SSH Rules!!

[BeerMoney]

After reading through the first 140 pages or so, I am loving it. Hears why: Ed explains what the right play is and thoroughly explains WHY it is the best play. Ed's advice is very technical, but straightforward and understandable. The guys an EV nut.

[Beavis68]

becareful, I have found that for the most part my opponents aren't as bad as what the book assumes.

I loved the book too, but I have now having a hard time using it, and wish I had not taken it so literally.

There are definitely some great concepts in the book, but use sparingly.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
becareful, I have found that for the most part my opponents aren't as bad as what the book assumes.



[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.. I would say the way ed assumes people play from reading things he posts on here, like his PreFlop Quiz, mbore accurately describe PP .5/1 or B&M 2/4 rather than PP 2/4 or 5/10.. Anyway, I still think he describes the math behind things well. I also find it strange that he has you raising to drive people out, while at the same time assuming they'll call with anything.

[nolanfan34]

Interesting point. I would agree that you need a pretty loose/passive table for some of the concepts to not get you in trouble.

That certainly isn't the case for some of the Stars 1/2 tables I've been playing. I probably need to ramp down the aggression a tad in certain situations.

The theories and reasoning behind the different plays and strategies though are the nuts. I am reading it again and keep stopping to think about how good some of the points are.

[uaw420rook]

In my limited experiance in playing this game, I have found that everytime I read a book, I tend to either not correctly apply the advice, or take some things out of context. Everytime I try to be more aggressive, I end up losing and making over aggressive errors. I then tend to settle back into my comfortable weak tight play, but a little more aggressive than before. I am slowly becoming more aggressive, but I guess im a slow learner, or it is just a natural progression I have to go through to become the best player that I can be, for the limits I am playing. SSH is an excellent book, but you have to adjust its advice to your level of confidence and level of experiance. It is a book that you should read and reread, but be careful when applying its philosophy.You must be sure that the table is loose and note the players that seem to be poor and the ones that play decent to better poker. At Party Poker this is hard because of the number of low limit players there. Be more concerned with your level of play and not so much with results. The variance will be huge. It only takes a couple of SSH pots to take your BB/hr average up one over 30 or 40 hours of play. Make sure you are applying the books advice on big pots. It will pay off in the long run.

[MicroBob]

there is no question that this is the case as most party 2/4 and 3/6 games are in the 35-39% SF range i believe.
although last night i was on a couple of wilder than normal tables with 5-6 almost every flop and some raises with really weird stuff.

but, for the most part, the small-stakes games on party (and even moreso on ub, stars, etc) play tighter than the 3/6 - 5/10 (and probably higher) B&M type of games that Ed is sometimes describing.


i just don't get that many hands where (making this up)
'3 players limp, i raise with AJo on button, both blinds call, UTG re-raises, everyone cold-calls, it's back to me'

i do think the party tables have been a bit looser lately....at least to the extent that a PF-raise on 2/4 or 3/6 is less likely to only steal the blinds.

a table where a raise can actually have a chance of stealing the blinds is obviously tighter than most of Ed's example-tables.


but the concepts are not difficult to apply to slightly tighter games.
maybe ramp down some of the hyper-aggression in the right spots.


i'm still working with this too.


it's kind of interesting...HEFAP is too advanced for party 2/4 and 3/6.....and SSHE assumes tables that are looser than party 2/4 and 3/6 for the most part.
so i guess the party 3/6 is somewhere in-between....but certainly closer to most of the SSHE ideas (in the situations where it is not spot-on).

[EdSchurr]

I think the book gives enough conditional advice that it isn't often wrong for any specific level. And it explains enough concepts that the advice isn't impossible to adjust. The only assumptions are what loose, tight, tricky, etc., players are exactly (though I'm not finished, that's the idea I get).

[Blarg]

Ed plays live, not online. His advice seems to fit perfectly the live 2/4 and 3/6 games I've seen at Commerce in L.A., where Ed has also played, I take it.

I find most Party tables not quite as loose as Ed says, in that not everyone will call on a table, but those who do will often call with anything at all in their hands, and take pretty much nothing all the way to the river. So the play pre-flop is tighter, but post-flop can be incredibly loose.

The B&M games Ed is used to have far looser pre-flop play than online typically does, and that changes post-flop strategy and just creates a very different game.

Still a great book, though. You just have to be selective when you apply what his or any book says.

That's the tricky thing about books -- in the short run, trying out their concepts can send your results all over the map or even make you a worse player, more confused and losing more. And in the short run almost anything can happen in poker, too, so it's even harder to judge what a book is doing for you and how you like its concepts.

Implementing any advice or strategy takes a lot of care and is easy to go wrong with. Ed's book is no more immune to that problem than any other, and probably even more susceptible to it, as it deals with many marginal plays in marginal situations to extract small increments of value that add up very well over long periods of time. It's full of advice than can cause possible huge variance in profitability, though. Often it won't, because those extra wins playing marginal situations right steady the fluctuations, but there's always the possibility of a "perfect storm" in poker where all your edges don't work out for a while -- and Ed has you aggressively playing many small edges. We all get hit by a hurricane every once in a while.

[Beavis68]

I am surprised to hear that BM is looser than on-line, I always assumed the opposite.

The book is well worth the money the pot odds/equity and hidden outs sections are worth it alone. Also the underated value of suited cards in multi-way pots.

[flair1239]

I think the his advice on big pots is excellent.

But I too thought that he was overexagerating the incompetence of the typical LL player. Even at a typical full PP.5/1 table there are usually at least 3-4 other people who seem to have more than a clue about what they are doing.

What I am learning from all the books I read is to pay attention to the caveats and exceptions.

[Hallett]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree.. I would say the way ed assumes people play from reading things he posts on here, like his PreFlop Quiz, mbore accurately describe PP .5/1 or B&M 2/4 rather than PP 2/4 or 5/10..

[/ QUOTE ]

The book describes my local B&M 6/12 game PERFECTLY. Party's .50/1.00 is way tighter of all things.

Ed has said that he is not an online player. The book can be applied to internet play, but the poor players and loose tables described are more likely to be found live, and certainly not in 5/10 internet poker. I think the reason is the ability to multitable. A good player can play 4 games of 3/4 at once, with a higher return than 1 table of 15/30. The net result of all the good players multitabling is that some of the low limit games are not as full of fish as people think.

[Ed Miller]

I also find it strange that he has you raising to drive people out, while at the same time assuming they'll call with anything.

This is not a contradiction. Remember, you often have four or more opponents on each hand. Not all of these are necessarily "call with anything" types. Just some of them.

One of the main points I tried to make is that it is often strongly to your benefit to narrow a 6-way pot to heads-up or 3-ways, even with drawing hands and even if you have zero chance to win immediately.

[jtr]

[ QUOTE ]
I am surprised to hear that BM is looser than on-line, I always assumed the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone who started in home games, then online, then B&M, I was also surprised to find this. But if you think about it, it makes sense. People who've driven all the way to the casino and can't multitable are generally not in a mood to fold their hands -- they want action.

[Blarg]

I thought online being tighter than B&M was pretty unlikely too, until I had more experience online. I've had plenty in live casinos.

I think the thing is that online is not really social. I can be online for hours and see nobody saying a thing. In casinos, people are drunk, horny, showing off, trying out their latest coolio slick bluff maneuvers -- it can just be all about the people, the fun, the good times. Even when the players are just as good, a certain percentage of them will be there because they're happy to get out of the house and have a good time and pal around with their friends, so even the better players are more likely to play loose, bad, crazy, whatever.

I've only got 42,000 hands in, but that's something at least. Still, I've never yet seen a table online, even at Party, where all the crazies supposedly live, that matches the wildness that was common at the Commerce(or others) casino in So. Cal., which used to practically be my home, where literally everyone saw every flop for hours on end, and sometimes every hand it was capped before the flop..and everyone called...and everyone did it for hours. It's hard to believe it even writing it, but frankly it can be insane live.

I think having a lot of Chinese had something to do with the Commerce, honestly. Gambling in Hong Kong and in much of Chinese culture isn't at all the negative and "sinful" thing it is to so many of us in the West. Commerce has a huge Asian games section, which is supposedly where they make most of their money by far, and the regular poker tables get a lot of their spillover. A lot of Asians are small businessmen, at least compared to caucasians, and the correlation of successful and Chinese is not at all a trivial one. The results often show up at the poker table, happily slapping money into the middle of the table. Neither being great, super hard-working small businessmen nor whip-smart hyper-achiever kids in an education-centric culture means you're actually too hot at the poker table.

Sure helps pump up the pots though.

[MicroBob]

there are some asians who gamble like crazy. this is not to be denied.
but i'm pretty sure there are some more traditional segments of chinese and/or asian culture where gambling is frowned upon.

i thought i remembered seeing on WPT or somewhere where Evelyn Ng had real issues with her parents because of her poker-career.


ed's assertion that online is typically tighter than B&M is not exactly news.
the social and drinking aspect of it is definitely part of it.


many who have experience at both might compare .5/1 on party to 3/6 live.
and some have said that 3/6 on party plays similarly to 10/20 or 15/30 in many B&M's.
obviously this is region dependent....and i can't confirm this because i haven't played higher than 4/8 live.

but enough posters with experience have said this that i suspect it is probably true.

[stir]

Makes a good point, but SSH has definitely improved my results (short-term).

Yesterday at Party $1/2, I won a 26BB pot because I stayed to the river with just overcards and a gutshot, and caught the nut str8.

I would have never called the raise and re-raise I faced on the turn before reading and re-reading SSH's section on how you must adjust your thinking and play in big pots.

[chson]

[ QUOTE ]

After reading through the first 140 pages or so, I am loving it. Hears why: Ed explains what the right play is and thoroughly explains WHY it is the best play. Ed's advice is very technical, but straightforward and understandable. The guys an EV nut.

[/ QUOTE ]

SSH's a well written book but Ed's hypocrisy on various issues addressed on this forum leads me to believe that some of the his concepts are not as +EV as he claims. For instance, many people have posted that their post-SSH results have been less than stellar. A few of these people have used SSH concepts for 5K+ hands and are either losing money or breaking even. In any case, they're certainly not "crushing" their respective games. Ed's response usually revolves around the fact that they haven't played enough hands. I believe he even stated that 10K is not sufficient to determine EV. This statement may or may not be correct but here comes the problem: Ed's a B&M player! By Ed's own logic and given the amount of years he's played poker, there's no possible way he could have put in the B&M flight time to determine his own EV, nevermind writing a book on his +EV concepts.

[BeerMoney]

You have to make sure you are under the given assumptions. Raising in situations where you may have the 2nd best hand is rather expensive. I find in PP lower limits a bluff less, call more strategy can be a little more sound.

[Ed Miller]

By Ed's own logic and given the amount of years he's played poker, there's no possible way he could have put in the B&M flight time to determine his own EV, nevermind writing a book on his +EV concepts.

I strongly object to your use of the term hypocrite. If you are going to use accusatory, emotionally-charged terms like that, you'd better damn well have more to back up your claim than what's in this post.

To clear up any confusion:

I have played enough hours to be confident that I am a solidly winning player. I have not played enough hours to nail down my winrate to within a few dollars or so. It takes a TON of hours to do that. Furthermore, I have never ONCE claimed to know my winrate within any given range, nor have I ever posted my winrate publicly.

I refuse to take credit or blame for anyone's results. It is up to you and everyone else to do what it takes to become a winning player. Just because some dude reads my book and loses for two weeks doesn't mean that my book is wrong. And it certainly doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite. Similarly, just because someone reads my book and wins for two weeks doesn't mean my book is right. Futhermore, I have NEVER taken credit for anyone's positive results.

A lot of what is in my book is logic and math. I don't need to play two billion hands to know I'm right any more than I have to add 2+2 on my calculator two billion times to know that the answer is 4.

I wrote a book that contains concepts I believe to be correct. I hope that people read the book and that they improve as a result of reading it. But if people fail to improve, that's not my fault. And telling them that it's not my fault DOES NOT MAKE ME A HYPOCRITE.

So basically, produce first-hand evidence of my hypocricy. If you can do so, I will wholeheartedly apologize. If not, you'd better strongly reconsider your choice of words...

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]

SSH's a well written book but Ed's hypocrisy on various issues addressed on this forum leads me to believe that some of the his concepts are not as +EV as he claims. For instance, many people have posted that their post-SSH results have been less than stellar.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the dumbest things I've read on these forums, and that includes reading my own posts.

By your logic, if I read Tiger Woods' "Golf My Way", and I don't improve my game, it must be his fault, right? Or that makes him a hypocrite somehow?

Read Ed's posts before this book came out. He was very clear that the concepts included could be dangerous if mis-applied.

But in the end in your post you've basically alluded that you think Ed misstated +EV situations in his posts to sell more books. For that, I'm guessing you're going to be getting the wrath of the S&M response team sometime soon...

[uaw420rook]

I think some players are not using the concepts correctly. I am one that mistook the concepts and went a losing streak overplaying my hands, becoming way to loose when I wasn't really at a loose table. Not every table on party poker is loose. Now by loose, I mean the table average of 40 percent or more looking at the flop. If you try to make Some of the plays at a tight table, your likely to find yourself try ing to rebuild your stack. Even a loose table can become tight, with the changing of a couple of players. You have to pay attention to how many are limping and play the pre-flop odds. SSH is not for rookies. People who are using this as their first book are going to be building my and others bankrolls tryiing to use the concepts on tight tables, without using correct preflop odds. I am adjusting myself to the concepts and have found my bb average to go up to 2.78 an hour over 4900 hands since I started reading SSH. That also includes the losing streak I encountered by misapplying the concepts, and overplaying hands. Will I sustain that average? I know I won't, but when the bad run comes, Ill be expecting it, and will handle it without tilting. I just finished reading In the Poker Mind, and it has helped my low limit game, by teaching me to accept the bad beats without frustration. I am now able to stay on my game regardless of the outcomes, and the effect of luck on my bankroll. SSH has really helped me at the loose tables. Tight tables, play ABC tight aggressive and money can be made as long as there are a couple loose players to grind off of. Well thats my two cents

[chson]

[ QUOTE ]
By Ed's own logic and given the amount of years he's played poker, there's no possible way he could have put in the B&M flight time to determine his own EV, nevermind writing a book on his +EV concepts.

I strongly object to your use of the term hypocrite. If you are going to use accusatory, emotionally-charged terms like that, you'd better damn well have more to back up your claim than what's in this post.

To clear up any confusion:

I have played enough hours to be confident that I am a solidly winning player. I have not played enough hours to nail down my winrate to within a few dollars or so. It takes a TON of hours to do that. Furthermore, I have never ONCE claimed to know my winrate within any given range, nor have I ever posted my winrate publicly.

I refuse to take credit or blame for anyone's results. It is up to you and everyone else to do what it takes to become a winning player. Just because some dude reads my book and loses for two weeks doesn't mean that my book is wrong. And it certainly doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite. Similarly, just because someone reads my book and wins for two weeks doesn't mean my book is right. Futhermore, I have NEVER taken credit for anyone's positive results.

A lot of what is in my book is logic and math. I don't need to play two billion hands to know I'm right any more than I have to add 2+2 on my calculator two billion times to know that the answer is 4.

I wrote a book that contains concepts I believe to be correct. I hope that people read the book and that they improve as a result of reading it. But if people fail to improve, that's not my fault. And telling them that it's not my fault DOES NOT MAKE ME A HYPOCRITE.

So basically, produce first-hand evidence of my hypocricy. If you can do so, I will wholeheartedly apologize. If not, you'd better strongly reconsider your choice of words...

[/ QUOTE ]

I apologize as I didn't mean to offend you. However, the point of my post is that you constantly tell your readers that they haven't played enough hands when you're a self admitted B&M player of 1-2 years. Unless you played 35 hours a week for 102 weeks, then you haven't even been dealt 100K hands. Obviously I can't prove if you did play that amount of poker but I seriously doubt it since writing a book takes a considerable amount of time. Now since the devout twoplustwo jockeys (such as RED RAIN) love to throw around large numbers such as 50K for determining hourly rate, then I'd be safe to say that a poker author needs at least 100K hands to determine if his concepts are valid.

Regarding the math in SSH, I don't recollect reading any chapter that proves RAISING with 5 outs on the flop with a pot of 9 SB is +EV. This concept of "buying outs/protecting your hand" when there's "big pot" sounds great in theory but lacks the mathematical proof or live data to validate it.

[Beavis68]

The only way to mathimatically prove it is to make assumptions about an unknown outcome. And you have to know your game pretty well to make those assumptions accurate.

Those assumptions will not always be true.

Say you have A /images/graemlins/spade.gif K /images/graemlins/spade.gif

Flop is J /images/graemlins/club.gif 7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

You opponents have Q /images/graemlins/club.gif Q /images/graemlins/heart.gif
10 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 10 /images/graemlins/club.gif
A /images/graemlins/club.gif 7 /images/graemlins/heart.gif

Your odds of winning are 18% with all the players involved, but 29% if you can get heads up with QQ. So, I believe if the pot has 10 or more bets, the raise is profitable IF the the A7 will fold.

[xxx]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of Asians are small businessmen, at least compared to caucasians,

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Ed Miller]

I apologize as I didn't mean to offend you.

Apology accepted. But it is quite likely that most any native speaker of English would be offended if you called him a hypocrite. It is a very loaded and nasty word.

I don't think you actually meant "hypocricy." I think you meant that I'm not fully qualified or something to that effect.

Again, you are somewhat correct. I haven't played enough hours to nail my winrate down to within a few dollars. But I have played enough hands to be sure that I am solidly a winning player. (This is as far as I will discuss my winrate.) Furthermore, my personal winrate is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT when discussing the concepts in my book.

Where I think you are wrong is that I don't believe ANYONE has "played enough hands" to know whether "RAISING with 5 outs on the flop with a pot of 9 SB is +EV" or not. Poker is an extremely situational game, and it is simply not possible to calculate the EV of "raising with 5 outs on the flop" to the fourth decimal place as it is to calculate the EV of hitting 16 against a 10. You cannot simulate it (at least not accurately with software that is currently available), nor can you gather data to calculate this number.

Every hand is different. Every board has a slightly different texture, every opponent plays slightly differently, etc. There's no way you can gather enough situations that are similar enough to make a statistically significant "apples to apples" comparison. At least not without mining a database of billions of played hands.

I'm not signing up for that job.

Moreover, I can easily turn this standard right back on you. I have yet to see anyone PROVE mathematically or support with irrefutable empirical evidence that not raising is the better play. Just because Lee Jones wrote his book before I wrote mine doesn't place this ridiculous and arbitrary burden of proof on me alone.

Basically, I think your whole way of thinking about this is misguided. You are trying to think about this stuff the way Lee Jones proposed to, and that's just not the right way to think about it in my opinion.

