Thank You Hoh Volume 3

[iggymcfly 0]

I got HOH v.3 and I was looking through it the other day, and the recommendations for bubble play on SnGs are terrible. He goes through calculations of which hands you can call with on the bubble, that give everyone equal chances of winning relative to how many chips they have, and completely ignore the fact that the big stacks gain massive chip equity by bullying.As a result, he advocates playing way too tight, and not making a stand until your chips have almost completely evaporated. If you're a SnG player, this is great news! Now the weak-tights in the $55-$215 SnGs are going to be even easier to run over, and the money will be flowing in faster than ever. If this catches on as well as "raise to 4xBB with TT-QQ", then we'll all be rolling in the dough pretty soon.

[SavageHenry 0]

this seems kind of contrary to his previous book where he is telling ppl to move in with anything when their M is low. I think SnGs have become ultra aggressive on the bubble in general. Chip leaders go into what seems like autosteal mode with any two and everyone else pushes their aces, pairs and blackjack hands. At least thats how the last bunch ive played in have ended.

[throwemaway 0]

IS HOH 3 on sale yet through major bookstoresedit: why, yes it is! sorry, Ill be stopping by my local Borders and picking it up today

[Actuary 3]

"raise to 4xBB with TT-QQ"

what's wrong with this?Are you saying it's so common that's it's obvious?

[iggymcfly 0]

Yes. A huge number of players out there will raise to 3xBB when first in with all of their raising hands except for QQ, JJ, TT which they raise to 4 or 5xBB, and I'm pretty sure that it's a result of HOH v.1.

[SavageHenry 0]

i really like 2.5 to 3x the bb with just about any hand i feel like raising. i think i opened for 4x the bb once and it just felt wrong so i never did it again. i must not have read the HoHs very carefully lol i dont remember anythign about raising 4x the bb with 10 10 - QQ.

[Rocketwadster 0]

Im not convinced his advice is terrible in Vol. III. Perhaps it is the differences in buy-ins that is where the discrepancy is coming from?

[iggymcfly 0]

Did you read the section on STTs? He uses math to show that you should fold just about anything to a raise when you get shortstacked based on the premise that you have the same odds based on your chip stack of getting 1st-3rd as everyone else. However, he completely ignores the extra value intrinsic in a large stack because it gets extra folds, and the lower value in a short stack since it will have to fold a lot of hands to get into the money. As a result, he gives calling ranges that are way too tight suggesting things like folding TT as a desperate short stack against a loose player.

[Rocketwadster 0]

Did you read the section on STTs? He uses math to show that you should fold just about anything to a raise when you get shortstacked based on the premise that you have the same odds based on your chip stack of getting 1st-3rd as everyone else. However, he completely ignores the extra value intrinsic in a large stack because it gets extra folds, and the lower value in a short stack since it will have to fold a lot of hands to get into the money. As a result, he gives calling ranges that are way too tight suggesting things like folding TT as a desperate short stack against a loose player.

I have read it, and that is NOT what he is advocating, but you know that, so I won't go into details about how you have slightly modified what he has written to suit your slam of this book. I will say this though, that Volume III, when talking about SNG's, almost completely flip-flops from a lot of the advice he gave in Volume II about the bubble (IMO). Volume II advocated a lot of aggression when M's are low, but Volume III (sorta followiing what iggy is saying) is much tighter at the bubble when there are short stacks.

[Actuary 3]

I will say this though, that Volume III, when talking about SNG's, almost completely flip-flops from a lot of the advice he gave in Volume II about the bubble (IMO). Volume II advocated a lot of aggression when M's are low, but Volume III (sorta followiing what iggy is saying) is much tighter at the bubble when there are short stacks.

were you the content contributor?

[Rocketwadster 0]

were you the content contributor?

Surprisingly, I got all of the SNG bubble questions wrong, as I was playing way too loose...go figure.

[jmar 0]

Did you read the section on STTs? He uses math to show that you should fold just about anything to a raise when you get shortstacked based on the premise that you have the same odds based on your chip stack of getting 1st-3rd as everyone else. However, he completely ignores the extra value intrinsic in a large stack because it gets extra folds, and the lower value in a short stack since it will have to fold a lot of hands to get into the money. As a result, he gives calling ranges that are way too tight suggesting things like folding TT as a desperate short stack against a loose player.

Don't forget in that example there is another desperate short stack with less chips than you have who has already folded. His point is that you're really playing against that short stack, not the big, bully stack pushing you around. Winning that hand with the TT and doubling up doesn't gain enough equity to take the chance. You're better off waiting until you're able to open a pot.The other examples have smaller stacks at your table but an equal or larger stack raising all your chips. He's saying you should play to get in the money and play against the small stacks.

[AcesOnFire 0]

Doesn't everyone usually tighten up on the bubble anyway meaning you should play a slightly looser, more agressive game?