Hand 2-6: page 76.

Blinds 50/100. Players C and D call. Pot is $350. With AQ you raise to 200 and SB goes all in with 270. Players C and D call. Pot is no 1260 and is costing you 120 to call.

Harrington recommends going all in with your approx 3000 stack versus opponents C and D who have approx 1200 and 400 respectively. He reasons by saying “if you can knock out both player C and D you’ve gained a huge amount of equity. At that point, you’ll have invested 325 for a shot at a pot of 1275.”

I found this confusing as all stacks were round numbers and multiples of 10. Where does he get the figures of 325 and 1275 from?




Hands 2-1 to 2-7, dealing with aggressive and super aggressive villains.

In hand 2-5, I suggested betting. Harrington did yoo – and that made me feel good. However, the playyer did not and when you checked the flop, your aggressive villain checked too. Harrington notes that now is the time to rectify the mistake of not betting. I agreed

Yet in hand 2-7 when your opponent checks after you check, I thought “be wary” as did Harrington and I felt good again that I was on the right track. Yet looking back, the aggressive villains made the same play of checking after you yet one indicated weakenss whilst the other indicated strength. Why?

The only thing I can think of is that in 2-7, the pot was raised to double by the villain - even though it was just a small raise.


Thx