Something about this book is just off and I don't mean conceptually - it's just the way it was written or it just wasn't edited very well. For instance, during the hand examples, information is typically missing that would be used to help explain what is going on during a hand (something really ironic given that the introduction of the book tells you that for every decision you make, the proper answer is, "It depends", which is based on factors such as stack size, bet size, pot size, and all other poker fundamentals).

On page 57, here are two separate instances in the same example that appear to be straight erroneous:

1) It says the blinds are $5-$10 and you have the short stack at $500... Earlier in the book, it says that short stacks are considered anything less than 40BB...

2) Later in the example, it says that the "pot is large relative to remaining money".
A) It doesn't say what your opponents have, only that you have the short stack, so presumably, they have med or large sized stacks - I can follow that, though it's annoying how its not directly stated since I'm already questioning my own comprehension from (1).
B) It's not congruent with the aforementioned definition about what a large pot is (a pot is large if its relatively large to remaining stacks). How can this pot ($195) be considered large when you have $440 remaining and your opponents have stacks larger than your own?

Maybe I drank too much coffee, but I've had to re-read several passages in this book to validate my comprehension. This is the third poker book I've read up until now and the only one thats been so troubling. I will say that it's my first NLHE book. I have Small Stakes NLHE, which is apparently considered the vol2 of this one, and also HOHV1, NLHETAP, HOMTP. So far, this book has just annoyed the hell out of me, but apparently it's a good one - all I'm trying to do is just learn NLHE. Been playing limit for about 3 months now.

My copy is Copyright 2007 and don't see record of a second edition anywhere.

is that sklansky and ed miller? not sure of the order of importance on this one...

or is it? ed miler, sunny mehta etc...........

Hi sparks:

My comments are embedded below.

Best wishes,
Mason

All this menas is that your stack of $500 is smaller than any of your opponents.

Its been a long time since I looked at the book, but in this example, since you have the smallest stack of $440, as far as you're concerned, that's all that can be bet. This gives you an SPR (stack to pot ratio) of a little over 2 which means the pot is relatively large compared to your stack size. Since you're reading the book notice that the authors say:

No it's not. 2+2 had nothing to do with that book.

You have the only version.

Best wishes,
Mason

Thank you Mason, for taking the time to reply. Love your books. Also, love the Milton Friedman.

Thank you for clarifying.

So I'm just getting ahead of myself, then. I went back and re-read the previous section about what constitutes a small sized pot vs a large sized pot and the example is between two extremes, so thank you again.

My apologies for perpetuating false information. I had read elsewhere that it's something of a spiritual successor, if that's a better phrase.


Good to know. I will be more hesitant about judging the book and will just continue to work through it. Do you have a personal recommendation for an easier book? I started on NLHETAP but it was just too abstract for someone getting started. Also have Harrington on Holdem v1, and wondering if that might be easier to pickup? Since I'm so new to NLHE, I just want to learn as quickly as possible. Haven't even played a game yet.

The Harrington on Hold 'em series is for tournaments. The Harrington on Cash Games series is for cash games. So my recommendation would be to start with one of these two depending on whether you're interested in tournaments or cash games.

Best wishes,
Mason

Just ordered vol's 1&2 as well as the online cash game book. Do I get a button for owning half of the 2+2 catalog?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk