A Couple of Question on HOH Volume 1

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

I dont have the book in front of me, so based on your post:

Your first question: Assuming C and D both fold the total amount of chips hero puts in the pot is equivelent to the SB stack which is 320
if hero wins he win 320*4 +100 = 1380 (assuming C or D are not the BB), so I can see where the 325 comes from but not the 1275

Ya, to me the first hand just looks like some bad adding on the books part. The 325 should only be 320 (the SBs stack), and the pot size would be 1380 like TLR said.

In 2-5 and 2-7 I think you are right. 2-7, it is a 'strong super-aggressive' player who raised preflop, so why would he not put out a continuation bet on the flop when you checked (perhaps trying to trap you). In 2-5, they just limped preflop, so they may just want to see a free card. Also, in 2-7 you could argue that the super-aggressive player would normally raise more than the minimum, so maybe he is looking for a call from somebody (e.g. he has a monster).

In both cases the check could represent weakness or strength, but in the first hand it is more likely weakness, and the second it could very well be strength, so move carefully.

Aye, I agree, as I did with Harrington. Only looking back did the lines become blurred and i started to question why I agered with Harrington in the first place. Someone could well argue that the initial person wanted a call with a monster just as much as the latter.

I agree, the inclusion of the small raise makes it risky yet as he is super aggressive, you'd expect him to raise with any 2 cards.

As a result, it's left me no clearer really. Yes I made the right move in both situations but have no idea as to whetehr my reasoning was good play or not, lol.

I didn't think anybody bet out on the first situation (2-5) though? So they can't be wanting a call, because they didn't bet.

The second one, I guess it depends on what amount the guy normally raises. If he raises 3 or 4 big blinds normally, it has to raise some flags. It still may mean a weaker hand, but could mean a really strong hand. Depends on the person I guess.