After having just played a couple of hours of limit for the first time in about 11 months (except those accidental entries into limit tournies) I quite enjoyed it and ended up about $55 the richer.

I think it was in Daniel Negreanu's blog where he says something along the lines of 'her chapter on limit holdem is already being talked of by some as being revolutionary' which from the company Daniel must keep is praise indeed.

I already have the book and might read this chapter, any comments from you guys/gals who've read it? are there new ideas in there? or just a specific style advocated?

I have an aversion to Sklansky so I'm inclined to reading it.

Cheers

Molina

I am working through it but have to say it is very good. I am constantly highlighting little bits where it advocates something different from the way I play. The way it is explained is good, more about why you do it rather than what you do.

I know what you mean about Sklansky! Though its good if you have trouble sleeping.

I would say that a lot of the plays are based on higher limits, the premise being that you can fold anothers marginal folding by making it two bets to go. Guess she has never played Party...

I am still working through it as I read it once but didn't really take it in (I just wanted to say I had read so you guys would think I am cool) so I am trying again. So far though its just little things which are sticking out. The best way to sum it up seems to be that its focusing on playing the players, not the cards. Thinking about what others would play from where and if you sense weakness attack!

Enjoy.

Rich

I just finished reading it and I think everyone should read it.

For me personally I think her "style" will help me because I need to get more aggressive in my post flop play.

I didn't really see any "new" ideas, but Im gonna read it again and pay attention this time.

I absolutely loved it also. I must say, i think she reveals a lot more than other pros about the thought processes actually going on while they play, which is really important - I dont think itll be too long before this will become as staple as Sklansys 'Holdem for advanced players'

Especially the philosophy for shorthanded playing, against a raise- hey if its worth a call, its worth a three bet, right? Dammit though- i dont want people to start playin my own dumb game back at me. Shite.

Ah well - II saw Harmon in person recently too for the first time. She aint a bat little peice, at that!

I find her chapter really good. However, I started rereading Ed Miller's Small Stakes Hold 'Em again, yesterday. Dunno, it might even be the third or fourth time. I do know this...I'm getting more out of it this time around.

Guys, you have a mathmatical game, at the base. 2+2=4. You can make it 1+3=4, or 3+1=4, but it's still 4. All of the authors are playing the same game, albeit some slightly different than others, but in the end, they all get to the same place. You are correct or you're not. The difference is not in what they are saying, but HOW they are saying it.

There is nothing revolutionary in what Harmon writes. (If there is, please, point it out to me. I've been reading her chapter, too.) To be revolutionary, you'd have to change the game. How she puts it may illuminate it better for one than another, which makes it a great value. She may even have a concept which no other has grasped, although I haven't grasped it, either. If so, then she's revealed a great secret.

Reading Miller, Sklansky, Malmuth, is damn hard, granted, but worth the effort. If it takes you ten years to understand Sklansky's Poker Theorum, better late than never. But the moment you understand it, I think, will be the Ah-HA! moment you need, if you want to be a winning poker player. (Have I? I really do not know and that's the truth. I may not be smart enough.)

Hold 'Em is simply a game of mistakes. If you make fewer mistakes than your opponent, you will win. Inevitably. If you make more mistakes than your opponents, you'll lose. Period. Those better than you may induce you to making a mistake, and that could be what separates us from the experts. A goal to strive for, I think.

Everyone who has written about the game has written this, in different ways. Sklansky didn't invent it. It was there all the time, as surely as Newton didn't "invent" gravity nor did Einstein "invent" relativity. All three just saw what was there. Our job is to see it, too. That's why we're here, to discuss what we read and learn. When we "teach" it, we own it.

Ric, I think you're cool.

CJ

One thing I am having some short term success w/ is Harmon's advice of shoving a flopped 2nd pr down 2 or 3 opponents throats.

For example, preflop raise AQo.
Flop is 5,Q,K
If first to act or no one has bet, fire away.

Or didnt I understand that part?
Im a nut peddler so thats kinda new to me when facing say 3 others in the pot.