Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Harrington on Online Cash Games: 6 Max reviews & discussion Harrington on Online Cash Games: 6 Max reviews & discussion

09-19-2010 , 11:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalacticRewind
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?
I play anywhere from 200NL to 1kNL and those are all standard isolation spots for me. Sure KT or ATo might be better than 97s but the principle remains the same. You have position, the fish has a weak hand and you don't want to let the blind in for cheap. If you raise pf you can build a pot in position and take it down when you both miss the flop. Another point to take into consideration is that as you move up, the blinds are more likely to be good aggressive players b/c the average player is better when you move up. Any chance to get them out of the pot is a good one and any chance to play against a fish needs to be taken advantage of. A good rule of thumb is that when a fish limps, just ignore him and raise your default range unless the blinds are supper aggro about 3 betting
Harrington on Online Cash Games: 6 Max reviews & discussion Quote
09-30-2010 , 06:17 PM
So I have read this book and greatly enjoyed it. I'm a Harrington fan and have bought all his books. I really enjoyed the sections on distributions and on 3/4/5 betting. This last section especially encouraged me to download Pokerstove and start working through his examples.

I don't want to sound arrogant here, but I don't like his logic in the 3-bet, 4-bet example starting p404.

Please follow my working.

Harrington’s hero opens 18% from MP to 3x. Harrington gives the opener’s range:

This is a 17.9% range comprising 238 combinations.

Harrington’s villain has a decent idea of our range so Harrington assumes he is using this exact range to construct his playback ranges.

Harrington’s 3-bet value range is defined as hands with >55% against the opening range.

Using Pokerstove, this is the 3-bet value range:

99+, AQs+, AQo+ comprising 68 combinations

In fact, AQo doesn’t strictly meet his criteria (54.458%) but he includes it so we’ll let that slide.

Harrington did not specify the calling range explicitly, but we can compile it according to Harrington’s criteria when OOP: >48% and <55% equity.

These hands fit the bill:

88-66
AJs, ATs
KQs, KJs
AJo

In fact, KJs doesn’t quite make it, but I assume Harrington includes it in the calling range because it’s not in the light 3-bet range.

In all, there are (3 * 6 pairs = 18) + (2 * 4 suited A = 8) + (2 *4 suited K = 8) + (1 * 12 unsuited A = 12)
= 18 + 8 + 8 + 12
= 46 combinations.

The 3-bet bluff range is specified:

55-22
A9s, A8s
QJs
JTs

In all, there are 40 combinations.

Now it gets interesting. Harrington constructs his 4-bet value, 4-bet bluff and calling ranges.

First, he constructs the 4-bet value range using the 3-bettor’s likely value range, dropping the assumed light 3-bets as they will be folded to a 4-bet. Not surprisingly, this results in a very tight 4-bet value range of QQ+.

I am not sure about this – it seems inconsistent to rule out the 3-bettor’s bluff range when we don’t consider it when constructing our 3-bet value range. I don't know why but I don't like this. Comments please.

He does provide a 4-bet bluff range of AJs and ATs.

The upshot is that the MP opener will:

4-bet 18 + 8 = 26 times
Call the 3-bet 62 times.

I hate this. Here’s why.

The SB 3-bets 108 combinations and calls the opener 46 combinations.

Although he doesn’t say it, previous examples use an initial raise size of 3x followed by a 3-bet to 10 so let’s assume this to be the case here.

So, 108 times we risk 9.5 (the 3-bettor is in SB) to win (0.5 + 1 + 3) = 4.5.
Our 3-bet must succeed 9.5 / (9.5 + 4.5) = 67.8% of time to break even.

MP responds by:

4-betting 26 combinations (QQ+, AJs, ATs)
Calling 62 combinations (JJ-55,AQs+,AKo)

88/238 combinations (his initial open) he plays so 150/238 combinations he folds

Thus he folds to the 3-bet 63%

63% of108 is 68

68 times we 3-bet we get a fold.

We win 68 *4.5 = 306

When we are 4-bet, let’s assume we stack off with KK+. That’s 12/108 = 11%

So, when we are 4-bet, 11% of the time we 5-bet. This is 3 hands out of the 26.

So we fold to the 4-bet 23 times.

In those cases we lose 23 * 9.5 = 218.5.

This is less than the 306 we win when he folds.

