As I've mentioned a few times in this section of the forum over the past few days, I'm currently reading HOH2. I thought HOH1 was a wonderful book even though I had some minor differences of opinion with the author over one or two points mainly because of the lower level of competition I face compared to what he faces. I think HOH2 is an incredible book that answers all the questions that weren't answered in HOH1. Now after having said all that and also noting that, well, who the hell am I to disagree with Dan Harrington, I do have a bone to pick with his chapter on "Calculating Pot Odds In All-in Situations".

He gives 3 examples where the Hero is faced with a large raise after making a bet with AK. In the first example, the opponent has a medium sized stack that is smaller than our Hero. In the second example, the opponent has a larger stack than the Hero. In the 3rd example the opponent is short stacked. Without relating the whole chapter, which may be illegal anyway, I would like to say that although I am in complete agreement with his all-in move in example 3 and also in agreement with his call in example 2, I am in complete disagreement with his fold in example 1.

The action goes something like this. Blinds are 150/300 with 50 antes making the starting pot 900. Hero is 2nd to act with 37,000. Hero raises to 1,200. It is folded around to cutoff with 11,200 who raises to 5,000. There is now 7,100 in the pot and it costs you 3,800 to call.

Immediately he says that calling is the worst option here then reasons that you have 2 options, fold or all-in. He opts for folding. My question is, using the same logic that he uses in example 2, why would calling not be the best option? He reasons that in example 2, where you would need to call the same raise, the call is justified because even if you aren't getting the immediate odds you need to flop a pair, you are getting implied odds because it will be very difficult for the large stack to get away from this hand.

My question is, wouldn't that be more so the case in example one? Call and take a flop knowing that you have great implied odds here because the raiser is pot committed and would find it even more difficult to get away from this hand than the raiser in example 2 with a bigger stack. Is anybody in agreement with me here?

I'm not saying that I would definitely call and that calling is definitely better than pushing or folding. However, I don't believe that is the worst option by far and that this particular play deserves some consideration and may even be the one I'm most likely to opt for.

But in hand 2, if you hit your A or K and bet out, your opponent can more easily fold with a still sizable stack behind him. In the case that big stack is re-raising with A8 or K9, which I would doubt would be the case after a TAG(I assume in these examples, Dan makes the Hero a solid player) raises in EP, then you would be correct about him having a problem getting away from it.

In hand 1, if you miss, you fold. If you hit, you can check and let your opponent bet, which he almost has to do as his PFR almost pot commits him. Or you can lead out and he still almost has to call with half his money already in the pot.

The medium stack example was Hand 1.

But the odds of you hitting the flop are nowhere near 1 in 8. You hit the flop (A or K) 1 out of every 3 times. Your folding 67% of the time, your picking up the rest of his chips about 33% of the time (Not counting the very few times he hits a set on the last 2 cards, but then those can be offset by the very few times you flop a straight or an A-high flush draw). So 2x you are losing and additional 3,800 and are at 32,000 and 1x you are picking up his whole stack and are at 48,200. If the odds were that you were going to lose 80% (4 out of 5x) or more I would tend to agree with you, but they are in fact better for you.

If you miss (2 out of 3) you are done and it costs you 3,800 additional. If you hit, you gain 11,200 (1 out of 3) + your original 5,000 back.

Lose 2x = -7,600
Win 1x = +11,200

This is ++++EV isn't it?

I hope I'm not coming off as an A-Hole for being so adament about this, but I think your stats are still a bit off.

Directly from HOH....."the odds of hitting an ace or king on the flop are a little better than 30 percent, so your chances of hitting are a little less than 2-to-1."

This is what I based my opinion on. If the odds are any worse, then everything changes.

I'm also having some trouble with another recommendation he makes with ATo. The situation is 7 people left at a one table satellite. He calls your opponent aggressive, but not super-aggressive (I'm inferring this only because he calls another player super-aggressive and this player only aggressive).

Blinds are 30/60, Opp is UTG+1 with 610 and you are SB with [Td] and 1330.

Dan says that he usually throws away this hand, but since opponent is very aggressive, slightly short stacked although not in immediate danger, and we are at a short table he decides to call when it gets back to him in the SB and you take the flop heads up. All good.

Flop comes [6s][5h]

He calls this a safe flop. I'm not sure I completely agree with the 1 high card out there, but ok. He says the right thing to do is lead out with a probe bet, which I tend to agree with. However, our Hero checks and our Opponent moves all-in for 490. This is where I start to differ.

He admits that if Opp has anything, then you don't have odds to call, but then decides that since your Opp is short stacked, your check forced him to make that move and he is most likely on a bluff since he is aggressive. He advocates calling a good portion of your stack off with A-high T-kicker.

What kind of hand is even an aggressive player going to raise from UTG+1? I would think that most of them would be AT+ or a PP. Only other possibilities and the only hand you are ahead of are KQ and KJ which you are way behind now. You are way behind a PP and crushed by a better Ace. You are in a good shape before the hand and even after calling the raise, so why would ruin that with a hand you are probably pretty far behind against?

He then says that part of the reason that he advocates the probe bet instead of the check is because you would be giving yourself better odds to call off your stack with this hand. What??? I thought the idea was to put money in the pot to win, not to force yourself into doing stupid things. I think either way, whether I check or use the probe bet, if opponent moves in on this board I'm folding.

(In the actual hand, Opp had 77 and Hero sucked out with a T on the turn.)

Now, although I believe this series is brilliant, and the best books ever written on tournament poker strategy, the biggest bone I've had with it was that Dan never seems to give people credit for medium to semi-big pairs (66-99) when they raise or call a raise and that is often what your opponents, or at least my opponents, have in these situations.