Harrington vol 3 - why is it that...

[boldie]

You're probably using sophisticated moves against unsophisticated opponents.

You really do just play ABC at that level.

I don't know this could be the case - I have read people having similar problems elsewhere, it's no use playing clever, subtle, sophisticated moves when the other players at the table won' t understand what's going on. Even simple things like putting in a pot sized bet on the turn so that anyone on a straight draw won't have the pot odds to call doesn't work (I won't go into the details that would just be a gratuitous bad beat story).

Or of course you might be right in your last post

If you can't beat the game at the level where people call pot bets on the turn with str8 draws then you won't be able to beat the game at higher levels. Winning at poker is about maximising on your opponents mistakes, and that is a huge one.

You can't beat them if they get one of the 4 cards to fill their inside straight draws, however good you are. My point being that if they don't understand how unlikely it is that they will win they'll still call.

You can't beat them if they play perfect poker unless you get lucky.....

I am happy for people to call all day long if they have a gutshot draw.

indeed...the odds are heavily in your favour against people like that.

I am reading Supersystem 2 ATM and I love it...it makes quite a bit of sense..however the no limit section just isn't for me..it wouldn't suit my style of playing...although it is nice to be able to mix it up and spot someone who does play like that.
I like supersystem because it explains Limit and Omaha 8 or better very well indeed.

[Jon MW]

You're probably using sophisticated moves against unsophisticated opponents.

You really do just play ABC at that level.

I don't know this could be the case - I have read people having similar problems elsewhere, it's no use playing clever, subtle, sophisticated moves when the other players at the table won' t understand what's going on. Even simple things like putting in a pot sized bet on the turn so that anyone on a straight draw won't have the pot odds to call doesn't work (I won't go into the details that would just be a gratuitous bad beat story).

Or of course you might be right in your last post

If you can't beat the game at the level where people call pot bets on the turn with str8 draws then you won't be able to beat the game at higher levels. Winning at poker is about maximising on your opponents mistakes, and that is a huge one.

You can't beat them if they get one of the 4 cards to fill their inside straight draws, however good you are. My point being that if they don't understand how unlikely it is that they will win they'll still call.

You can't beat them if they play perfect poker unless you get lucky.....

I am happy for people to call all day long if they have a gutshot draw.

In cash yes, in a tournament - not always. The bet was designed to push him out of the pot so that he didn't have a chance to get lucky - you would probably think this was too conservative.

The point of the post was an example of even not particularly sophisticated play going over the head of some people. He didn't have pot odds, I hadn't been caught on a bluff the whole tournament and I'd won over 75% of the showdowns - yet he still called. I think this backs up the argument for more basic ABC play against this type of player, rather than risk chips trying to punish their bad play in one go, do it more gradually and steadily whittle away their stack from their bad play.

[Royal Flush]

Bad players lose chips in comps damn fast, i am of the mindset to try and get as many of them as fast as possible before a good player gets them!

Of course sometimes they get lucky and it pisses you right off, and yes sometimes it seems like a minefield to get through them all, but i promise you, if people stopped calling these bets poker would become a lot harder.

[Bongo]

Have you thought that the questions in Harrington may give you some information that you're not picking up for yourself at the table?

[mex]

I think Harringtons books give a good foundation but people play em as if they are THE WAY TO PLAY. As JD says this is is easy to spot,  I love the fact that someone will give away flopped trips by sticking to harrington. They often piss away chips in continuation bets that actually give you better odds for draws, As JD said they are easier to spot.

I think you have to read everything on the game and take what you find helpful from each. I like slanksys approach to unopened pots for example.

I think Harrington is easy to understand and well laid out so thats why people like it so much.

[pswnio]

I'm under no illusions that Harrington is the be all and end all; I do think he provides an excellent base to start from, though - apart from the pissing away chips with continuation bets; I've learnt that one myself! I'll be reading some Sklansky shortly, should give me a different perspective.

Bongo, that's a good point. You're forced to make some quick assumptions with many of the blind structures online, and I tend towards failing to respect my opponents too much.

Royal, I agree that if you can't take the game down at a small level you won't at a bigger level. Gryff's right, though; I think I need to play more ABC and not try and construct complex moves which I'm not particularly skilled at anyway.

Thanks for all the responses. I love this forum