6max mainly, but if you can play 6max well, you can "normally" play FR well.

my friend just bought this book for me but i play full ring.

Diversify!

Imo, if you can play 6max well, you will be a better fullring player.
ill never understand why people dont want to branch outside of their comfort zone.
Study HU games, Study 6max, study plo, etc etc etc, this will only make you a better
poker player.

This is great news I didn't even know Harrington released a 6 max book is it any good?
I don't know why but I've lost interest and motivation for poker hopefully this will get me back in the game.

Its great, mate!

Does anyone here think the advice on page 439/441 is bad?
He 4 bets JJ to 30bb with effective stacks of 112bb and is ready to fold to shove.

MyTurn2Raise addressed this in post #109

Page 395 - We are on the button, a 30/26 player with a fold-to-3bet of 60% opens from MP. On page 395 there is a table that shows the range of hands for which we should call, and it includes AJo/ATo/KQo, because all of those hands have greater than 45% equity against opponent's opening range. But shouldn't we fold AJo/ATo/KQo because of domination? (As a side note, page 51 says, "Good players... fold aces wih a medium or small kicker for fear of being dominated against an under the gun raiser," and the opponent in this example on page 395 is just one position away from UTG.)

Page 112 - Book suggests that when you see a high AggFact on the flop, and low AggFact on the turn and river, you can float the opponent. This seems like it could get you into trouble b/c opponent might simply go into check-call mode all the way. It seems to me that a better approach would be based on AggFreq (not AggFact) and WTSD. Cbet percent could also be used.

Page 395 (again) - "For calling, I like to pick hands that are better than 45 percent to win against his range if I'm in position, and better than 48 percent to win if I'm out of position." Compare this to page 200 - "... we generally don't mind playing a hand where our range analysis says we're 35 percent or better. Out of position, we'd want somewhat better chances, say 40 to 45 percent." So which one is it?

Page 296 - MP with stats of 28/8 open-limps. We are on the button with 97s, and we raise to isolate the limper. I think his preflop stats suggest that he is a calling station postflop. Shouldn't we just limp in behind with this type of hand that has high IO and low showdown equity? It seems to me that the isolation raises against this player should be done when we have hands like KT or AT. If we iso a fish and then try to get him to fold, we are making a mistake, right? (The real point of this section is to explain semi-bluffing, but I think the example implies something more that might not be correct.)

Page 312, Problem 4-1 - This is similar to the one I just wrote above for page 296. We are in the CO with A8s. UTG player has stats of 60/3, high WTSD of 33, low W$SD of 38. He open-limps from UTG, and we isolation-raise with our A8s. This one I am not as sure about, but I guess we are just trying to hit our ace and get paid off well for it. But it seems like we once again have a high-IO hand, so why not just limp in? Also, for this same hand, if we have say 87s, then we should definitely just limp in and not isolation-raise, correct? And if we have say KTo, then we raise, right?

Page 299 - Example 1 gives several HUD stats for an opponent who is 50/40 and remains super-aggressive after the flop. I understand that this is not a good player, and he is likely going to lose a lot of money. But even though he will lose money, it seems to me that he should win MANY pots. But his W$WSF is only 32 percent... how can that be? Is there actually some point where the super-aggressive starts to get so well exploited by everyone that their W$WSF goes down?

Txs for all the reviews peeps, the book is on its way! Even the negative reviews helped me know where the books weaknesses lie... Txs again!! (got all of Action Dan's books so far)...
BTW I ordered from here, even the eBay listing is more expensive...

this ties into my complaint about the book. A straight hand v hand showdown equity calculation is not a great way for evaluating 100BB no-limit poker. It's double disappointing given how the book does dive into distributions.

I recommend looking at programs like pokerrazor and evaluating postflop lines. Domination is a factor, but not nearly as important as it is at limit poker. Most no-limit hands don't have a showdown. It's key to have hands that can both be played aggressively and get to showdown.

for example, let's look at the situation you mentioned on p 395 galactic Rewind.
Your worry is domination.

We will look at the prototype domination scenario.
You call with AsTh.
The flop comes Ad 7c 4d. This is a dry board with nothing but domination being the worry.

