Foucalt, thanks for your reviews. Think you hit on some very valid points here.

Foucault, you're taking that statement too seriously.

Most people realize that it's just "window-dressing."

Each action in the hand is discussed of some of the decisions in the hand are criticized.

If you have a critique of specific analysis of the hand, that's fine, post it.

However, you're overly concerned over a statement that's only there out of professional courtesy (say nice things about other pros) or political correctness or to not tap the aquarium or whatever.

No one reading it is going to say, "hey, Dan said Harmetz needed to fold on the flop," but now he's talking about great decisions, so it must have been good to call there after all!"

Hi Everyone:

From our reviewer:

Here's another example of what the book doesn't say and how the material in the book is being mis-represented. If you follow the advice in the Harrington Cash Games books your opponent should not be able to classify your hands with such accuracy.

There are many examples in the books of checking strong hands on the flop and beyond some percentage of the time, and raising with very weak ones some percentage of the time. There's a whole chapter on "The Metagame" which includes a sample hand where Doyle Brunson takes on Daniel Negreanu and the conclusion from page 115 of Volume I is:

Another section where this type of advice is given in detail is the chapter titled "Various Flops and How to Respond" in "Part Four: Tight Aggressive Flop Play Heads up" from page 248 through page 299. Anyone who has worked their way through this chapter, and some of it is tedious (but important), will simply scoff at the example given by the reviewer above.

Again, this is the problem I have with these reviews, and now some of the subsequent comments. The material that Foucault is describing is very different from the material that is actually in the book.

MM

Hi Berlino:

Thanks for your post.

The authors and myself have had lengthy discussions on this very topic. When giving examples from real play with famous players, it's inevitable that some mistakes and errors will be pointed out. But it's very important to comment on the hands in a professional manner, treat all players with great respect, and, most important, not to embarrass anyone.

For instance, on page 13 of the hand example, it states:

and

So clearly the authors are pointing our errors in how the hand was played.

Best wishes,
Mason

I'm really shocked by MM's reaction and tone, which frankly I think disgraceful. Focault has written a polite and detailed review.

As the publisher reasonable responses from MM could either have been to either ignore the rveiw or to disagree with it on its content. Instead the main thrust of the attack are completely baseless insinuations about Focault's honesty.

This feels particularly uncalled for given F's fine record as a contributor to these forums.

Mason/Dan, you are stuck thinking in levels and failing to understand how game theory describes the limit of all levels. If you vary your play so your opponent can't read you then he will at first become predictable, then he knows he becomes predictable, then he reacts, then you start having to call his river bets when it seems you're beat. This flip-flops ad infinitum until you stop playing suboptimally, and no momentary instance of it should be taught as the right thing to do. Percentages, ranges, game theory – that's where it's at. You are in good company with this error: Sklansky's 'predictability machine' topics in the Science, Math and Philosophy forum demonstrate that he too can't get past levels.

This is interesting. My gut feeling agrees with Harrington. I want to bet that flop in tournaments and push the turn. In cash games that looks stupid as Villain will call when I'm beat and reload his 13BB otherwise.

I don't know whether Mason is, but Dan isn't stuck there. Page 116 of Volume I discusses exactly what you've outlined. Have you read the book? If so, I'm surprised that this didn't come to mind immediately.

Mason, you are repeatedly quibbling over details while ignoring the central points of my arguments. Of course no one will know your exact distribution on the river. That is true whether you are randomizing your play or not.

The fact remains that whether playing Harrington's strategy or any other, when an opponent has shown consistent strength and you have only called down to the river, your range will be weighted towards weak hands such as draws and one pair and away from stronger hands.

The fact that you occasionally slowplay monsters does not eliminate the need to pick off bluffs on the river with marginal hands. Harrington admits as much: "You have to call some hands to establish that you can't be pushed out of a pot on the river when you don't have a premium hand." This quote alone undermines your entire argument.

Harrington goes on to say that, "Since you're going to call some bets on the river but not all, use these guidelines to weed out the situations that most likely represent a strong hand, and focus instead on spreading your calls among the more ambiguous cases." It's very clear that Harrington is arguing that since you must call some percentage of the time on the river to snap off a bluff, you should make your calls in circumstances where your opponent has checked the turn or otherwise shown weakness and fold when your opponent has shown consistent strength.

This is simply an incorrect application of the concept. Calling more often against one betting line does not make up for folding more often against another. Smart opponents are going to bluff well, meaning that they are going to recognize situations where they have shown consistent strength and where Hero is unlikely (even if it is not impossible) to have a monster holding.

Playing as Harrington advises on the river is exploitable by opponents who bluff well. You need to have a percentage of bluff catching calls on the river against each betting line your opponent takes, not simply a percentage of bluff catching calls distributed against all of your opponent's betting lines and weighted towards the more suspicious of them.

Again, HARRINGTON ADMITS that randomizing play on earlier streets does not eliminate the need to snap off bluffs on the river.

