lost and we are 100% playing for stacks on turn or river. If our villains are stack off monkeys then great, lets get it in. If our villain's are competent then maintaining pot control by forgoing a turn bet is not a bad strategy.

This hand isn't really a good example. We have a clear value bet on this turn with plenty of worse hands that will call but won't call river.

baudib1 said:

This hand isn't really a good example. We have a clear value bet on this turn with plenty of worse hands that will call but won't call river.

Click to expand...

Actually, this hand isn't a bad example.

The point here is one of pot control.

We start the hand with $800, bet $130 by the turn so pot is $305 on turn and we have $670-ish behind.

Any bet on turn ensures we are playing for stacks since that drops the SPR under 1.

So this is a "big hand big pot, small hand small pot" situation in which we decide the size of the pot by our turn action.

Checking back turn means that our river bet can still be less than half of our stack remaining. Betting turn means that villain can c/r majority of his range against us on turn and then we would have to call.

If we feel V does this with a range we are ahead of then great, by all means lets get it in.

However, if we feel V does this with a range we are not ahead of then we should check back turn.

Only thing I don't like about this example though is that in real life there are other factors involved in these sorts of situations that can lead to a certain type of bias when debating online.

But for the sake of argument, the principle still applies here, and that is if we want to play for stacks on this board with an overpair. And tbh, that is always going to depend on the ranges you assign your villain and your perceived image.

great explanation dhiharris , I think Harrington would be nodding his head if he read your post.
I also strongly agree with baudib as against a lot of fishy villains who will show up with hands like JQ, JK and who will even stack of with AJ , this is a clear bet.

I also play live at a casino in perth Australia , I play 2/5 as this is the only limit available mostly , so you get both fish and tough players mixed in , and it makes sense to exercise good pot control and not stack of with TPTK against the better players as they will usually have TP type hands crushed by the river when stacks go in .

On the other hand the fish will call you down with 2nd pair so we can value bet them to hell , also the fish are usually passive so if we bet and get raised , we can fold with greater confidents that we are not getting bluffed.
I think Harrington should have went deeper in his explanation that checking/betting this turn is dependent on the villain we face .

Looks like a b/f to me on the turn, all things being equal. Why are we concerned about getting x/r on the turn? Is it common to expect to be getting bluffed here?