To calculate EV in poker, you are forced to make estimates and simplifying assumptions to reach any real conclusions. And in my opinion, if you do a good job of that, you will inevitably draw mostly the same conclusions that I have drawn. So far, whenever I have seen someone argue for a conclusion that contradicts mine, I have always found a serious flaw in their estimation or simplification process.

[Hallett]

[ QUOTE ]
SSH's a well written book but Ed's hypocrisy...... snip...... For instance, many people have posted that their post-SSH results have been less than stellar. A few of these people have used SSH concepts for 5K+ hands and are either losing money or breaking even. In any case, they're certainly not "crushing" their respective games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since reading Ed Miller's book, I have played 3,144 hands of .50 - 1.00 at Party. I am up 12.47 BB/100 hands, mostly multitabling. This is the in no way sustainable, and I completely understand that. I am playing better since reading the book, and I would recommend this book to anyone. I don't care if Ed has ever played a hand of poker in his life, he has written a great book that makes me a better player. If "a few of these people" who have read the book are not winning, that is unfortunate. It in no way devalues the worth of this book, and in no way justifies calling Ed a hypocrite.

/images/graemlins/mad.gif /images/graemlins/mad.gif /images/graemlins/mad.gif /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[BeerMoney]

A hypocrite is one of the worst things you can call someone. I'd be pissed if someone said it to me.

Ed, I do have a question I've been wondering about.. Are you a fulltime poker player now? If that's none of my business, that's cool too, I understand.

BeerMoney

[TimM]

The best part about improving your game and your win rate is that your best winning sessions get higher and your worst losses are lessened. I've been doing so much better since learning the SSH way, and I can't believe I've just been running good for the last three months and >30000 hands. (I started picking up a lot of the ideas from Ed's teaser posts long before the book was published).

[adamstewart]

I absolutley concur.

Ed's book pieced a lot of concepts together for me. It's done wonders for my aggression. And I've played a much more consistent, solid, and winning game since reading SSH.

I LOVE IT. Thanks again Ed. (I just wish you hadn't released such powerful knowledge to the whole world! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif )

[Beavis68]

I dont think hypocrit is the right word, but it seems there are some contradictions, like saying that Lee Jones is absolutely wrong, then basically saying there are no absolutes in poker and that this stuff can't be calculated accurately.

I must admit that I am a little confused.

The book is packed with information that is priceless.

It is a good book, in fact, I wish there were another 300 pages.

I would gladly pay twice the price for a book that was twice as long.

[JTrout]

[ QUOTE ]
This concept of "buying outs/protecting your hand" when there's "big pot" sounds great in theory but lacks the mathematical proof or live data to validate it.



[/ QUOTE ]


As I'm reading Ed's book, and enjoying every page, I come to p.271, Flop Quiz #7. After answering wrongly, I make a note to come back and re-read and try to absorb.

Then, that same evening I get this hand. I may or may not have played the hand optimally, but without a doubt it is one pot I raked that I never would have before reading that quiz.

One statistically insignificant example:


Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (10 handed)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif, A/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
<font color="666666">1 fold</font>, UTG+1 calls, UTG+2 calls, MP1 calls, <font color="CC3333">MP2 raises</font>, <font color="666666">1 fold</font>, CO calls, Hero calls, SB calls, BB calls, UTG+1 calls, UTG+2 calls, MP1 calls.

Flop: (16 SB) 9/images/graemlins/club.gif, 2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 3/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(8 players)</font>
SB checks, BB checks, UTG+1 checks, UTG+2 checks, <font color="CC3333">MP1 bets</font>, MP2 calls, CO folds, <font color="CC3333">Hero raises</font>, SB folds, BB calls, UTG+1 folds, UTG+2 calls, MP1 calls, MP2 calls.

Turn: (13 BB) 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(5 players)</font>
BB checks, UTG+2 checks, MP1 checks, MP2 checks, Hero checks.

River: (13 BB) 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="blue">(5 players)</font>
BB checks, UTG+2 checks, <font color="CC3333">MP1 bets</font>, MP2 folds, Hero calls, BB calls, UTG+2 folds.

Final Pot: 16 BB
<font color="green">Main Pot: 16 BB, between Hero, BB and MP1.</font> &gt; <font color="white">Pot won by Hero (16 BB).</font>

Results in white below: <font color="white">
BB shows 4c 6h (two pair, nines and fours).
MP1 shows 7s 9s (three of a kind, nines).
Hero shows 5h Ah (straight, five high).
Outcome: Hero wins 16 BB. </font>

[MicroBob]

i would raise the river.

[pistol78]

JTrout -Fold that cheese preflop, re-read the section of domination, and the starting hands section.

To put blame on Ed's book, or any book for that matter, because of negative outcomes of a handfull of people is just plain ignorant.
First of all the book has only been available for a month so i highly doubt that all of you posting on this thread have fully read and FULLY understand the concepts that he throws at us. I pre-ordered the book got it through conjelco and have been reading it EVERY DAY since then. Every day I pick up something new or understand a concept a little better than the day before. This book introduces concepts that are clearly NOT EASY FOR A BEGINNER to incorporate (myself included). We are no longer following the fit-or-fold concept*. WE are now starting to count odds, count outs and partial outs, backdoor straights and flushes, think of pot equity, being more agrresive, etc. All the plays he introduces IF APPLIED CORRECTLY will have a positve EV IN THE LONGTERM not in 5000 hands and especially not in 2 weeks. Furthermore in order to say that he is wrong or a hypocrite becasue the stuff he says cannot be proved is also wrong, unlees you can disprove it. And in order to say that that concepts he introduces are wrong you would have to get a group of at least 2-3 hundered people, have them read his book, have ED make sure that they understand what they have read and follow their results for a year and then make assumptions of the book or the advice he is giving. Folks we are serious poker players are we not? HOw can we judge the book by a couple of bad weeks??


*ED why do you keep attacking Lee's book? It is really good and siomple for an extreme beginner. Playing like a rock does get the money you know

[Hallett]

[ QUOTE ]
Ed's book pieced a lot of concepts together for me. It's done wonders for my aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have always dreamed about being a tight aggressive player. Prior to the book, I was tightish (25% VPIP) but not aggressive enough (PFR 6%, aggression factor .8, which I rate as Grandma aggression). Post SSH, I am still only tightish, at 24% VPIP, but my PFR is 9.5, and my aggression is 1.4. I am a very happy guy.

[MicroBob]

if you are playing at 10-player tables you could probably stand to be tighter than VPIP-24.
a VPIP this high works for some players....but until you really get your game down i would recommend a VPIP of less than 20.


definitely good news on the PFR though.

i have said before that increasing my PFR was the simlest step to improving my game. the hands just become that much easier to play...and you will land the occasional steal with overcards...whereas a weak-tight 'fit or fold' player will never be in position to take these pots in the first place.

[Hallett]

I wholeheartedly agree. (wow, that is a long word).

I don't think 24% is anywhere near tight enough, and now that I have that raising thingie working, I am concentrating on cutting down my see the flop. The book is helping a great deal on both fronts, soon I will be BULLETT PROOF.

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Luv2DriveTT]

I like how you got your free card on the turn! Raise the river.

In da club /images/graemlins/club.gif

[curtains]

This hand is completely different than the one in the book. There is no backdoor flush draw, and moreover there is a flush draw out against you that can kill a lot of your outs. The 4d and Ad may no longer be winning cards.
This is one of the problems I have in that a lot of people misuse the information drastically. Once you give someone an excuse to start raising and reraising with gutshots, they seem to start doing it in situations that aren't correct.
This is not Ed Miller's responsibility, however most beginners I talked to who looked at this hand quiz, somehow read the entire thing and didn't even realize that they had a backdoor flush draw, or that it was signifigant in any way. To make the same play without a backdoor flush draw AND with 2 to a flush on the board, seems wrong to me.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
JTrout -Fold that cheese preflop, re-read the section of domination, and the starting hands section.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way. You've got 5 opponents in the pot already, and they blinds will be getting odds to call with many hands, so you can count on at least one more. With a suited hand you can never be fully dominated. Read the part about how domination isn't as important when the pot is multiway.

[Nottom]

I really don't care what Ed's personal winrate is (although I'm sure its quite good), since it doesn't really concern me. What does concern me is that Ed's strategies are closer to the strategies I was already using than any other poker book out there. Granted this can be expected since most of my game is based on what I've learned from posters like Ed, Clarkmeister, Dynasty, and others who kept pounding controlled aggressiveness into my brain as I was starting out.

Now I'm not claiming I didn't learn anything from Ed's book, becasue there were certainly a few situations that Ed mentions that I never fully understood before (mainly when NOT to raise) that will certainly help my game, but (without tooting my own horn) I do know that I am a winning player at the online micro/low limits. I also know that if someone really took thetime to understand the concepts in SSH and apply them correctly, they to would be a winning player as well, and will be much better off than following the advice found in any other "beginner" book I have read.

[TimM]

I like the flop raise as a free card play only. He makes the best of a not so good situation in a big pot. For one more small bet, when it works and they all check to him, he doubles his pot equity from whatever it was before (since he likely would have to fold to a turn bet if he had just called). Plus how funny would it be if MP1 was going for a turn check-raise with trip 9's. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Ed Miller]

Ed, I do have a question I've been wondering about.. Are you a fulltime poker player now? If that's none of my business, that's cool too, I understand.

I haven't played much since I started writing the book in December. I decided to stop playing entirely in order to get the book done ASAP.

I probably won't play twenty hours plus per week again for a while... I'll probably write a second book at least between now and then. But I do plan to play regularly.