If MP responds by 4-betting and calling like this, it seems the SB should be 3-betting even more and that MP is highly exploitable.

The problem is his 4-bet to call ratio (26:62) is too skewed to calling. I think it should be 2:1 in favor of the 4-bet so 45:23 for example.

It’s possible (with a probability approaching 1) that my math is wrong.

Please comment on my conclusion and let me know where I have gone wrong.
Harrington on Online Cash Games: 6 Max reviews &amp; discussion Quote
09-02-2011 , 02:45 PM
I've just ordered this book.
Hope it'll help to improve my play.
Harrington on Online Cash Games: 6 Max reviews &amp; discussion Quote
04-26-2012 , 09:46 AM
I've read this book. Was helpful for me. Do I need to read Harrington on Cash Games Vol.1 & 2 now or take another book. I play microstakes.
Harrington on Online Cash Games: 6 Max reviews &amp; discussion Quote
04-26-2012 , 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter8690
I've read this book. Was helpful for me. Do I need to read Harrington on Cash Games Vol.1 & 2 now or take another book. I play microstakes.
I don't recommend them. Here is Foucault's review for HoC vol 1:
http://www.thinkingpoker.net/poker-b...h-games-vol-i/

Take another book like Building a Bankroll by Verneer or Poker Blueprint by Aaron Davis.
Harrington on Online Cash Games: 6 Max reviews &amp; discussion Quote
01-26-2013 , 11:22 PM
Is this book still good for micros in 2013?
Harrington on Online Cash Games: 6 Max reviews &amp; discussion Quote
06-15-2013 , 09:53 PM
What does inf mean? When he is giving problems and examples he uses "inf" in the aggression factor line. What does it mean? Help!
Harrington on Online Cash Games: 6 Max reviews &amp; discussion Quote
06-16-2013 , 02:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supervenom
What does inf mean? When he is giving problems and examples he uses "inf" in the aggression factor line. What does it mean? Help!
It means "infinity". The aggression factor is defined as a quotient, and if the numerator is positive while the denominator is zero, the quotient is infinite.
Harrington on Online Cash Games: 6 Max reviews &amp; discussion Quote
04-05-2016 , 05:10 PM
I was wondering if someone could clarify me something in Problem 5-7 (page 459).

Basically, this is a $200 NL 6 max. Hero (stack=$194) is SB and his hand is AcTs. Vilain (BTN, stack=$30) opens for $4. The pot is then $7 (=$4+$2 (BB)+$1(SB)).

Hero 3-bet to $12. If Vilain push all-in, then the pot would be $45. For Hero, it would cost $18 to call. The authors say that we would need a winning chance of 40 percent: 0.40 = $18/$45.

Well, I am bit confusing about that. To me, the odds are 2.5-to-1. If I put it in terms of probability, it should be 1/(1+2.5) = 0.28 percent.

Am I wrong ? or did they make a mistake ?

Thanks.
Harrington on Online Cash Games: 6 Max reviews &amp; discussion Quote
04-05-2016 , 08:12 PM
They definitely made a mistake, and a pretty absurd one too.
Harrington on Online Cash Games: 6 Max reviews &amp; discussion Quote
10-03-2016 , 01:52 PM
In Part Four, Section Starting Hand Guide, some hand ranges are given for a tight and for a loose style of play at various positions.

For open raise with loose play at the button the following range is given:

- All pairs AA-22
- All aces, suited or unsuited
- KQ, KJ, KT, K9, K8, QJ, QT, JT suited
- KQ, KJ, KT, K9, QJ, QT, JT offsuit
- T9 to 54 suited

Is is claimed that these constitute 35% of all hands.

When I enter the range in PokerStove, I find only 30.9%.

What of the following would be the case:

- the range is correct but the figure of 35% is in error,
- the figure of 35% is correct but the range is in error,
- I am in error?

Thanks for your thoughts.
Harrington on Online Cash Games: 6 Max reviews &amp; discussion Quote
12-15-2016 , 11:16 AM
I'm considering this book to study 6max cash games. The Question is: The book is now 6 years old. How well has it stand the test of time? Is it outdated in major areas? I'm playing on 10NL for now. Is this book a good starting point to learn the basics of the format nearly in 2017?

I really appreciate any help. Thanks!
Harrington on Online Cash Games: 6 Max reviews &amp; discussion Quote

      
m