Thoughts on PNL
I haven't posted in a few weeks, so I guess this is as good a time as any to give my thoughts on
Professional No Limit Hold'em. To be honest, I was somewhat disappointed with this book. It was rather elementary, much like that surveys course I took in college. That's not to say there aren't a few nuggets, but not a wealth of new information like No Limit Hold'em: Theory and Practice.
PNL is divided into five parts (really four, the fifth part is basically a hand quiz). The first part, basics, should be a review for anyone who has been playing no limit for some time. The authors don't discuss complete beginner stuff like "reading the board" and "identifying the nuts", but they talk about odds and outs, stack sizes, and bet sizes. The next part, fundamentals, talks mostly about pots; pot sizes, pot control, and a few other similar items. There's not much new stuff in here. However, I will say that the authors did make a good point when discussing when to deviate from pot control. I had a whole post about this a while back.
The next section is REM, which stands for Range, Equity, and Maximize. Anyone who plays no limit should already be able to at least somewhat put his opponent on a hand (or range of hands). If you can't, you're in trouble. The authors talk about how to do it, but it really isn't something that can be learned in a book. A few pointers here and there can help, but this really comes with playing experience. Also, different players play differently, so you need to adjust accordingly. The authors then discuss calculating equity against the range of hands, and maximizing. Again, a few nuggets here and there, but if you've been playing no limit for awhile, you should be doing this.
The fourth section, "Planning Hands Around Commitment" is the meat of the book. The commitment threshold stuff is good. Basically, you don't want to put in 1/3 of your stack and then fold, and by the time you put in 10% of your stack, you should have a commitment plan. Overall I think this is the best section in the book. I'm sure every no limit player has made this mistake at some point, even experienced ones. I know I have.
The next part of the section discusses "Stack-to-Pot ratios" and this is where I have a problem with the book. In a nutshell, the authors advocate building a big preflop pot with a top pair or overpair hand, and getting it in with one pair. I can't say I'm a big fan of this strategy at all. First off, there's a few problems with the premises that the authors are making.
First off, in the key examples given, hero is out of position. That alone makes a hand difficult to play. Second, there is no read on the opponent. Combine those two factors and you're in for a rough ride.
In the example given (I wrote about this in a July post), we have K
K
in MP in a $2/$5 game with ~$500 stacks. We open for $15, get two calls. and the flop comes down T7
5
. We bet $45 into $47, and the button calls. It's heads up on the turn, which comes a Q. The pot is $137, and we have $450 left. Now what?
It's a tough spot for sure, and the authors advocate raising to 6BBs instead to make it easier to commit after the flop. But after thinking about this, I don't think that's such a great idea. Think about it. You're putting in an extra $15 preflop with the intention of putting in the rest of your money in by the turn on most boards. This is heavily exploitable. If I'm in the BB with a pocket pair and I see someone raising 6BBs, I can confidently call knowing I'm usually getting all of the money in if I hit a set. Sure, it's a somewhat expensive call, but I know I'm more likely to stack someone trying to build a big pot. There is also the concern of not getting action with your kings. The only players who will likely call your raise are bad, (and likely predictable) players, and you won't be in any tough spots against them because they won't be betting/raising without a hand.
There's another hand example given that I had problems with. The authors talk about top pair hands having triskaidekaphobia, which is fear of the number 13. If you have an SPR of 13 (or close to it) with your top pair hand, you are in trouble. That can be true, but only in certain scenarios. Let's look at the examples they give.
We're playing $1-$2 with $200 stacks. We have AQ in MP and raise to $6. Button calls, blinds fold. SPR is around 13 and the flop comes QT9. We bet the pot ($15) and the button calls. Turn is the T, and we hit that stupid bet pot button again ($45) and get called. River is the 5. We check, and button moves in for our final $134.
There are a few problems with this hand. First, we have no read on the button. Does he like to bluff on the end with missed draws? How loose is he on the button? What kinds of hands would he call with on the flop and turn? Could he just call with a hand like bottom two, or raise instead? Or does a call mean that he almost has to have a draw or weaker queen?
Then there's the turn bet. NLHTAP states that turn bets should usually be less than flop bets (in % of pot, not dollar amount obviously). Betting pot there on the turn is horrible. The middle card paired, so a hand like JT just outdrew you, and you can now afford to charge a flush draw less anyway. So if you have an SPR of 13 AND you bet pot on the flop and turn, yes, you'll be in trouble on the river after getting called twice (against some predictable opponents perhaps not though) . However, if you bet $12 on the flop, get called (pot would be $39) and $25 on the turn, the pot would be $89 on the river with $157 behind. Quite a difference.
The authors go on to say that four pot sized bets is better than three because your opponent has to worry about being checkraised whereas a shove can only be called. Well here you're creating that fourth bet while keeping the SPR at 13. To get that "four pot sized bet" SPR, you'd need to raise less preflop, i.e. minraise. That just invites more people to come along (mainly the blinds) and hurts your chances of winning with just one pair. The authors offer another solution of buying in for less, but that is a cop out.
So to conclude, it's a resourceful book, but I don't intend to follow all of the advice in it. If you're a moneyball player, you should get a lot out of it. If you're a smallball player like me, you'll still get some good advice out of it (they don't advocate playing big pots all of the time), but you won't want to follow some of the SPR stuff. I'd have to say Theory & Practice was the better read even though there weren't many examples, just because there were a lot of nuggets in there that made me think about no limit in a completely different way. If I had read PNL first, perhaps I would be more impressed with it. Still, the system should work andit should help most NL players, especially online, so I'll give it a B+.
