Introduction to Small Stakes No-Limit Hold ’em: Help Them Give You Their Money

Good point, if you sit in the blinds that's true. But if you sit anywhere else, you are up for that loss when the blinds hit.

So what is the EV of folding then?

Maybe you could calculate? I'm using full ring, ten players, no ante as bottom line. With fewer players and/or an ante you lose even more on average by folding. Just a general comment, something I think is not emphasized enough.

Folding can prevent you from losing more though in many situations. And you need to play the kind of pots when you are in for overcoming the built-in loss of folding. Then you need to overcome rake and possible tipping. And suddenly you are at 0EV, great win! Tough game.

I already know this answer.... I'm helping you and ding dong dude45.

Pointlesswords can't be saved.

There's different levels of fish.

Why would I want to play solid preflop and only get to play the best hand out of the other 6-8 players instead of a bunch of droolers playing 80 percent of their hands who are all going to make massive mistakes post flop? Great in the first scenario I win a higher percentage of the time in an extremely boring game but I make way more more in the second scenario.

The only way id prefer the first scenario is if the table was one absolute boot licker and everyone else at the table was good and I was almost always HU with the boot licker.

Think about it logically - if you played 80 or 90 percent of your hands in full ring NL you'd get absolutely torched. So why wouldn't you want a table full of opponents who play that way?

It's just a math problem.

You need the EV formula.

EV = (%W*$W)-(%L*$L)

Okay now calculate the EV of folding. What do you win and what do you lose?

Then you will know the answer.

The book should be titled

How to lower your risk and play passive poker. You will win less than you could, but you’ll risk less as well (kinda)

Chapter one : how to play passively while ignoring a major part of poker

I guess I have to ask the authors

What hand do you think wins you the most money lifetime?

How is folding -x amount when the ev of folding/calling in his example is 0?

I am trying really hard to follow your thought process but i think you dont know what ev means

Ev= expected value. The expect value of your action is 0

You are right. In a specific situation 0EV is 0EV regardless of the action, if they all produce 0EV. But that's if they are equal in average outcome. Solvers use to give a few of them for example.

"0EV" (the way I used it) in a specific hand though may be worth playing instead of folding, in for example a tournament, if the blinds are about to likely hurting you. Winning the hand makes blinds matter relatively less and busting kind of protects you from the next blind. But all of this could of course be included in a formula.

Except this book and thread are about cash games, not tournaments, so your entire point is completely irrelevant.

Seems like your reason for not liking this strategy was that it was too risky - you would rather play headsup and win the maximum number of pots you enter, instead of the maximum amount of money possible.

Less relevant, not irrelevant 😀

Your comment assumes you win the maximum amount of money by not playing heads-up. You’re wrong.

And the book is wrong too. Even if one person knows gto basics , if the other has a better understanding and execution, the less skilled player will lose heaps.

I assume you don’t have much if any experience playing heads up.

Some people just never learn.

I've read the whole book front to back and have taken very detailed notes (3 pages worth) on every chapter.

Are people really discussing a situation where folding and calling are both 0ev? Or am I missing something and should I read the entire thread?

what was the first glaring error you found?

The book is mainly a conceptual book imo. The weakest part of the book is the hand histories but in defense to the authors they only serve to reinforce concepts and are not to be taken at face value.

Conceptually the book is very strong and I enjoyed going through all the chapters. They use qualitative examples instead of quantitative examples which makes sense because it would take a lot longer to write a book using quantitative examples.

If you are looking for how to play a specific hand in a specific spot and be taken through step by step using real data then this isn't the book for you.

If you want to learn broader concepts concerning live play adaptions so that you can apply it to any situation then this book would be highly recommended.

The book's suggestions are not always passive. Especially when it comes to big bets with excellent hands preflop or on the river.

But I would not object to that title as much as you think. After all the present title is about helping them GIVE you money not so much how to TAKE it. The thing is that the taking style alone will probably be the style that wins less if there are quite a few bad players in the game and the player/reader who is trying to implement mainly that taking style, (rather than the one in the book,) is merely good, rather than expert. Non experts playing against bad players (who rarely bluff, enter too many pots, call typical bets with mediocre hands and big bets with pretty good hands that are obviously beaten) will most assuredly NOT win less that top players that are playing in a similar game and are not adjusting towards our book.

All the examples in the Introduction are fine in context, but not in general. The problem is the Introduction didn't explain they were player and read dependent.

For example, the overlimp KK play. It is true 1/3 players don't raise much. However, I played in a 1/2 game with this terrible LAG. He played better than the others by raising preflop more often and bluffing more. However, the was bleeding money, by playing to loose, etc. He was raising 60% of hands. He called an UTG limp/shove for 60 into a pot of 35 with 62s and make a straight versus AK. Another time he raised to 12, go two callers and the same player cold shoved for 200. Maniac called and lost to KK. So that maniac was never folding to a 3-bet except maybe a shove. In that situation, it made sense to limp/3-bet strong hands. If you know a player is raising 60%, and then there is about a 65% chance someone will raise, then limping behind with KK in late position is good.

Also, I agree it isn't a generally a good idea to grind 1/3 for years. However, the swings are generally much less, and you can have a high percentage of winning sessions. So it is good for someone starting out playing professionally or for profit part-time. Once you get comfortable, you can move up to bigger games.

The Introduction was deliberately written that way. It was designed to create interest in the book and I think it did do that. However, if you read the whole book, you would see that everything was explained, including when it was right to do so, as to why the hands in the Introduction were played the way they were.

Mason

There was some guy who promised a review, but I don't think delivered. I don't want to be the only one commenting on the book.

IMO, it is excellent as far as it goes. I don't care if the authors can beat 5/10 NL in Vegas. However, there is a lot of HH analysis in videos and in the forums here and elsewhere. It seems like the authors came up with their own impressions rather than examining the recent consensus. It definitely is not comprehensive in terms of how to play in many situations.

However, the point of the Introduction, which a lot of people missed, is that playing bad players you need to vary a lot by situation and reads, and just playing by formula is very suboptimal.

how do you compare it to course?

Oh, the Miller book. I like this one better. The Miller book gives too many rules, like never limp. That sort of thing is good for fish to keep them playing solid. The Sklansky book assumes you know how to play, and discusses adjustments when playing 1/3 or whatever.

There are a lot of regs and part-time players who have difficulty because of the games getting harder, etc. Online poker is a mess, and very tough. Limit games are much less played. 5/10 and up NL players are using GTO, copying how a program plays, etc. So there are a lot of people who want to try 1/3 (or 1/2 or 2/5).