My first REAL poker playing/studying experience has been with SSHE playing on the .05/.1 LHE. I read SSHE at least 5 or 6 times, and really studied the helll out of it. I think I did a great job too because I'm doing very well at the tables now.

I started playing SnG's though, at the prodding of a friend, and quickly found myself very into them. However my experience in NLHE is limited to home games, so I picked up Moshman's book and found something out--

I have NO NLHE fundamentals, and although moshman's book has some great advice, I don't understand the REAL reasoning/theory behind most of it.


What book would be best to start me off with fundamentals of NLHE, be it tournaments, sng's, full ring cash games or any other structure of game? I thought the NLHE 2 pack but I thought I read somewhere that those books are no longer the BEST NLHE books out there, and of course I'd love HOH but it seems tournament specific...

PNL vol 1 by flynn/metha

HOC vol 1&2




Gogogogogogogo

I find Limit holdem to be alot harder then no limit holdem. Im not sure why.

probably because its harder to protect your hand and u gte paid less by weak players because of it.

After doing research I should have done before posting I found the following threadzzz


http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/show...Number=6145720

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ad.php?t=98125

Mason writes in Poker Essays that limit is harder than no limit because you have many more difficult decisions to make. Having top pair on the flop with two to act behind you can be very tough to play. In NL, you just bet enough to make it unprofitable. In limit, you can't.

In limit, you play more hands and have more post-flop decisions. That's why I prefer limit to NL.

To the OP, Harrington on Cash is great, but daunting. Angel Largay's book is very good for making the transition. Congrats on reading SSHE that many times. You probably are a pretty good limit player, for sure.

No Limit Hold'em: Theory and Practice

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this book yet.

the two series you want to read are the harrington tournament series - it is great, and the harrington cash games books - they are very good. start with those, then expand.

the knowledge from ssh will be very helpful with things like reading the board's texture, odds, number of outs, equity, etc.

I actually decided that I'm going to read theory of poker and grind away in the limits for awhile before I move to NL. I'm going to try to be makin moniez at AT LEAST 3/6 LHE before I start delving into the deep world of NL.

I'm going to read NLTAP and PNLHE once through each, probably at the book store, and then buy the harrington series and really study those, with the other books on the side at the bookstore still hahaha.

Steve I too really enjoy said book but I definitely feel HOC are the best for foundation work.
Then definitely NLHTAP. I wopuld classify NLHTAP as the thinking mans bible to concepts etc.
I would include Largays book for its people element which is what you will encounter at 1-2, 2-5

Since I already have a thread on SSHE I thought I'd just post this question here....

There's obv. not an HH for this, so I'll do my best...
This is his hand example for Introduction to Postflop Concepts on pg. 96

Hole Cards: Qh 7h

One limper, one raiser, hero cold calls, folds to blinds who both call, limper calls.

Flop comes: Jc 7s 5h

Checks to PF raiser who bets, Hero.......



Okay so Miller says the correct play is to raise here and I'm trying to figure out WHY that would be a +EV play or even what reasoning is behind it. We've got middle pair with a backdoor queen high flush draw and one overcard to the flop.

So we could count our outs here as perhaps 1.5 for the backdoor flush (which I think is generous considering people play AXs AND KXs at some microstakes tables) and 2 outs to trip 7's, and 3 more outs to 2 pair. That's at most 6.5 outs, and the pot is only 11 SB's to the hero who... raises, giving him 13:2 or 6.5 to 1, despite the opportunity to knock out MAYBE one or two opponents. OBVIOUSLY these opponents are willing to cold call raises, and are probably calling to see the turn pretty ridiculously loose.

Considering position, this COULD be a free card play. But I have a hard time seeing the value in that if our hand could be made or broken on the turn (Ace or a King is bad, any non-heart isn't good), in which case seeing that last card doesn't matter nearly as much so why pay 2 SB's for the "free card" when you could see a really important turn card for just 1?

Am I stupid? Is there something else I'm not considering here? Free card play seems to make sense but are we really going to go for these kind of plays with what seems like a very weak holding against a lot of opponents?

The pot is big and a raise here protects your hand. There is a section on page 156-158 of SSHE that talks about protecting your hand in spots like this. It's titled "When Calling Cannot Be Right." I'll sum up the important parts of that section: By calling you allow your opponents to draw profitably. If you raise your opponents will either fold in a big pot, or they will call two bets when they often should fold (thus making a mistake, which is good). Also, you won't win as many big pots if you just call. Instead, calling will cause you to lose pots that you should have won. By raising you may sometimes lose a few extra bets, but the extra pots you win should more than make up for that.

There is a good chance you could get a couple of folds here because three people checked to the preflop raiser, and they'll have to call two bets. You say that an ace or king is bad on the turn. That's a reason for raising on the flop. Imagine if you could get hands with an ace or a king to fold in a large pot. Your chances of winning go up significantly. You will win a few more pots that you wouldn't have won had you just called. Also, don't discount the possibility that someone might fold a seven with a better kicker, or a jack with a weak kicker (probably unlikely but when it happens it's huge).

By the way, I actually made a similar raise in a 2/4 game a couple of weeks ago, and I'm pretty sure the guy to my right actually did fold top pair. He bet with a pair of kings, I raised with a pair of eights, and he decided to fold on the flop for just one bet. I won the pot, and his reaction was "Aww you raised with that?"

Okay so basically---

The times that the jack folds, the times that kings and aces fold and a queen comes, the times no kings/aces come and a queen comes, and the times that you hit the backdoor flush will together make up for the times that you lose when no queen/seven/flush come?


I was thinking actually that as many times as I've read it, I don't implement the ideas that well, and specifically THAT section is my weakest.

You also might have the best hand. The preflop raiser might have a pocket pair smaller than jacks, or a hand like A-K or A-Q. This won't normally be the case, but when is then calling on the flop is a big mistake. Also, one of your other opponents might have a pocket pair higher than sevens, and might fold to your raise.

You also could get a free card on the turn if you want it. So even if you are behind and nobody folds, that will still be an option.

If you get three people (out of four opponents) to fold with a raise, that might allow you to win the pot with a bet on the turn.