Your current hand value would be ahead of the villain 83.76% of the time.
4.1% of the time, your opponent will have a two pair or set that crushes you.
Only ~12% will the villain have a hand that is dominating you.
Roughly 8% of the time, you dominate the villain.
With position at no-limit, you should be able to make the decisions that make this a profitable spot.
Only about 7% of the time will the villain have a good draw.
Almost 44% of the time, the villain has absolutely nothing of value.

The many, many variants are difficult and long to work through, but you can see that the exact hand where you worry most about domination is still an awesome spot for you.

BTW, you hit that top pair ~23% of the time with ATo, though that includes T high flops.

Hmmm... maybe I should be calling IP with more aces. But still, if 12% I am dominated, and 8% I dominate the villain, then what will be my plan if villain c-bets into Axx flop? Call one barrel, but not two?

I would like to get pokerrazor, if it were possible, but it is off the market right now. Does that program actually let you input your hand, plus an opponent's hand range, and then returns a distribution? If so, that's impressive. I know that Flopzilla can give you a distribution based on a range and a single flop, but to get the competing distribution between your hand, a range, and all possible flops run hot-and-cold, now that would be something else.

yep... that's what it does

depends how often the opponent cbets & double barrels and how they respond to flop raises

Just wondering if anyone besides me noticed a few errors in the book. Spellings error and other things

All 2+2 books are like that... especially the first printing.

(I have no clue if they are generally better or worse in terms of editing compaired to other book publishers.)

Comparisons of this with Blueprint and SSNLHE would be welcome, as those are the major books on 6-max.

i am nearly finished now, and overall i really like the book. especially the chapters on note taking and ranges have been eye-openers for me. but there is one thing i am a little bit curious about, and that ist how it deals with calling pfr in micro-stakes games. because calling prf isn't actually mentioned in the book untill the small stakes section (there is a good explanation how you construct your v3bet/call/sb3bet-range). so do i understand it correct, that harrington suggests just to 3-bet/fold against pfr in microstakes games and if yes, what do the guys over here at 2+2 think about that recommendation?

"surprised" was the word i meant in my posting before and not "curious". sorry, but english isn't my first language and so now and then, some of these mistakes happen to me...

Harrington doesn't recommend raise or fold preflop facing a preflop raise. I agree that discussion of that seems to be lacking in this latest volume. IIRC, it only comes up in blind defense in looking at equity minimums of 45% to call and 55% to raise loose raisers. However, if you go back and look at his 2 volumes Harrington on Cash Games, there is a decent amount of discussion on calling preflop raises in the sections Tight Aggressive Preflop Play and Beating Weak Games that would be appropriate.

as this thread is about the new 6max-book, i obviously spoke about this book and not about the hoc-series. and as you agreed in your post, in this book harrington only speaks about calling pfr in the small stakes chapter, and more or less ignores it untill page 383 of 500. so one can easily get the impression, that he advocates not to call pfr in microstakes 6max-games. and as a consequence i asked myself the following 2 questions:

a.) was this his intention? does he really recommend 3bet/fold against pfr in microstakes 6max-games and if yes: why?

b.) what does the 2+2-community think about this 3bet/fold-approach for microstakes 6max-games?

btw.: harrington's 6max-book is not volume 3 of the hoc-series (which were good books, but about a totaly different game, namely "deep stacked fullring live-games" and so it is imho questionable if the advice there can also be used in 6max-online-games). so you can't assume, that everybody who reads this book has read hoc 1+2

greetings from vienna!

ps.: i am looking forward to taking part in the study-group! @MyTurn2Raise: hope you will take part too!

pps.: hope nobody gets me wrong: i really like the book, but i'd love it even more, if harrington had elaborated a little bit more about calling pfr.

I think part of the probem is not all micro levels are the same. Generally at 2nl and 5nl 3-bet/fold is a good approach. At 10nl+ people start to 3-bet T9s OTB etc..., and then 3 bet war dynamic starts to appears. So "micro's" is too general, and at 2nl and 5nl most 3 bets and 4 bets are QQ+ and AKs/o. IMO.