| |  | Authors: Dan Harrington, Bill Robertie
Publisher: Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
List Price: $29.95
Buy New: $15.00
as of 9/4/2010 13:54 CDT details
You Save: $14.95 (50%)
New (37) Used (29) from $10.74
Seller: books369a
Rating:  63 reviews
Sales Rank: 7,530
Media: Paperback
Edition: Workbook
Pages: 350
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.9
Dimensions (in): 8.4 x 5.4 x 1.2
ISBN: 1880685361
Dewey Decimal Number: 795.412
EAN: 9781880685365
ASIN: 1880685361
Publication Date: May 30, 2006
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 26-30 of 63
 Three Excellent Books with a Vocabulary Problem May 1, 2007
William Reich (Branford, Ct USA)
6 out of 17 found this review helpful
First of all, let me say that these books are excellent, even brilliant. If every idea presented wasn't convincing, I will be the first to admit that it is probably something I am missing or it is a concept that is equally valid to the one I have learned, as there are different correct ways to approach some NLHE tournament situations. There are enough good ideas in the books that successful tournament players should probably have banded together and bought up all the copies and destroyed them. After reading them, of course. However, I have a couple of things to say about the use of poker vocabulary in these books and they aren't complimentary.
When I was reading the first volume for the fist time, I asked myself, "Why does he insist on using `loose' as a synonym for `aggressive?" He does sometimes use the latter term but he usually uses "too loose" whenever he sees an action as too aggressive. Does he think aggressive is always a term of approbation? Does he prefer to use loose when he is writing a negative evaluation?
In one of the first two books, he says that limping in with QdJd in a certain situation is ok but raising is "too loose." Decades of poker writers and readers would have said it was "too aggressive," although some would have disagreed. Why does Harrington want to change the normal usage? Why is the terminology used by Mike Caro, David Sklansky, almost everyone who wrote about poker not the easiest way to communicate?
In the first book, where he discusses various playing styles, he discusses some of the, mostly young, small-ball players who get in a lot of hands and tend not to get pot-committed, he called them "super-aggressive." This is clearly misleading. They are not more aggressive than the players he called simply aggressive. They get into more hands and try to play most of them cheaply. I would think "hyper-active" a good name for them. In the last book, he uses the term "Small-ball" for a few of them. It is a good term. In any case, he described their play very well and you could gain some ideas about how to play against them and how they play from him. That is why I disagree with a respected correspondent who said he thinks this might be a conceptual problem, rather than a vocabulary problem.
"Loose," as it has usually been used, means coming into coming into too many pots or, less judgmental, coming into more pots than someone would who was playing "tighter." These are actually value-neutral terms. One can be too tight as well as too loose. "Aggressive" means betting or raising when another player would check or call or fold. That less aggressive player is usually termed "passive." These are also value-neutral terms or nearly so. There is such a thing as being too aggressive, although most of us think that the ideal way to play is way over on the aggressive side of the midline. However, that becomes the new midline.
It is almost obsolete to refer to a player as "tough" or "weak" but that is an important distinction. Once involved in a pot, especially after the pot has grown big, a tough player will be loath to let go of his hand. A weak player will, rightly or wrongly, be more easily convinced he is beaten. These are also value-neutral terms or should be. The trouble is that the terms sound exactly like a statement on the player's general ability.
The lack of vocabulary for this last dimension has consequences. Thinking that a loose player will continue after the flop when beaten is often found to be incorrect when the player is good enough to recognize the hand is no longer good and make the, correct, "weak" fold. Thinking that a tight player will also give up a hand when it is beaten is often incorrect. Very tight players are often tragically "tough," when they shouldn't be, when their Aces or some other premium hand is beaten. At deep-stack NLHE, this can be much more costly than being weak or loose. They guys at Wikapedia just won't change their definition of "loose" that states that a loose player will always be "tough" and will continue to play hands that don't flop well. Good loose players don't do that. It is possible that the guys who wrote the article don't think "good loose player" is a real category.
These guys also advise that steal-raises are more likely to succeed if the people in the blinds are "passive." It is as if using "tight" as a negative term, which it is in this case, is forbidden.
Harrington's writing style in general is pleasant but it is annoying that he can't use the normal terms in these situations. There's no authority that created these definitions but they certainly make communication among poker players and writers easier. Why does Dan Harrington insist
on saying "green" when he means "loud."
In the material at the end of Book Three, he says:
"Loose play: betting or raising without a good combination of hand or position."
"Loose play: setting up potentially big pot without a premium hand."
"Loose play: Moving all-in unnecessarily."
Who uses "loose" like that?
What about "Loud: the color of grass or other vegetable matter or the state of being envious."
Then there's
"Passive-aggressive play" Calling with a weak hand out of position." ???
and
"Passive play" Folding when you need to push all-in." That's not passive. That's "weak" in the usual terminology. I don't like the "weak/tough" terms for that dimension but THIS usage is just wrong.
Do they pay people to be editors at 2+2. None of this is conceptual error. It is all a failure to communicate in the standard way. It is all "Turn down that stereo, it's too green." it is all the sort of thing an editor could have dealt with in book one.
 Putting Your Poker-Thinking to the Test January 15, 2007
M. Thea Temple (Dallas, TX, USA)
13 out of 14 found this review helpful
This volume is the natural offspring of Harrington's other two tournament books, I and II. Approaching Texas Hold 'Em as a hybrid of practical science and art, Harrington sets up a number of real hands borrowed from a variety of tournaments, some famous, some not-so famous, and asks how you would play the hand. There's a score-card in the back to keep the work-problems interactive and to stimulate a poker-player's "game gene."
This book is not an easy read, as it requires hard work and thinking--which is to say that it is not for the casual poker player--but if you are a serious student of the game, this is the natural and invaluable next step to his other two books.
One of the great things about ALL of the Harrington books is his willingness to challenge his own style of play and his own knowledge by offering advice and then showing how NOT following it sometimes still leads to success. This open-minded, and yet vigorously disciplined, approach to the game shows Harrington to be an exceptional teacher who is neither didactic nor short-sighted as to the myriad of choices available to the growing poker player, both in terms of individual hands, and in terms of overall playing styles.
Again, please note: this book is not for the casual poker-player, but for the serious student of the game. Also note: it is essential to study the preceding volumes I and II--not read, but study--before moving on to this "advanced" text. But if you ARE a serious tournament player, this book can bump you up a notch in your ability to play with complexity and nuance.
exellent workbook January 9, 2007
David Gonzalez Lopez (Monterrey/Puebla, Mexico)
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
Great book in term of evaluating your own game, it has not as much strategy as the previous two harrington books but it has a lot of education on how to think through the development of a complete poker hand
Harrington does it again January 2, 2007
Garry T. Whitman (Ashburn, VA United States)
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
As a companion to the first two books, this completes the trilogy. A must read for all serious tournament and cash game players of NL Hold Em. I make a second living putting these strategies to the test in online and live poker tournaments. I have made a World Poker Tour final table using these books!
Why bother writing more. The others have said it. December 6, 2006
L. Morgan (USA)
2 out of 8 found this review helpful
The Supersystems, the Harrington Trilogy, a few Sklanskys for flavor and "The Mathematics Of Poker" by Bill Chen.
Then end-all in poker books.
Showing reviews 26-30 of 63
|
|
|
Return to PokerSupplies.com Homepage
About Us
Privacy Policy | |