Frankly, full-time poker player doesn't really do it for me. I like the game, but ten to twenty hours a week is enough for me.

[Ed Miller]

*ED why do you keep attacking Lee's book? It is really good and siomple for an extreme beginner. Playing like a rock does get the money you know

Though it may sound a little silly, I really don't intend to ATTACK Lee's book. I think his book fills an important niche in the literature. I said the things I did about it because I felt that many players were having trouble getting past a certain level due to a few erroneous ideas they got from that book.

My comments about the book had absolutely nothing to do with Lee personally (who I'm told is a very nice guy) or any competition between his book and mine (I don't feel there should be much because, despite their similar titles, they are two very different books). I wanted posters on this site to understand where and why some of the ideas in his book are wrong so they could move past them and become better players.

[ChicagoTroy]

[ QUOTE ]
Ed, I do have a question I've been wondering about.. Are you a fulltime poker player now? If that's none of my business, that's cool too, I understand.

I probably won't play twenty hours plus per week again for a while... I'll probably write a second book at least between now and then.

[/ QUOTE ]

What would the topic of the second book be?

[PokerHorse]

I have now read your book despite my objection to David's remarks. the book is sound imo. What new players need to be aware of is that if they start playing small pairs etc, or make other adaptations and the game doesn't meet the requirements to do so, they might have problems.
no matter how you slice it, Poker is a game of people, and while learning the concepts in ssh will help, learning how to read player tendencies will always prevail(imo)
Further, 50k hands would be a good goal to evaluate your play. if your multi tabling online you need considerably more.(im not going to argue this point further-yes I understand stats and probability)
All in all , this book holds many of the same concepts in hfap but explains in more detail , outs and pot odds etc better for the beggining player. If you have been playing less than 2 years I would reccommend the book.

[PokerHorse]

this point is very easy for an in-experienced player to mis-use. I have to disagree that you should narrow down the pot if you have "zero" chance to win. Maybe i'm taking this statement out of context, but raising to narrow down the field to give yourself a better chance, is good in theory, but really has to be used in very very specific circumstances, otherwise you are basically dealing with a parlay situation where several things need to happen in order for this play to make sense or money in the long run. I believe it was either ciaffione or another who wrote about this more in detail, but to the contrary, if players are drawing against you and putting there money in the pot, then when you hit your hand you will make that much more money. Of all the concepts, this one seems to be more specifically situational than all others and takes much playing experience to get a handle on. New players are going to find themselves getting re-raised and then losing many more chips , in the wrong situations.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
Further, 50k hands would be a good goal to evaluate your play. if your multi tabling online you need considerably more.(im not going to argue this point further-yes I understand stats and probability)

[/ QUOTE ]

Comedy at it's finest.

[bdk3clash]

I have now read your book despite my objection to David's remarks. the book is sound imo.

Sweet. Now that Small Stakes Hold'em has the PokerHorse seal of approval I can finally start reading it.

[OrangeHeat]

[ QUOTE ]
Further, 50k hands would be a good goal to evaluate your play. if your multi tabling online you need considerably more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Talk about beating a dead pokerhorse.....

This is why poker games will always be good - some people cannot grasp the fundamentals.

Orange

[stir]

Certainly is a relief to me that SSH now has this seal of approval. But, of course, don't read it if you have been playing longer than two years.

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
this point is very easy for an in-experienced player to mis-use. I have to disagree that you should narrow down the pot if you have "zero" chance to win*. Maybe i'm taking this statement out of context, but raising to narrow down the field to give yourself a better chance, is good in theory, but really has to be used in very very specific circumstances, otherwise you are basically dealing with a parlay situation where several things need to happen in order for this play to make sense or money in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

*You left out the key word "immediately". SSH clearly spells out the circumstances that make this play correct.

[curtains]

Yeah but his hand jsut isnt good enough to go for a free card. Just because you have some semblence of a draw and the pot is biug, doesnt mean you should be playing it aggressively every time. The draw of A4h on a 932 2 diamonds board is basically crap in such a large field. If you are closing the action I wouldn't mind calling, but this just seems crazy, with so many opponents and so many chances for pepole to reraise you. I mean you cant even call a bet on the turn after the 9d comes off, You absolutely cant. There are tons of cards that can come off that leave you unable to call a single turn bet. ie any diamond.
It just seems like a really bad spot to gamble to me.

[MicroBob]

i mostly agree with you curtains....but am not entirely in your camp.....


if there is a bet when that 9d comes there's 14 or 15 BB (if someone has already called) in the pot....possibly shouldn't call here, but i think it's kind of close.


regarding the C/R for free-card on the flop.....i'm not sure i like this play either...especially so because of the 2 diamonds.

but aren't your partial Ace-outs worth something? you can't count on winning if you hit an ace of course.

so your 4's to hit the gut-shot are really 3-3.5 outs because you don't know if 4d has given someone a flush.

but the 3 aces are probably worth 1-1.5 because you might just take this pot by hitting top-pair.


whether this is enough to make it worth C/R'ing for the free-card i'm not sure. but the over-card has to be worth something.

C/R'ing a gut-shot draw seems kind of goofy to me too....and i don't remember Ed recommending this play with a gut-shot against a 2-suit board either. it is probably a misapplication of what he was driving at (which is what everyone's been talking about....players THINKING they are applying SSHE when they actually are over-applying it).


anyway, if considering the ace-outs also...i think that the unorthodox play here might almost be close to +EV.
probably incorrect....but not by so much.

[Gabe]

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, full-time poker player doesn't really do it for me. I like the game, but ten to twenty hours a week is enough for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

[TimM]

The 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif is the single worst card that could have come on the turn, but his flop raise allowed him to win the pot anyway. I figure if you're not going to fold in that spot, the raise only has to save the pot a very small percentage of the time to be worth it. I wouldn't make too much out of the fact that he check-raised a gut shot, as I'm sure he didn't check it with the intention of raising.

[JTrout]

I was on the button; so, I did not check-raise.

[Clarkmeister]

It could be the first book of an epic trilogy.

[PokerHorse]

its a beginers book, sorry whether you think so or not , im far from a beginner.

[PokerHorse]

There are other things that come into play online besides hand count. 50k hands online multi tabling can be achieved quite rapidly. but playing over extended period of time this way should be tested by the individual. its not just about the distribution of hands, so i would even say you might set a time goal rather than a hand goal if you are playing on line multi tabling. Or is this ill logical to you also?

[ClarkNasty]

"Further, 50k hands would be a good goal to evaluate your play. if your multi tabling online you need considerably more.(im not going to argue this point further-yes I understand stats and probability)"

Good one. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[PokerHorse]

hah hah ,you got me, really you guys are much deeper than me when it comes to thinking about this game.
That was really deep and thought provoking.

[PokerHorse]

is that the best you can do. how about an opinion. do you know what that is.??
dont worry, youll make a fortune at this game. Once you play 10-20k hands online multitabling, and show a profit, your a cinch. lol!!

[PokerHorse]

I prefer the sponge bob picture myself. Hows life back in the sixties?

[Ulysses]

It really hurts you that you are not smart enough to make a lot of money at poker, doesn't it? Look, as I said before, life is not fair. Some people are born dumb, that's just the way it goes. But even a dumb person like you can try to study and get better. You will never get really good, but perhaps you can do well enough to not be so bitter about your lack of success. Best of luck to you.

[MicroBob]

would it be better if i spread my 50k hands out over 20 years instead of cramming them into a few weeks??

okay...i'll do that then.
thanks.

[curtains]

I would just fold on the flop. Everytime we have a gutshot and one overcard in a raised pot, even if the board is 2 to a flush, we have to play so aggressively? It doesn't make sense to me.
With this board its VERY easy to hit your out and lose anyway. In the example in Ed's book it was nearly impossible for this to happen. I just think this hand and the example in the book are so different for too many important reasons. (most importantly the flush draw on board and secondly the lack of backdoor flush)

[OrangeHeat]

[ QUOTE ]
Or is this ill logical to you also?

[/ QUOTE ]

Everything you have said to this point is illogical.

JUST BECUASE YOU CANNOT WIN AT THE RATE OF OTHERS _ DOES NOT MEAN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

IT MEANS YOU LACK THE SKILLS AND TALENTS OTHERS HAVE DEVELOPED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you stopped making excuses and put the effort you have put into your flawed crusade into studying you could probably improve to the point oithers are at.

Orange

[OrangeHeat]

[ QUOTE ]
sorry whether you think so or not , im far from a beginner.

[/ QUOTE ]

99% of beginners grap the concept you cannot - it is fundamental.

Just because you have been playing a mediocre game for 20 years - does not make you an expert.

Since your so results oriented - what have you won/lost online, on what limits, over how many hands, how many tables, and how many hours?

I believe your poor results online irritate you because you have to admit you are not nearly as good as you think you are.

Orange

[TimM]

I'll admit Ed's example is pretty favorable and this one much more marginal. But here we have 4 extra small bets and two extra opponents for future bets. Three of his outs give him the 2nd nuts if one comes off on the turn (behind any 65, which I wouldn't worry about too much). So he could call getting 17-1 plus implied odds just to peel off one more card. The implied odds and the other less clean outs should compensate for the chance he might hit and lose anyway.

I ran it through PokerStove, giving his opponents a worst case range of hands (any ace, any pair, any two suited), and he still has about a 10% pot equity after that flop. So he spent 2 SB for a 10% shot at what became a 32 SB pot, with a some risk of getting re-raised or bet into on the turn, and a chance to win even more if either he hits one card earlier or the turn is less of a threat to his hand.

