"No Limit Hold 'em: Theory and Practice"

There's a lot of good advice about controlling the pot size in "No Limit Hold 'em: Theory and Practice," by David Sklansky and Ed Miller. It's a concept that's not well understood by many no limit players, and they're the ones who are most likely to overplay their stacks away.

That said, I have a few issues with some of the recommendations made in the book. Here are some examples:

_Don't be afraid to minimum raise, the authors write. They support their argument by saying that the minimum raise often effectively raises the table stakes because many players will treat it the same way as a limp.

"Often you should make this sort of raise with 'brave' hands -- pocket pairs, suited connectors, and suited aces -- hands that play well after the flop. The goal is to turn your $5-$10 game (or whatever limit you're playing) into a $10-$20 or $15-$30 game for for this hand only," the authors write.

Put simply, I completely disagree. When you make a minimum raise, this is exactly the kinds of hands your opponents will put you on. If your opponents can significantly narrow your hand range down, that cuts into your implied odds because it lessens the chance you will get paid off when you hit your hand.

_It's OK to overlimp with Aces, the book says.

Mathematically, I can see the value of limping with Aces occasionally, especially if you anticipate that one of your opponents will raise. That said, I do not believe that limping with Aces occasionally will make you more money than playing them strongly. Pocket Aces are the strongest hand in hold 'em, and you need to know when they're no good.

An overlimp preflop gives you little information about the strength of your opponents' hands, nor does it put money into the pot when you are sure you have the nuts.

_If your preflop raise is called behind you, check a lot of flops, according to the authors.

This is just plain wrong. Against most opponents and on most flops, a continuation bet will take down the pot, especially when heads-up. You can't win if you don't bet or raise.

_Turn bets should be smaller fractions of the pot than flop bets, they write.

The authors argue that bets don't need to be as large on the turn to make draws unprofitable.

I don't believe it. Most players will call a single flop bet with a strong draw. The flop bet does little to force them out of the hand. It's when you bring that large bet on the turn that you give your opponents the greatest opportunity to put in more money when they have the worst of it.

I could go on. The more I review this book, the less I like about it.

It advocates limping first in on the button with hands like J9. It says that with a $700 stack in a $5/10 game, you should not raise with pocket 8s first in from middle position. Basically, it encourages a brand of poker that's simply not practical in reality.

Sure, these plays can be effective in the right situations against the right opponents on the right flops. But in general, I think you're more likely to damage your own game by attempting to execute questionable plays in rare situations.

To be fair, there are some parts of this book that I really like.

I've found that giving free cards can be quite effective for inducing bluffs and building medium-sized pots against players who interpret your action as weakness. I agree with the many suggestions about how to make the most of your position. I found the instruction on what kinds of hands work best for squeeze plays informative.

Overall, there's a single measure I use to evaluate poker strategy books: How much of a better player does this book make me? I would say it helped me a little bit, but some of the more marginal recommendations make me doubt the authors' credibility.

After this book, I'm done reading no limit books by people who don't play it as their main game. Their analysis may be solid in "theory," but in "practice" this playing style would come off as weak-tight.