Just Got Harrington On Hold Em Iii

[aadams_22 3]

I'm curious to see what readers scored as they took the quizzes in HOH 3.

[hblask 1]

I'm curious to see what readers scored as they took the quizzes in HOH 3.

I scored dead in the middle, around 350. Some of the questions, even after I read his explanation, I disagree. Others are about hands I'd never want any part of, so they would never affect my game. So I'm adjusting my score using the hblask Adjustment Factor (hAF) to 375.

[aadams_22 3]

I scored dead in the middle, around 350. Some of the questions, even after I read his explanation, I disagree. Others are about hands I'd never want any part of, so they would never affect my game. So I'm adjusting my score using the hblask Adjustment Factor (hAF) to 375.

I finally finished the book and I scored a 415 on the quiz. According to the score sheet that means I am "a very good player who should show a solid profit from big tournaments." I scored a hell of a lot higher than I thought I would. This seems fleeting to me since I'm not 100% certain that the scoring is completely accurate. Despite my high score I know in my heart that I still have a lot to learn about NLHE tourneys.Some of the questions were confusing to say the least. He tends to contradict himself at times, especially on the questions where he asks you what starting hand you would use. There were a few of them that had me puzzled since he states in Vol 2 that when your M is in the red zone then you should push with any two reasonable cards...then in his quiz questions he suggest pushing only with AA or KK in the same situations ...unless there is something that I missed.

[Dan The Man 0]

When I added up my score by hand I got around 399, but with that Excel file that was posted here it said 403. I think I had the most trouble with the Sit N Go bubble play questions.

[blacktie31 0]

I just wrapped it up and scored 430.I was a bit disappointed (read: egomaniac) but found going back a number of places where I may be playing a bit tight postflop.I was also confused by some of the answers, but looking back at the situations and the players I can see where they came from.It def. made me take a different look at the game, being more situational.I found it interesting that with players like Daniel I got almost all the questions correct, but with players like Ivey after the initial call with 93 off in mid position (prob. 10) i was clueless how to procede with the hand.I think a lot of the book wasn't designed for you to be able to get right, but to give you different ways of looking at the problems.

[SBriand 4]

Just finished it tonight. Did problems 24-50. I now have a headache. But happy with the 425. Tomorrow I will sift throught the answers and figure out my leaks. I think I would have scored higher if Harrington wasn't so weird in some places. Great book though.

[CobaltBlue 662]

Just finished the book a couple days ago.Scored 515. (I fiddled with the numbers a bit...giving myself intermediate scores on some questions. For example, if he awarded 3 points for calling and 2 points for raising, but I preferred raising with calling second and understood the rationalizations, I'd give myself 2.5 points. Yes, I gave myself a few 0s.)I have to agree with a few posters that there were a couple of spots where I thought the suggested play was weak or where he totally glossed over (failed to explain) certain decisions, but overall, it's a good book.

[buffalobills 0]

if your serious about poker you should read all 3 of them in order because at the 3rd book is all problems.....and in order to answer those problems u need the information in books 1and 2also can people share there scores on the quiz?i got a 515 and im 16 years old i wanted to see how that matched up with other players

[CobaltBlue 662]

also can people share there scores on the quiz?i got a 515 and im 16 years old i wanted to see how that matched up with other players

I've been looking for people to share for a while, but it was probably for bragging purposes. Good score, man.

[The Nuts 0]

It's sort of hard to do those quizzes when they're scored. The desire to get a higher score makes you think "What answer would Harrington have?" instead of what you really think.Oh and I got around a 430 something.The books have improved my game immensely. Volume 2 is especially good as it really improved my heads up and shorthanded play, which were my major weaknesses. I consistently cash in 6-Handed NL SnGs and most of the time win them. Before then, I'd get to the point where the blinds got super high relative to my stack and I'd just lose because I didn't pick my spots properly.

[uahphysics 0]

480This book is obv rigged because I'm pretty sure there's no way I'm that good.I tend to read situations very well, however, I think I scored high because of the multiple choice aspect. If I have three different bets I can make, I can pick out the right one, but picking the right one when you can literally make any bet is a bit harder, but I think my situation analysis is pretty good. I also think I made a lot of mistakes in the book by being too aggressive in late position with small pairs and mediocre hands like A-T and A-J.My favorite aspect of the book is the hands that involve pros playing against pros. It's a very good exercise in adjusting your play to how your opponents percieve you. A lot of the hands involving, for example, Phil Ivey are a bit different than traditional play. However, since Phil is such an extremely aggressive player, more people are playing back at him with nothing. Overall, I really enjoyed the book and it has me thinking about poker on such a higher level than I was before.

[CobaltBlue 662]

It's sort of hard to do those quizzes when they're scored. The desire to get a higher score makes you think "What answer would Harrington have?" instead of what you really think.

That's why I was somewhat flexible with my scoring. Sometimes, I'd think, "Well, this is what Harrington would do...and this is what Ivey would do...and this is what I'd prefer to do." Based on my ability to figure that out and 'rank' them, I'd score accordingly. There were certainly times when I'd prefer to do something, and I'd see that Harrington was right. Even found myself on occasion saying, "Harrington, that's so weak!" but still giving myself the 0.

[ol'number7 0]

definitely worth the read, I got the most out of playing on the bubble section, I learned I'm actually too loose. I think the 2nd 1/2 of the book was much better than the 1st fwiw

[medicalmj 0]

The Harrington books are good, but their cover blurb is a complete joke."only player to make it to the final table in 2003 (field of 839) and 2004 (field of 2,576) - considered by cognoscenti to be the greatest achievement in WSOP history"What a farce. Chan's 1,1,2 is hands down the greatest achievment in WSOP history. Mason will spare no measure to push his books, even inaccuracies and BS.

i think some people consider it such a great achievement because of the number of players registered those two years. Obviously everyone has differenent opionons on the greatest wsop acheivement. There realy is no right or wrong. Either way, making it to the final table in both 2003 and 2004 was a huge acheivement.