I guess it all boils down to the opponents. If they are aggressive I certainly wouldn't blame anyone for folding. If they are usually as loose-passive as they seem to be here, I like his play.

[PokerHorse]

What are you talking about? I love how you guys take a sentence, post it out of context as a quote, and then rant.
Wasnt the subject determining your win rate?
It's easy to tell that someone like you doesnt do well at the tables because it's so easy for you to go on tilt here at the forum. You have a lot of anger. get some help and your game will improve as well.

[ChicagoTroy]

Indeed.

Ed can be Frodo, David can be Gandalf, Phil Helmuth will be gollum (filthy floppitses!). We've got an unusually large cast of trolls here, but some of them can be orcs or something.

[Zele]

I have always been fascinated by how counterintuitive the subject of probability and statistics is to human begins, however I've never seen anything quite like this.

[mrjim]

Pokerhorse is over here now?! Another forum is missing it's idiot.

The real question is, does Pokerhorse posting in two different threads/forums at the same time increase his status as the board moron or is he just a bigger moron in a bigger game? Is it number of posts, or time on the board? Hmmmm...

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Pokerhorse is over here now?! Another forum is missing it's idiot.

The real question is, does Pokerhorse posting in two different threads/forums at the same time increase his status as the board moron or is he just a bigger moron in a bigger game? Is it number of posts, or time on the board? Hmmmm...

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey now, don't blame the zoo for this. He started over here, with the whole "Sklansksy is wrong, you can't make 50K/year playing 3/6".

[PokerHorse]

actually i have very little experience on line although I have observed the games at pp and empire, and played a little 5-10. I haved played 15-30 for roughly 20 years.I like ring games. The first 8-9 years i was basically break-even,then i started taking a serious look at my game, got some help from a great pro,(i was very lucky) and up until i stopped keeping records 3 years ago i
had an over all $24.00/hour rate for roughly 6 years/ 15-30
i stopped keeping records 3 years ago. I know I'm profitable, so i just play and make money. I only play 25hours weekly now. I'm not a full time pro, never have been.

I never said that people arent making money on the internet. I believe that making 50k at 3-6 multitabling isnt "no big deal". i think its very difficult to multi table especially over 3 tables without consequences.is it possible, of course, ...easy....i dont think so.

I also was simply stating that it takes more money to multi table because of the amount of money needed compared to playing one table. My quote " the game plays bigger and the swings are larger".
This also mis-understood. You simply need more money to play 6 games compared to 1 game. But instead I'm getting posts from you guys about varience, and how I dont understand the concept of independent results etcetc.
I could care less. I'm coming fromn the point of view of a player who wants to make 50k playing 3-6. To do it, he is going to need more money to start since he needs to multi-table and could have a 200-300 negative swing early on. Although on a per-game basis this might be very reasonable it is close to the maximum swing for a one table or ring game player. I think when i said playing 6 tables is like 15-30 you guys once again arent really arent getting what im saying. yes you are playing 3-6, each game independent,
but because of the increased hands per hour etc., you are simply investing money on a per hour basis equal to a much larger game such as 15-30. This statement doesnt contradict
anything you guys are saying.
Where I play, sometimes the 6-12 games "play bigger" than the 15-30 game. All that means is per hour there is more money going into the pot in that game than the other.
astroglides results are impressive, no doubt. I'm not jealous or doubtful. But, playing 6 tables has to be very stressful and difficult overall. I stated that the results
were great but the time period questionable, since someone who wants to make 50k at 3-6 is going to have to play 3 tables plus for an extended period of time. Even if a player is playing only 2-3 hours,I believe there is a big adjustment needed to continue to play this way. Its not just about playing 50k or 100k hands and showing a profit, so you decide you are profitable. There is alot more to it than that. Most want to be pros fold when they have a decent size losing streak, or long period of break even play.It wears people down. The few people that have been successful on this site seeem to be able to handle it, which is great, but if that 200-300 negative swing hits early on multi-tabling, it would be a difficult situation for someone wanting that 50k.
One other problem for multi-tablers is reading players. I admit I have limited experience with this , but I would assume you have to make decisions so quickly that there is some loss there, How much who knows. I know that as far as my game,its very important. One last point:

Taking quotes out of context, and reprinting them can change the original statements meaning. This is done quite a bit at this site. It is first of all unneccesary, and second unfair.
I hope I've answered your question

[ChicagoTroy]

[ QUOTE ]
Further, 50k hands would be a good goal to evaluate your play. if your multi tabling online you need considerably more.(im not going to argue this point further-yes I understand stats and probability)

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, you do? Than could you explain why you need more if you're multitabling? This is good stuff.

[WEASEL45]

so you kept records when you were winning and then once you started losing you stopped keeping records?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
You simply need more money to play 6 games compared to 1 game.

[/ QUOTE ]
At a single table, do you need more money to play for six hours than to play for one hour?

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
You simply need more money to play 6 games compared to 1 game

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll make this as simple as possible for you ...

NO, YOU DON'T!

If you want me to do the math, I will but I'm sure someone has already posted it for you and you ignored it.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You simply need more money to play 6 games compared to 1 game.

[/ QUOTE ]
At a single table, do you need more money to play for six hours than to play for one hour?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

But if you have a bankroll allowing you to play thousands of blocks of one hour sessions, you won't need any more to play thousands of blocks of six hour sessions, or thousands of one hour blocks of six-tabling, if you're a winning player in all three cases.

[PokerHorse]

well, i can comfortably play 1 table starting with 600.00
to play 6 tables , since 200-300 bb are fairly normal you need to start with say 1800-2000 ?
playing 1 table it is unlikely i would experience a 200-300 swing, so i can get my poker career started with less.Thats all, you dont need to do the math to show me how playing more hands brings your varience dowm. Again, I'm coming from the perspective of a new player wanting to make that 50k a year he read about in the book.
Would it be possible to start with 600 and play 6 tables? I guess, but I wouldnt be comfortable. you guys are getting all worked up over absolutely nothing.

I understand that playing 6 tables a 200-300 bet swing is very reasonable.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]

I haven't played much since I started writing the book in December. I decided to stop playing entirely in order to get the book done ASAP.


[/ QUOTE ]

If I may make a reccomendation that will probably sell well but not require as much blood sweat &amp; tears.... A practice book with nothing but sample hands to further enforce the concepts origionally presented within SSHE. Think of this as the study guide for SSHE, the two books could be bundled together for one tremendous low limit CRUSSHING package.

My favorite part of the book was the sample hands section, I just wish there were more!

In da club /images/graemlins/club.gif

[PokerHorse]

i'm thinking in terms of a new player who wants to make 50k a year playing 3-6. so to survive and eventually thrive playing 1 table i believe 600.00 bankroll is ok. starting out playing 6 tables i would want 3 -4 times as much since you are investing much more money per hour initially. there is no qurantee that you wont have that 200-300 downswing early. i'm thinking that the problem with this is that you guys feel a 200-300 downswing is normal for playing 1 table, so there is no more variance playing 6 tables. i can only speak from ring experience, but i dont see why it would be different online. I understand the multi table variance thing ok, but by your own fellow players posts these 200-300 swings happen fairly regularly playing multi table as loiw as 3 tables. Its difficult to quantify since we actually dont know for certain the skill level of the player ,the quality of games played etc. im tired

[PokerHorse]

LOL , nope did you read what i said. i have a accurate reading of my win rateis at 15-30. it has been consistent for quite a while. sorry to disapoint you, i just dont need to keep records anymore. Just bank it and invest it

[PseudoPserious]

Why does multitabling make swings of more than 200-300 bb more likely?

Elucidate for me,
PP

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
i have a accurate reading of my win rateis at 15-30. it has been consistent for quite a while. sorry to disapoint you, i just dont need to keep records anymore. Just bank it and invest it

[/ QUOTE ]


Hahahahahahaha.

Hahahahaha.

Haha.

Hahahaha.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm thinking in terms of a new player who wants to make 50k a year playing 3-6. so to survive and eventually thrive playing 1 table i believe 600.00 bankroll is ok.

[/ QUOTE ]
A $600 bankroll is really insufficient in either case, but it's no less sufficient for four tables than it is for one table. The number of tables you play only determines how long it takes you to play the same number of hands.

If you're going to play 500 hands, it doesn't matter whether you think it will take two hours (4-tabling online) or fourteen hours (in a casino). You need the same bankroll either way.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
well, i can comfortably play 1 table starting with 600.00
to play 6 tables , since 200-300 bb are fairly normal you need to start with say 1800-2000 ?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK you're right, you're right. We are all dumb.

If you want to start playing with a 100BB bankroll and give yourself a relatively high likelyhood of busting out, then you likely won't be as successful multi-tabling.

[ QUOTE ]
Would it be possible to start with 600 and play 6 tables? I guess, but I wouldnt be comfortable. you guys are getting all worked up over absolutely nothing.


[/ QUOTE ]

If someone was serious about trying to make $50K, playing 3/6 at any number of tables with only $600 is a mistake.

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that playing 6 tables a 200-300 bet swing is very reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually for a good player its not all that reasonable. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but I certainly wouldn't expect to see a swing like that on any sort of remotely regular basis.

[Nottom]

OK, I'm bored ... heres the math.


Player A is a good 3/6 player. He makes $10/hour.
His Std Deviation is $75/hour.