Professional No Limit Hold'em. To be honest, I was somewhat disappointed with this book. It was rather elementary, much like that surveys course I took in college. That's not to say there aren't a few nuggets, but not a wealth of new information like No Limit Hold'em: Theory and Practice.PNL is divided into five parts (really four, the fifth part is basically a hand quiz). The first part, basics, should be a review for anyone who has been playing no limit for some time. The authors don't discuss complete beginner stuff like "reading the board" and "identifying the nuts", but they talk about odds and outs, stack sizes, and bet sizes. The next part, fundamentals, talks mostly about pots; pot sizes, pot control, and a few other similar items. There's not much new stuff in here. However, I will say that the authors did make a good point when discussing when to deviate from pot control. I had a whole post about this a while back.
The next section is REM, which stands for Range, Equity, and Maximize. Anyone who plays no limit should already be able to at least somewhat put his opponent on a hand (or range of hands). If you can't, you're in trouble. The authors talk about how to do it, but it really isn't something that can be learned in a book. A few pointers here and there can help, but this really comes with playing experience. Also, different players play differently, so you need to adjust accordingly. The authors then discuss calculating equity against the range of hands, and maximizing. Again, a few nuggets here and there, but if you've been playing no limit for awhile, you should be doing this.
The fourth section, "Planning Hands Around Commitment" is the meat of the book. The commitment threshold stuff is good. Basically, you don't want to put in 1/3 of your stack and then fold, and by the time you put in 10% of your stack, you should have a commitment plan. Overall I think this is the best section in the book. I'm sure every no limit player has made this mistake at some point, even experienced ones. I know I have.
The next part of the section discusses "Stack-to-Pot ratios" and this is where I have a problem with the book. In a nutshell, the authors advocate building a big preflop pot with a top pair or overpair hand, and getting it in with one pair. I can't say I'm a big fan of this strategy at all. First off, there's a few problems with the premises that the authors are making.
First off, in the key examples given, hero is out of position. That alone makes a hand difficult to play. Second, there is no read on the opponent. Combine those two factors and you're in for a rough ride.
In the example given (I wrote about this in a July post), we have K
K in MP in a $2/$5 game with ~$500 stacks. We open for $15, get two calls. and the flop comes down T75. We bet $45 into $47, and the button calls. It's heads up on the turn, which comes a Q. The pot is $137, and we have $450 left. Now what?It's a tough spot for sure, and the authors advocate raising to 6BBs instead to make it easier to commit after the flop. But after thinking about this, I don't think that's such a great idea. Think about it. You're putting in an extra $15 preflop with the intention of putting in the rest of your money in by the turn on most boards. This is heavily exploitable. If I'm in the BB with a pocket pair and I see someone raising 6BBs, I can confidently call knowing I'm usually getting all of the money in if I hit a set. Sure, it's a somewhat expensive call, but I know I'm more likely to stack someone trying to build a big pot. There is also the concern of not getting action with your kings. The only players who will likely call your raise are bad, (and likely predictable) players, and you won't be in any tough spots against them because they won't be betting/raising without a hand.
There's another hand example given that I had problems with. The authors talk about top pair hands having triskaidekaphobia, which is fear of the number 13. If you have an SPR of 13 (or close to it) with your top pair hand, you are in trouble. That can be true, but only in certain scenarios. Let's look at the examples they give.
We're playing $1-$2 with $200 stacks. We have A
Q in MP and raise to $6. Button calls, blinds fold. SPR is around 13 and the flop comes QT9. We bet the pot ($15) and the button calls. Turn is the T, and we hit that stupid bet pot button again ($45) and get called. River is the 5. We check, and button moves in for our final $134. There are a few problems with this hand. First, we have no read on the button. Does he like to bluff on the end with missed draws? How loose is he on the button? What kinds of hands would he call with on the flop and turn? Could he just call with a hand like bottom two, or raise instead? Or does a call mean that he almost has to have a draw or weaker queen?
Then there's the turn bet. NLHTAP states that turn bets should usually be less than flop bets (in % of pot, not dollar amount obviously). Betting pot there on the turn is horrible. The middle card paired, so a hand like JT just outdrew you, and you can now afford to charge a flush draw less anyway. So if you have an SPR of 13 AND you bet pot on the flop and turn, yes, you'll be in trouble on the river after getting called twice (against some predictable opponents perhaps not though) . However, if you bet $12 on the flop, get called (pot would be $39) and $25 on the turn, the pot would be $89 on the river with $157 behind. Quite a difference.
The authors go on to say that four pot sized bets is better than three because your opponent has to worry about being checkraised whereas a shove can only be called. Well here you're creating that fourth bet while keeping the SPR at 13. To get that "four pot sized bet" SPR, you'd need to raise less preflop, i.e. minraise. That just invites more people to come along (mainly the blinds) and hurts your chances of winning with just one pair. The authors offer another solution of buying in for less, but that is a cop out.
So to conclude, it's a resourceful book, but I don't intend to follow all of the advice in it. If you're a moneyball player, you should get a lot out of it. If you're a smallball player like me, you'll still get some good advice out of it (they don't advocate playing big pots all of the time), but you won't want to follow some of the SPR stuff. I'd have to say Theory & Practice was the better read even though there weren't many examples, just because there were a lot of nuggets in there that made me think about no limit in a completely different way. If I had read PNL first, perhaps I would be more impressed with it. Still, the system should work andit should help most NL players, especially online, so I'll give it a B+.
Comments