I've also purchased this book recently, and I believe it really does a good job at making reading hands more of a logical process rather than someone just saying, "don't put a player on a specific hand, put them on a range of hands". It does a good job of laying out a foundation for how to put one on a range, as well as narrowing that range down street by street.

I'm also interested in a study group for this book as well as it does have some exercises in it i'd like to go over...

The study group never materialized. I have done the exercises and have resurrected my HEM database (mostly 6-max 2NL). I would be willing to praticiapte in any discussion and Play A Hand Along With Me type exercise with those interested. I'm in the US and no longer play online. Send me a PM if you're interested.

Sounds like a very interesting book. Would you suggest this one, analytical hold 'em or the new tells book as the book you'd like to read next?

You can tell em this til you're blue in the face. They'll never get it.

See? I told ya.

And likewise, Tiger lacks the skills to teach that the best teachers have.

I don't think you have to be amongst the best players in the world if you want to teach stuff to micro/small stakes players.

And yes the analogy is really bad. Someone once posted that it is the same as saying that you'd hire a math teacher that can't pass the tests he's trying to prepare you for.

At the highest levels however, I believe that everyone there can bring interesting thoughts to the table

Half way through the book and it already more than paid for itself tonight.

2/5 game.

Hero - young guy, loose aggressive image (although I really play kind of tight and focus on position and picking my spots), people know I'm decent... wonder if I'm a "pro."

Villain - woman in her 40s, thinks she's great at poker, limps in a lot, but is also aggressive and will bluff and squeeze liberally. Also a calling station, she likes to make hero calls. If she's running good she can run up a huge stack because of her aggression. But when she's not running good she can put 5k into a game. Definetly a spot.

We play together once or twice a month. For some reason we rub each other the wrong way. We don't talk but you can just get the sense that we're after each other's chips. I acknowledge this "feeling in the air" and try to stay alert of my emotions when playing her. She can put you on tilt... Like if she calls a $200 bluff and scoops a $700 pot against you she'll start going on and on to the rest of the table, "he bet so fast, I just knew he was weak..." etc. That used to tilt me. Now I use it to my advantage and just win the chips.

Anyway. 2/5, she just bought in for $500, I have $400, third player in the hand has $800.

Third player is in mid position, like myself. He limps. I look down at 22 and limp call. SB calls. Villian in the BB looks down and then makes it 25. Third player calls. I call. SB folds. $75 pot, I have position.

Flop - J 5 (another mid number card, can't remember, maybe an 8) rainbow

She c bets $35. I'd expect her to do this with any two cards with that flop. Third player folds. I move out a stack of red and raise to $100. At this point I'm putting her on a middle pair like 99 or 77 or two broadwy cards that she raised preflop with, trying to pick up the limp calls. She instantly makes the calls. And I get the sense that she thinks I'm weak and she's pissed I'm trying to take her pot.

Okay, I'm thinking now we've got a $275 pot, she has to act first, what does she have.

Turn is a king and I'm pretty sure the board stayed rainow. Board - J 5 8 K

She checks. It feels weak and in retrospect maybe I should have bet there to end the hand but the pot was getting big and I wasn't committed. I check and decide to see what happens on the river.

River is a 3.

She thinks for a second then bets $130 into $275. Physically right now she looks like she's trying to fake weakness to make it look like she's got a strong hand that wants a call. I'm not buying. I feel like she's bluffing.

Here is where this book comes into play. Just today I was reading about polarized ranges. How in this spot she's betting top pair top kicker or better OR a pure bluff, but she's not betting a medium strength hand like a middle pocket pair or 98s. So I know she's strong or really weak. Does strong make sense? Not really. A jack isn't in her preflop raising range, in my opinion, and she checked the king, which if she had one it would have saved her on the turn if she called my flop raise angrily and with something like AK. So I don't think she has AK.

At this point I'm hoping she has like A10s or AQ and not a medium pocket pair. I know from reading this book that there are more combos of hands like AQ then pocket pairs (I'm speaking in general... There are more XX hand combos than pocket combos) so I'm getting good odds and I already don't think she has a medium pocket pair because she bet the river (polarized range).

I make the call. She says ace high and flips over AQ. I turnover 22 and she looks disgusted . I scoop the $505 pot and listen to the chorus of "good calls."

The book more than paid for itself tonight. This book will get you thinking the right things during hands. Of course, maybe I just got lucky that she didn't catch a pair somewhere in the hand, but really feel like the book, coupled with my history with the player, was able to help me pin her down on something around ace high. It feels great to study a book like this very diligently and then apply my new skills at the table. If you play 1-2 or 2-5 live and have a desire to improve, I recommend this book.

Seriously? You raise the flop because you know she'll probably call with a range that's ahead of you, and didn't sound like you had plan.

You didn't put her on AJ nor AK, but somehow you put her on AT and AQ?

You put her on a range of broadway + overpair, and the only two Ax-broadway combos you beat are AT and AQ while losing to everything else including overpairs...and you call?

In between you had some weird logic about why you shouldn't bet the turn, then you ended it all with reverse tell read: I read her as weak means strong, but I think she's weak...

LOL...WTF?!

Good luck being a "new" pro.

I raise the flop to get her to fold because my read was that it was a weak bet. With her weak c bet I put her on two overs or a medium pocket pair. Raising to one hundred would look pretty strong and I felt she might fold. If she called, I felt ok because it really felt like she had two overs and in that case I'm ahead. The flop did not fit her pre flop range, I felt I probably had the best hand, so I wasn't going to let her steal the pot out of position.

After the turn I did not think she had AK or AJ. If she has AJ or AK, why would she check the turn? After the strength I showed on the flop, a king doesn't help me, so her jack is good and she'd bet it. And if she had the king she would have bet that too.

I put her on a range of broadway cards or a medium pair preflop... Not an overpair. And yes, on the river, I call. She is not betting her medium strength hands (medium pairs, a jack, a pair and busted straight draw) for value. Her range is polarized. She is either betting top pair top kicker or better OR ace high from her broadway card range. AJ or AK made no sense at all after checking the turn, so I figured it was AQ, and possibly A10s. I couple her polarized range with my physical read and I thought my 22 beats her A high bluffs so I call.

As far as the physical tell. She looked like she was faking weakness. Kind of like if you hit the nuts and push all in you act nervous like you don't want a call as a way of inducing a call. I thought she was faking weakness to act like she wanted a call, in order for me to read into that and fold.

I would like to go over some the exercises with someone. Is the study group still going?

Cool story? Really not what the book is about. At least you got pre right.

I have the the digital version, did Miller provide a way to compare your answers to his answers to the exercises?

I don't remember whether or not it was in this thread or on his blog/facebook/twitter/livejournal/myspace/deviantart but I seem to remember Miller saying at some point that there are no 100% "correct" answers to the exercises and that it's on the reader to make his/her own honest assessments and draw conclusions from them

Yea, I just wanted to be able to compare the answers that I came up with to some kind of key or something so that I could at least know that I am close to reading the villain's hand correctly and making the right play.