Using the BR formula found here. (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=207170&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;sb =5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1)

We can see that to have a 1% risk of ruin, player A needs
B = -(75^2/2(10))ln(.01) = $1295.20

Player B plays about as well as Player A, except he plays 4 tables. He suffers a slight drop in winrate/table but still wins a respectable $30/hour. His Std Deviation is $150/hour which is reasonable since Std is devirved based on the Srt of time played and Player B is essentially putting in 4 times as many hands.

His BR for a 1% RoR would be
B = -(150^2/2(30))ln(.01) = $1726.93

This is a bit more than player A, becasue of the degradation in play but it is not even remotely close to the BR he would need to play in even a 10/20 game.

[OrangeHeat]

[ QUOTE ]
It's easy to tell that someone like you doesnt do well at the tables because it's so easy for you to go on tilt here at the forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would post my results at 15/30 over the last year - but you won't believe I can make more than you...

Orange

[JTG51]

Further, 50k hands would be a good goal to evaluate your play. if your multi tabling online you need considerably more.(im not going to argue this point further-yes I understand stats and probability)

Having 50 people tell you that you're completely wrong and not a single one agree with you doesn't even begin to make you reconsider your opinion, does it? I'm very impressed by your confidence and determination.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By Ed's own logic and given the amount of years he's played poker, there's no possible way he could have put in the B&amp;M flight time to determine his own EV, nevermind writing a book on his +EV concepts.

I strongly object to your use of the term hypocrite. If you are going to use accusatory, emotionally-charged terms like that, you'd better damn well have more to back up your claim than what's in this post.

To clear up any confusion:

I have played enough hours to be confident that I am a solidly winning player. I have not played enough hours to nail down my winrate to within a few dollars or so. It takes a TON of hours to do that. Furthermore, I have never ONCE claimed to know my winrate within any given range, nor have I ever posted my winrate publicly.

I refuse to take credit or blame for anyone's results. It is up to you and everyone else to do what it takes to become a winning player. Just because some dude reads my book and loses for two weeks doesn't mean that my book is wrong. And it certainly doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite. Similarly, just because someone reads my book and wins for two weeks doesn't mean my book is right. Futhermore, I have NEVER taken credit for anyone's positive results.

A lot of what is in my book is logic and math. I don't need to play two billion hands to know I'm right any more than I have to add 2+2 on my calculator two billion times to know that the answer is 4.

I wrote a book that contains concepts I believe to be correct. I hope that people read the book and that they improve as a result of reading it. But if people fail to improve, that's not my fault. And telling them that it's not my fault DOES NOT MAKE ME A HYPOCRITE.

So basically, produce first-hand evidence of my hypocricy. If you can do so, I will wholeheartedly apologize. If not, you'd better strongly reconsider your choice of words...

[/ QUOTE ]

I apologize as I didn't mean to offend you. However, the point of my post is that you constantly tell your readers that they haven't played enough hands when you're a self admitted B&amp;M player of 1-2 years. Unless you played 35 hours a week for 102 weeks, then you haven't even been dealt 100K hands. Obviously I can't prove if you did play that amount of poker but I seriously doubt it since writing a book takes a considerable amount of time. Now since the devout twoplustwo jockeys (such as RED RAIN) love to throw around large numbers such as 50K for determining hourly rate, then I'd be safe to say that a poker author needs at least 100K hands to determine if his concepts are valid.

Regarding the math in SSH, I don't recollect reading any chapter that proves RAISING with 5 outs on the flop with a pot of 9 SB is +EV. This concept of "buying outs/protecting your hand" when there's "big pot" sounds great in theory but lacks the mathematical proof or live data to validate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you had told Ed he was being "absurd" he would have had a nervous breakdown.

[PokerHorse]

NOTTOM- UNDERSTOOD- THE WHOLE TIME !!
Playing 10-20 realstically takes about 3k, 6- tables 3-6 i figured 2400, but who knows, its more than 1 table and thats all ive been saying. no big deal though

So, forget the math for a minute. its probably not realistic for the average or even above average player to
play 6 tables , or i should say play well /6 tables.

Sklansky says, all you have to do is make 50.00 a day per table playing 3 tables and there is your 50k. Well of course
you can show me the math,.. for the 100th time I understand.
I believe its very difficult to actually do, since realstically you need to play 6 hours a day/ 3-tables/ 7 days a week . Forget the 7 days a week/ I think simply playing 3 tables for 6 hours is very difficult to maintain over any period of time. I'm figuring a rate of 24.oo hourly which is lower than astroglides, but still very generous for most players.
Yes, mathematically it can be done. realistically? I'm sorry, it is a "BIG DeAL".
I do appreciate the math work.

[theghost]

Why don't we discuss this BS on every thread at 2+2 from now on - the other topics are pretty well played out, right?

[PokerHorse]

My experience is only from the players who are posting on this forum, who are actually multitabling. Those players who are believable are experiencing these swings regularly.
Myself and many others I know personally, have played for years without these kinds of swings in ring games.
I would guess play degredation, as well as being in games with no real skill advantage would be factors. Do these players ever tilt, a little bit? I'm sure they do, and it might cost more when playing more hands per hour. Who knows, somethings cant be completely analyzed with probability formulas.
There are some distinct advantages and disadvantages to playing this way.

[PokerHorse]

okay, start a thread

[Ulysses]

This is kinda sick to say, but I kind of agree w/ PokerHorse's post here.

While I disagree w/ a lot of what he has said regarding bankroll requirements and possible earns (much of which he is just plain wrong about and displays an utter lack of understanding wrt probability and statistics), I do agree that it is a big deal to play 6 to 8 hours a day of online poker.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
I do agree that it is a big deal to play 6 to 8 hours a day of online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this 100%.

On the other hand, for someone who has the mindset to play poker 40 hours/week it is not that difficult to actually achieve the results mentioned in this thread. The hard part is not beating the game, but is instead just having the disipline to actually play enough.

I don't think you have to look any further than Davidross, who (although I have a ton of respect for him) is really no more than a "good" poker player.

It wasn't that long ago (2 years?), that Sklansky was saying that he believed there were only a hand full of players in the world who could make over $100K/year if they had too. I think everyone would agree that that statement would be absurd today, and a large part of that is due to the internet games.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
I think everyone would agree that that statement would be absurd today, and a large part of that is due to the internet games.


[/ QUOTE ]

It seems like it was a bit of a linguistic stretch, and it's painful to read, but excellent work squeezing the work "absurd" in there. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[PokerHorse]

thanks for your honesty, i'm sure it hurt you to write this. The problem has been with me explaining myself .I understand the probabilities.
But what my problem has been, is that even though the maximum variance might be the same playing 1 vs 6 tables, it rarely occurs playing 1 table unless you are playing poorly, although it certainly is mathematically possible. it DOES occur with regularity playing multiple tables.
That and the fact that on an hour per hour basis you are pumping in more money(even though the total chance of ruin might be less etc), "it's like playing a larger game", that statement has gotten people crazy, but it's my poor choice of words. The reason you agree with me here is the same reason why I objected to Astroglides results.(again, I was a little angry, so i know I pissed people off), but when I said time comes into it, all the math wizes objected. I was speaking about the overall factors that affect performance, not the chance of ruin or overall variance.
anyway, thanks for your. good luck

[zram21]

[ QUOTE ]
thanks for your honesty, i'm sure it hurt you to write this. The problem has been with me explaining myself .I understand the probabilities.
But what my problem has been, is that even though the maximum variance might be the same playing 1 vs 6 tables, it rarely occurs playing 1 table unless you are playing poorly, although it certainly is mathematically possible. it DOES occur with regularity playing multiple tables.
That and the fact that on an hour per hour basis you are pumping in more money(even though the total chance of ruin might be less etc), "it's like playing a larger game", that statement has gotten people crazy, but it's my poor choice of words. The reason you agree with me here is the same reason why I objected to Astroglides results.(again, I was a little angry, so i know I pissed people off), but when I said time comes into it, all the math wizes objected. I was speaking about the overall factors that affect performance, not the chance of ruin or overall variance.
anyway, thanks for your. good luck

[/ QUOTE ]

Everything you just said was not what El Diablo was agreeing with.

[PokerHorse]

I have to admit , that this whole discussion has got me curious. i havent deposited enough online, but i might conduct my own experiment with multitabling. I might try playing 3 tables for a specific amount of time and see what happens. If i do this i will use your bankroll requirements
and document my results.I'm thinking i could do this on a limited hourly basis and still play my ring games.

[PokerHorse]

ok, if you say so, To save yourself time you dont need to repost my entire post. Just make your statement . I know what is written there and anyone else can read it as well.

[razor]

Since you have about 10 million posts in this thread, it can't be a bad thing for zram21 to make it clear precisely which post was being referred to...

[PokerHorse]

ok, buti know which post you are reffering to without you quoting it.

[razor]

you RULE!

[gergery]

I'm specifically referring to an example he uses where you have KK, and there are ~6 people in the flop. Example shows you raising each street into big pot with callers, and gutshot chaser sucks out on you at river. He says the mistake was raising the flop. That doesn't make sense.

Why is raising with the best hand a mistake? If everyone puts more money in when you have the best hand, sure they'll suck out sometimes, but 6 extra bets when you win the pot more than 1 in 6 times seems correct.

If you don't bet, then on the next street they don't have odds to chase anymore and fold to your raise when they don't have odds. That also assumes the other player is good -- he will know the odds and call if he has odds for his gutshot, but fold if he doesn't --however in my low-limied experience he is going to call anyway, so you might as well get the bet in while you are ahead.

So the advice in the book seems to be similiar to "throw money away now, so that when a thief comes he can't steal as much from you"

What am i missing about Ed'd advice here?