It really isn't my intention to harp on everything that's wrong with the books, but when Mason challenges me in this way and accuses me of fabricating things, I'm going to defend my original arguments. I want to emphasize again that the HOC series will on the whole be helpful to players who are new to cash games, especially those with a background in tournament poker. Aside from the exceptions I've pointed out, Harrington generally does a nice job of explaining tricky deep stack concepts clearly and concisely. He does get some of them wrong, though.

This becomes a bigger issue for more experienced players or for those who have designs at becoming very good and not just winners at the smallest stakes. Mason has essentially said here that the HOC books were intended primarily to help new players, and I think they accomplish that purpose reasonably well. However, they aren't explicitly marketed to beginners, and when writing a review, I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to discuss who I think will and will not find the book helpful and why.

I'm not saying the text should have berated the players, I'm saying a different example should have been used. You say that this hand was included in the introduction as an example of what tough high stakes games look like. You can't have it both ways: either you and Harrington think the hand was well played, in which case I disagree with you, or it should not have been included in the book for this purpose.

I understand that you feel my reviews are disrespectful and unprofessional, but your response has been much more so. You would be correct if I were deliberately mischaracterizing the content of the books, but you have failed to demonstrate that I have mischaracterized them and not even attempted to warrant your claim that any mischaracterization was intentional.

Having not read the books yet, I cannot add anything to what the books say or don't say, but I do want to say that I share one of Mr. Malmuth's complaints of Focault's review. That being the books are actually one book and should have been reviewed as such. I do understand that people (and many have mentioned this) might buy just one volume with number two being the one most mentioned buying, but it is still one book. A BIG clue should have been the fact that the second volume does not start out with a chapter one.

Gentlemen, Let me begin by saying I have immense respect for both Foucault and Mason and I respect the right of both parties to express their opinions. However, the tone of the discussion leaves something to be desired. A thoughtful disagreement is a healthy thing. If we all had the same opinion, there would be nothing to write about or discuss. It is through these disagreements that we refine our thoughts and positions. Let's agree to continue the discussion, including matters we disagree upon, in a collegial manner rather than a churlish one.

Hi Check:

It's okay to review each book seperately. But it should be noted in the review that these two books are really one complete book instead of essentially saying that Volume I is no good because it doesn't include the material in Volume II.

Best wishes,
Mason

Foucault: I appreciate the time and effort you put into your review.

Mason: I appreciate the time and effort you've put into refuting some of Foucault's points, but not your rude, dismissive tone or your speculation about Foucault's motives. Please attack the substance, not the author. Comments like "Are you sure you read this book?" are unnecessary and detract from your arguments.

Foucault -Excellent reviews. I appreciate the time and effort you put into this. I've read both volumes and I think most of the points you made about both the strengths and weaknesses of these books is spot on.

i'm a NL dabbler (ya know, i dabble) and have been fairly successful over 30k hands. i've read Vol 1 (minus some of the problems) and found it fairly boring.

the one idea i'm taking from it is the need to vary my play, as i don't really do this atm(i have a hard time working out the best "in a vacuum" play).
what leaves me concerned is the lack of explanation regarding the theory behind varying play. The section on metagame just defines/explains metagame, does a chess analogy and then a hand with Doyle Brunson. In the previous bit on "diversifying betting..." he recommends a % to c bet and it seems kinda like he just plucked it out the air. He then says: "The exact percentage you choose to bet and check isn't terribly important..."
my concerns:
1) if %s are not that important, why is most of the book (and the interesting aspect to me) about these percentages
2) it seems like the 50% he suggests in the particular situation (on pg.94) is low compared to what respectd posters would c bet.
3) there's no analysis about weighting of cbet when you hit to cbet when you miss


Maybe it's not that important (so long as you vary in roughly the right way you'll be difficult to read). But i have the understanding that the c bet is pretty damn important to profitability in heads up pots, so to just pluck the number out the air is not going to encourage me to follow this book very seriously.
And obviously, this is the pattern for much of the book including "Various Flops and how to respond" in which we are given figures for a hand on a flop. Surely these examples should be coming from the slant that on a particular flop our bet, check or raise will get interpreted in a particular way.
Maybe it works out ok when your figures correlate to how good the play is. It seems that you're making "the good play" a lot and the "slightly inferior play" 40% or whatever, but there's no analysis of what an opponent can deduce from what (s)he sees. And seeing as that is the emphasis of this book, i don't really think it's good enough for 2+2.

a poster was warned for writing about DH, but when the book expects us to follow him faithfully, maybe we should ask for evidence of a world class winrate.

Having said that, I'm really glad i've read vol 1, cos it focuses on ideas that i've neglected (varying play for deception and metagame), but i don't feel confident in the book. If someone can flame me or convince me of the book's validity, i'll happily change my stance

In the world of statistical distributions, minimum and maximums tend to be broad. What this means as far as your poker is concerned is that the exact percentage of many of these plays is not as important as making the play itself.

So for instance, let's say in a certain situation the best c-betting percentage is 50 percent. If you were to c-bet at say 65 percent, your results would still be similar to the 50 percent optimum, and the same is true for 35 percent.

