Harrington on Hold'em. Volume 3

phantom_lord

Does anyone have this? I'm just wondering what kinda scores people got for the work book.

I got a ridiculous score, especially considering my tournament results over the summer. Did most people get the same?

I'm gonna go back and check my score again, cause I'm fairly certain I shouldn't be classed as:

"World class, probably making a fine living from the game"

Is this Harrington's "feel good about your poker" book or something?

Rnger

im reading it at the moment and i think the score system is a bit of a joke.

The Phil Ivey hand 'Maneuvering with nothing' is a bit ridiculous. Give yourself 3 points for limping with 92s (or whatever he had) in mid pos and 0 for folding, but he does go on to say that the hand would not have been included just to see ivey fold...

phantom_lord

Rnger wrote:

im reading it at the moment and i think the score system is a bit of a joke.

The Phil Ivey hand 'Maneuvering with nothing' is a bit ridiculous. Give yourself 3 points for limping with 92s (or whatever he had) in mid pos and 0 for folding, but he does go on to say that the hand would not have been included just to see ivey fold...

He gives 3 points for folding and none for calling...

Rnger

I'm glad i completly misread that so!

5starpool

I think the problem with this is that (and correct me if I am worng as I have not read Vol3) almost all of the answers that are correct are based on correct poker theory, against other players who know correct poker theory. It does not take into account the type of player in the Fitz or the SE. Also, we have a fair idea from the other books how harrington approaches the game and therefore the course of action he would recommend in a particular book situation.

Most players here have a good enough knowledge of ABC poker and this, along with various breaking points and knowledge of pot odds is what Harrington is espousing. Am I alone in learning pretty much nothing new from Harringotns books? They are great books for someone starting out, but if you have been playing for a couple of years this stuff should mostly be common sense.

ArmaniJeanss

There was a question in one of the early problems where you got 6 points for answer A, and 3 points for Answer B. There were no other choices. I sorta lost interest after that.
HOH3 definitely seems to be the weakest of the 3 books.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

Culchie

LuckyLloyd wrote:

If you have any tips on more recent poker strategy books that contain different and more innovative thinking I'd really appreciate it.

I'd have to say Phil Gordon's 'Little Green Book' is well worth a read.

fiddlesticks

I hit someone over the head at the table before with this book that wasnt playing to the correct ABC strategy...worked a treat!!:D

Rnger

non the less i really enjoyed reading. I got through in 2 sittings, and im a really slow reader, not sure if its worth 35 odd euro tho. Its defo worth the read, I'd reccomend getting it off your cousin

Lex

Culchie wrote:

I'd have to say Phil Gordon's 'Little Green Book' is well worth a read.

I got this from my cousin as an audio book. Got through listening to it in no time on the way to/from work.
I have Harrington 3 for the last while. Must get around to it.

Brayruit

Sklansky's latest "No Limit Hold'em: Theory and Practice" - while mostly concentrating on cash games is (IMO) top class.

After that, Harrington 2 is excellent for tournament play. You are right that it's mostly stuff you should know with some experience, but I still learnt a fair bit (which implies .....)

Harrington 3 and 1 are also good.

Phil Gordon's is ok ... beginnerish.

Then at the lowest level of hell is Hellmuth's... unadulterated, self serving, misleading, boring, utter crap.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

FutureGuy

A little off topic, but I was wondering if anyone had Harrington Vol 1 and 2 and other good NL poker books for sale. I have a thread over on the (you guessed it) books wanted board but that is getting zero replies

Maybe i'll get Harrington 3 then

mewso

So many books now its getting to the stage that they are only worth reading if they are popular so you can spot players using the same strategys.

WH BONNEY

ACE ON THE RIVER.
Not really worth the read. Im just finished the book and was very disappointed with its content. Very little in the book that would be beneficial to poker theory or strategy for either tourneys or cash games.

Anybody else think the same or maybe some people taught otherwise.

5starpool

I have only read the first 50 pages of that and haven't bothered picking it up since to be honest.