--Greg

[jdl22]

Isn't this simply the FTOP at work?

Yes, they will call anyway. If you raise on the flop they will have the odds to do so and are hence not making a mistake. If you wait until the turn they do not and are screwing themselves and helping you.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't this simply the FTOP at work?

Yes, they will call anyway. If you raise on the flop they will have the odds to do so and are hence not making a mistake. If you wait until the turn they do not and are screwing themselves and helping you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it's from TOP, I've read that and disagree with the principle in both places.

If they are going to call you anyway, then this proves my point even more.

[SinCityGuy]

Ed has been making a few cameo appearances lately, running over the weak Mirage players. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm specifically referring to an example he uses where you have KK, and there are ~6 people in the flop. Example shows you raising each street into big pot with callers, and gutshot chaser sucks out on you at river. He says the mistake was raising the flop. That doesn't make sense.

Why is raising with the best hand a mistake? If everyone puts more money in when you have the best hand, sure they'll suck out sometimes, but 6 extra bets when you win the pot more than 1 in 6 times seems correct.

If you don't bet, then on the next street they don't have odds to chase anymore and fold to your raise when they don't have odds. That also assumes the other player is good -- he will know the odds and call if he has odds for his gutshot, but fold if he doesn't --however in my low-limied experience he is going to call anyway, so you might as well get the bet in while you are ahead.

So the advice in the book seems to be similiar to "throw money away now, so that when a thief comes he can't steal as much from you"

What am i missing about Ed'd advice here?

--Greg

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know which page this is on?

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, they will call anyway. If you raise on the flop they will have the odds to do so and are hence not making a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense, and I see it all the time. If they will call ANYWAY then not making the pot bigger at every opportunity is a mistake. Its simple common sense really, if they never fold you win the same amount of hands, if you "keep the pot smaller" to induce mistakes all you do is give yourself a smaller pot the same amount of times. Forget about who is making mistakes or not, its irrelevant if they will be there on the river either way.

[thirddan]

It's not whether or not they will call anyway, its whether or not you can make that call a mistake...in the example if you bet/raise the flop they are making a correct call, but if you wait for the turn to raise then they are making an incorrect call. They may call anyway, but your job in protecting your hand is to make their play incorrect by facing them with big bets on the turn, rather than small bets on the flop.

If you simply bet the whole way then your oppoenent who calls you all the way with a gutshot did not make any mistakes (bad for you), but if you make him call a bet where he is making a mistake (by calling incorrectly) then it is good for you, even if still occasionally sucks out.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]


Do you know which page this is on?

[/ QUOTE ]

bottom of page 164

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
If you simply bet the whole way then your oppoenent who calls you all the way with a gutshot did not make any mistakes (bad for you), but if you make him call a bet where he is making a mistake (by calling incorrectly) then it is good for you, even if still occasionally sucks out.



[/ QUOTE ]

But now all you do is win LESS $$$. Mistakes or not, you now win the pot the same amount of times yet it contains less money. You guys are really overthinking the whole issue.

[thirddan]

Ed Miller Method:
Flop: Player A bets, Hero with overpair calls, Player B with gutshot calls
Turn: Player A bets, Hero raises, Player B coldcalls

in this example we make 5 SB from player B (and prevent the suckout from certain players who will fold a gutshot for 2BB on the turn, but not for 2SB on the flop)

Your Method:
Flop: Player A bets, Hero raises, Player B coldcalls
Turn: Player A checks, Hero bets, Player B calls

we win 4 SB from Player B and allow him to suckout correctly and thus more often...

[blackaces13]

Your example has players now checking as opposed to betting again which complicates things and doesn't seem to be present in the KK scenario that started this topic.

I'm not saying that waiting for the turn to raise isn't correct against certain players. However, if we add the stipulation that they will NEVER fold their thin draws anyway (as many LL players do) then the whole "inducing mistakes" concept goes straight out the window and you should take every opportunity to fatten the pot. Sometimes waiting may be the better way to get the $$ in the pot as your example seems to be, but "mistakes" are irrelevant, you just want to get the $$ in period. Its this principle that it seems to me a lot of people fail to realize.

[thirddan]

in my example, Player A checked to the flop raiser because that is typical play at the low limits...

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
in my example, Player A checked to the flop raiser because that is typical play at the low limits...

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but your example revolves around the best way to get money into the pot, I agree this should be the focus. The whole "inducing mistakes" issue is a faulty premise if you KNOW the player will call with his thin draw anyway.

This is all I'm saying, the emphasis should be getting the most $$ into the pot against players who never fold, NOT on inducing mistakes.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying that waiting for the turn to raise isn't correct against certain players. However, if we add the stipulation that they will NEVER fold their thin draws anyway (as many LL players do) then the whole "inducing mistakes" concept goes straight out the window and you should take every opportunity to fatten the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've accused the majority of respondants here of "overthinking" this situation. Unfortunately, I believe you are "underthinking." Although I agree that it would be correct to pump the pot on the flop if in fact no one is folding the turn no matter how many bets they have to call, it is rare to be at a table (especially above .5/1) in which the the majority of players will never fold thin draws to a coldcall. The fact that some players will chase and coldcall with crap does not mean that it is correct to simply flail away with chips with no thought as to how to try to protect your hand.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that some players will chase and coldcall with crap does not mean that it is correct to simply flail away with chips with no thought as to how to try to protect your hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

I hear you, and I agree. Which is why I never said that waiting to raise is wrong or that there aren't players who will correctly fold to a turn raise which is a good thing to accomplish.

My main point is more of a conceptual point that assumes both a) the thin draws will NEVER fold and b) the best way to get money into the pot is raising the flop. It seems to me that many people believe that even when those given constraints are satisfied that "mistakes" are still the most important factor when in fact they are irrelevant.

Just trying to make that point clear, I certainly didn't intend to insult anyone's intelligence.

[thirddan]

I think the term mistake may not be the right term...

I think the concept is that if you allow him to draw correctly then he is making money from you by calling, but if you force him to call incorrectly he is losing money and you are gaining it.

Edit: this is still true even if he will call all bets no matter what...

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the concept is that if you allow him to draw correctly then he is making money from you by calling, but if you force him to call incorrectly he is losing money and you are gaining it.


[/ QUOTE ]

But there are many times where it is correct to bet even if you know a draw is correct in calling, wouldn't you bet the turn against a flush draw? Correct calls don't necessarily "cost" you anything. If you are a 65% favorite to win a hand then you should bet even if the draw MUST call you, and you make money on the bet. Therefore, if they will be there anyway then you must do everything in your power to make the pot as big as it can be the times you win. You cannot protect your hand against players who will NEVER fold. So, since you are the favorite then you should get the money in regardless of whether or not they have odds to call.

If you were in a hand with an overpair against a gutshot and you knew he would call you down everytime then would it be worse for you if the pot was so large that he was drawing correctly? Of course not, because now you win a comparitively bigger pot 5 out of 6 hands as opposed to winning smaller pots the exact same percentage of the time.

[Ed Miller]

What am i missing about Ed'd advice here?

Ya, obviously I haven't explained this play clearly enough.

Ok. The play is based upon the notion that raising the flop will CHANGE the way the flop bettor behaves. That is, that if you just call the flop, he will likely bet the turn, but if you raise the flop, he will more likely check the turn.

Mathematically, this play stems from the notion that it can be preferable to forgo a profitable opportunity if doing so will improve the chance that you will get an even more profitable opportunity in the future.

For those unfamiliar with this concept, think about this:

Your friend suggests that you do a little coin flipping. He will flip the coin twice. On the first flip, he will pay you $2 for heads, and you pay him $1 for tails. On the second flip, he will pay $5 for heads, and you pay $2 for tails.

If you win the first flip, however, the game is over. You also can choose whether to take the first flip or simply to skip to the second flip.

If you take the first flip, your EV is:

1/2 of the time you win $2
1/4 of the time you lose $1, but win $5
1/4 of the time you lose $1 and lose $2

0.5 * 2 + 0.25 * 4 + 0.25 * -3 = 1.25

Your EV if you take just the second flip is

0.5 * 5 + 0.5 * -2 = 1.5

So even though the first flip is profitable, you should skip it because taking it jeopardizes your chance to take the second flip. Note that the answer is unchanged if you make it so that you only flip again if you WIN the first time.

So the premise of this play (the waiting for the turn in a huge pot play) is that you skip the immediately profitable flop raise because doing so improves your chances of getting an extremely profitable turn raise in.

Why is the turn raise so much more profitable than the flop raise? Well, first of all, even if you KNOW that EVERYONE will call the turn raise, you often make more money waiting for the turn anyway (see the "Two Overpair Hands" section for explanation). This is true when your hand is particularly vulnerable and many turn cards could beat you. You make more by waiting for a safe turn card. (E.g., in the KK example from the book, you'd probably skip the turn raise if an ace came. Thus, you have more information about the strength of your hand when you put your raise in.)

But that's not the most important reason why waiting is better in extremely big pots. The reason it becomes so attractive in extremely big pots is that playing your hand this way DRASTICALLY increases the number of BAD FOLDS that your opponents will make. I don't mean bad in the "are you crazy, you should fold two pair in that enormous pot" sense. I mean bad in the "if they knew what you had, they wouldn't fold" way.

For instance, say you have K /images/graemlins/spade.gifK /images/graemlins/heart.gif. On the turn, the board is Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif8 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif7 /images/graemlins/club.gif6 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif. The pot contains 16 big bets. Then the player on your right bets, and you raise. What is someone with 4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif4 /images/graemlins/club.gif going do to? Well, he's got a really tough decision. He's got what looks like to him an extremely weak draw, and it is two bets cold to him on the turn. But the pot is enormous, and SOME of his outs are probably good.