It's easy to see this since at 35 percent, your c-bets would be called less often, and at 65 percent, while your c-bets would be called more often, you would also pick up some additional pots.

On the other hand, if you got way off the suggested percentages, it would become very costly. For instance, if you were to never c-bet you would be leaving a lot of money on the table, or if your c-betting percentage was 100 percent, your opponents would quickly learn to take advantage of that.

If you are interested in exactly what the optimal percentages might be in specific situations and the appropriate theory behind them, I suggest you take a look at The Mathematics of Poker by Chen and Ankenman for insights into this area.

Best wishes,
Mason

I'm not gonna flame, but to disregard what is currently the most complete look at playing NLHE cash games because of lack of theoretical emphasis on the percentages used is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

When reading something like this, I try to use a sort of psychological weighted average system myself. In this situation, if the text mixes principles and percentages approximately 50/50, then I'll weight the importance of the principles much greater than the actual percentages used. If you ingrain the principles of what's being discussed, the percentages provided in the text almost become irrelevant, as you'll change your play accordingly.

Mason, thanks for the reply
i get what you're saying. i cbet way more than 50% and i'm not so sure my opponents take advantage. There is a disclaimer on pg. 94 so maybe all the stuff on "various flops" and the problems only apply if both (1) your opponents are paying attention
and (2) your opponents can use the info to their advantage.
[i hated stats at uni, but the sum of identical distributions converges to a normal/bell-shaped dist. may be relevant to what you said]

jase, thanks as well
"If you ingrain the principles of what's being discussed, the percentages provided in the text almost become irrelevant, as you'll change your play accordingly."
but the principles (surrounding these %s) aren't really explained. we have to read Math. of Poker for that. Perhaps you mean the principle of playing a hand well (protection, value, folding equity seem to determine the %s)
also: the principles that are explained (pot commitment, AI semi-bluff or whatever) have been done before in other books (usually 2+2) and often in a more complete manner

I just finished Volume 1 and I would give this book 8/10. There's nothing groundbreaking in this book like say HOH v2, however I believe the book serves it's general purpose.

For very good or better NL players, I would say the book would serve you no purpose. Who the book will help are beginners and intermediates who struggle with the game. This book, and I'm sure v2 will seal those leaks which cause these players to hemorage money.

I do find the strategy in the book to be too tight in some instances, however this is something the player can figure out through time and practice.

I'm looking forward to Volume 2. Add my vote to the ones who would like to see a workbook.

Foucault: Thank you for the excellent reviews and defenses thereof. I've read each volume twice (the second time through because I thought there must be something in there that I'd missed), and I don't think I can find a single sentence in the reviews with which I clearly disagree. Also, they are articulately and thoroughly written. I'm very impressed.

MM: Thank you for responding to the reviews. I would have appreciated the responses more if they had actually addressed in specific detail more than a small minority of the points at which you took umbrage; if your tone had been dispassionate and professional; and if your responses had focused on the reviews themselves and their relationship to the books rather than on the reviewer and your claims about his motivations. I'd love to say that I expected better than largely-unsupported ad hominem.

Foucault, I hope you continue to be allowed to post in these forums, as you clearly make positive contributions.

"You are in good company with this error: Sklansky's 'predictability machine' topics in the Science, Math and Philosophy forum demonstrate that he too can't get past levels."

Mind telling me what you are talking about?

My responses were specific in nature and give enough definite examples that it shouldn't be necessary to give any more. This includes the mis-quotes of Sklansky as well as the Harrington material.

MM

Let me preface this by saying that I haven't bought or read these books yet and rely on this forum to no small degree in making purchasing decisions.

That being said, I must admit I find this discussion more than a little distasteful. While any reasonable person can see that there were perhaps a few unprofessional assertions in Foucault's review (one of which he has conceded and apologized for), the majority of his points are well stated and haven't been addressed, while the ones that have were mostly addressed via nitpicking and personal attacks or insinuations.

I have the utmost respect for MM as a poker writer, but his responses here have been wildly unprofessional, and have made me (and I suspect others) more than a little uncomfortable. The impression one gets is that MM believes the book is superb and won't entertain any notion of any flaws therein. No book is perfect, and MM's refusal to address the qualitative critiques of Foucault, as opposed to making broad generalizations and personal insinuation could lead one to believe that there may very well be validity to the critiques.

I will probably end up buying these books because I am new to NL ring after a longish successful limit run and enjoy poker books (good and bad), but I must say that Foucault's review and MM's responses are making this decision a much closer one.

I hope, since we are all presumably adults here, that we can lift this discourse into something approaching civility so that people who frequent this forum for light instead of heat will be well served.

*wanders back to the NL forums*

TRWIII

I have read the books and I also think MM has been unfair with Foucault. Good job Foucault!

I suggest you reread all my comments. When you write:

that is exactly what I did do. The problem with the Foucault's critiques is that most of them do not apply to the Harrington Cash Games books at all since his representation of what is in the books is very different from what actually is in the books.

MM