If he folds, you benefit GREATLY, especially if he was drawing live on two of his draws (for instance, if he had the highest diamond or if no one has a nine so that a five gives him the winning straight).

Or assume the board is a more mild-looking Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif8 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif7 /images/graemlins/heart.gif4 /images/graemlins/club.gif, and the pot starts on the turn as 18 big bets. Say someone has 4 /images/graemlins/spade.gif2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif. What is he going to do if it is two cold to him on the turn? Sure, some ultra-loose players will call, but most will fold. That fold is WRONG if he knows what you have. But they don't know what you have, and most people will therefore fold.

Does this make sense? The reason you wait for the turn is that it is often the ONLY way to get anyone with any chance at all of winning to fold in these big pots. Some people will be folding correctly, but others will be making BAD FOLDS (based on your one pair holding) and therefore the turn raise is MUCH more profitable than raising the flop, where the only profit you can expect to make derives from your pot equity edge at that point.

When the pot is exceedingly large, getting people to make bad folds is almost always far more profitable than getting an extra single-sized bet from each player when you have a modest equity edge.

[gergery]

This makes sense to me and I agree, thanks a lot for the reply.

Seems to me like _the_ critical assumption in this is the fold equity you get from changing others' behavior.

i.e. "Don't bet the flop because you have a much better chance of getting weaker hands to fold on the turn with your raises of others bets, and you want that more than their extra calls your flop bet would give you when you have big pots"

[gergery]

Ed,
your book jacket also makes it sound like you're about 27 years old and have only been playing poker for ~4 years?

Is that so? How the heck did you go from novice to writing books in 4 years (maybe their is hope for my 8-month playing newbie ass yet...)

--Greg

[sthief09]

you've got to be kidding me with this post. it's a damn shame that Ed has written one of the best poker books ever, yet is being blamed for peoples' poor play and now being called a hypocrite.

first of all, for those of us who have actually read and posted in the LHE forums, the book was nothing more than a compilation of everything we've read on this website. the good players/big winners on this site, especially the SS posters, are ones who have followed Ed's and others' advice for a while.

it's no coincidence that all the posters that write that they've been having problems since reading SSH haven't been around here long, or haven't posted here much. they expect reading one book to make them into the best players in the world. this is ridiculous. those of us who have put in the time and effort reading and posting here have reaped the benefits, while playing the exact way that SSH suggests. those with limited experience,who just picked up the book, are struggling to adjust to the 2+2 way to play the game.

isn't it weird that no regular SS poster has written a post about how they're struggling because of SSH, or that they now do something completely different because of SSH.

[Ed Miller]

your book jacket also makes it sound like you're about 27 years old and have only been playing poker for ~4 years?

I'm 25, and I've been playing poker for about three years.

Is that so? How the heck did you go from novice to writing books in 4 years...

Quite frankly, I'm not sure.

[thirddan]

did you have any other type of gambling/EV experience before playing poker?

[jdl22]

After thinking about it more and working through a couple examples it's pretty clear that I was wrong.

The problem is that I was underestimating how big a mistake it is on the flop to not get the money in. I haven't reread the example you give from the book but in cases where they will certainly call anyway you are correct that you are better off getting the money in as the favorite.

[Beavis68]

What a great example, you definitely would have pot equity, so why not raise? I don't see this example any different than getting AJ on the button on the SB, but here you need to raise? Doesnt make any sense to me either.

Rolf said not to raise with AJ to make sure you can protect your hand on the flop, seems like the same concept to me. But Ed is right and Rolf is wrong?

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
isn't it weird that no regular SS poster has written a post about how they're struggling because of SSH, or that they now do something completely different because of SSH.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because the SS forum rules.

[Blarg]

It's one of the places with the most return on your money for claiming to win every session.

[banditdad]

[ QUOTE ]
What am i missing about Ed'd advice here?

Ya, obviously I haven't explained this play clearly enough.

Ok. The play is based upon the notion that raising the flop will CHANGE the way the flop bettor behaves. That is, that if you just call the flop, he will likely bet the turn, but if you raise the flop, he will more likely check the turn.

Mathematically, this play stems from the notion that it can be preferable to forgo a profitable opportunity if doing so will improve the chance that you will get an even more profitable opportunity in the future.

For those unfamiliar with this concept, think about this:

Your friend suggests that you do a little coin flipping. He will flip the coin twice. On the first flip, he will pay you $2 for heads, and you pay him $1 for tails. On the second flip, he will pay $5 for heads, and you pay $2 for tails.

If you win the first flip, however, the game is over. You also can choose whether to take the first flip or simply to skip to the second flip.

If you take the first flip, your EV is:

1/2 of the time you win $2
1/4 of the time you lose $1, but win $5
1/4 of the time you lose $1 and lose $2

0.5 * 2 + 0.25 * 4 + 0.25 * -3 = 1.25

Your EV if you take just the second flip is

0.5 * 5 + 0.5 * -2 = 1.5

So even though the first flip is profitable, you should skip it because taking it jeopardizes your chance to take the second flip. Note that the answer is unchanged if you make it so that you only flip again if you WIN the first time.

So the premise of this play (the waiting for the turn in a huge pot play) is that you skip the immediately profitable flop raise because doing so improves your chances of getting an extremely profitable turn raise in.

Why is the turn raise so much more profitable than the flop raise? Well, first of all, even if you KNOW that EVERYONE will call the turn raise, you often make more money waiting for the turn anyway (see the "Two Overpair Hands" section for explanation). This is true when your hand is particularly vulnerable and many turn cards could beat you. You make more by waiting for a safe turn card. (E.g., in the KK example from the book, you'd probably skip the turn raise if an ace came. Thus, you have more information about the strength of your hand when you put your raise in.)

But that's not the most important reason why waiting is better in extremely big pots. The reason it becomes so attractive in extremely big pots is that playing your hand this way DRASTICALLY increases the number of BAD FOLDS that your opponents will make. I don't mean bad in the "are you crazy, you should fold two pair in that enormous pot" sense. I mean bad in the "if they knew what you had, they wouldn't fold" way.

For instance, say you have K /images/graemlins/spade.gifK /images/graemlins/heart.gif. On the turn, the board is Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif8 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif7 /images/graemlins/club.gif6 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif. The pot contains 16 big bets. Then the player on your right bets, and you raise. What is someone with 4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif4 /images/graemlins/club.gif going do to? Well, he's got a really tough decision. He's got what looks like to him an extremely weak draw, and it is two bets cold to him on the turn. But the pot is enormous, and SOME of his outs are probably good.

If he folds, you benefit GREATLY, especially if he was drawing live on two of his draws (for instance, if he had the highest diamond or if no one has a nine so that a five gives him the winning straight).

Or assume the board is a more mild-looking Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif8 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif7 /images/graemlins/heart.gif4 /images/graemlins/club.gif, and the pot starts on the turn as 18 big bets. Say someone has 4 /images/graemlins/spade.gif2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif. What is he going to do if it is two cold to him on the turn? Sure, some ultra-loose players will call, but most will fold. That fold is WRONG if he knows what you have. But they don't know what you have, and most people will therefore fold.

Does this make sense? The reason you wait for the turn is that it is often the ONLY way to get anyone with any chance at all of winning to fold in these big pots. Some people will be folding correctly, but others will be making BAD FOLDS (based on your one pair holding) and therefore the turn raise is MUCH more profitable than raising the flop, where the only profit you can expect to make derives from your pot equity edge at that point.

When the pot is exceedingly large, getting people to make bad folds is almost always far more profitable than getting an extra single-sized bet from each player when you have a modest equity edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oddly enough something like this happened to me this morning, only I had the gutshot draw to the nut straight with a KQs. I would have folded on the turn but everyobe else bet and raised enough on the flop &amp; turn to make it worth my while to stay in and try to hit my J. When I did the main raiser, she raised &amp; capped each street, howled at what a bad player I was to stay in. I told her it was her own fault for giving me the correct pot odds &amp; implied odds, (I knew if I hit she would cap the betting on the river which she did.) For some reason that explanation didn't seem to make her happy. Pre Miller I probably wouldn't have realized I had the correct odds to continue playing the hand and would have folded.

I am on my second reading of Ed's book and find it invaluable. BUT it's not like an auto repair guide where A follows B follows C, etc. I think you still have to pay attention to the other players &amp; develop your own style along with what Ed writes. And read other books, other threads, other forums.

[Leavenfish]

I believe what you did was wrong....uh, replying and letting her know what she did wrong that is--let them remain blissfully ignorant, thinking they know so much more about the game...and continue to take their money. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Lawrence Ng]

I will also agree that his book describes my live 10/20 game very well too.

I don't know about online though..

[Al Schoonmaker]

I rarely come to this forum, and I was not aware of your post until a few minutes ago. I have the same reaction as Ed to your accusation of hypocrisy.
The mere fact that people SAID they applied SSH's concepts does not mean they DID apply them properly. In fact, I have repeatedly observed people who claim that they play a particularly style such as tight-aggressive, when they are actually very loose and only moderately aggressive.
If you go to cardplayer.com and check out my article, "Fun versus profit," you will see that MOST people do not play remotely as well as they claim, and that they often do so despite having read many books.
Regards,
Al

[Beavis68]

good post alan - I struggled with SSH concepts when I first read it, has a horrible couple of weeks, a combination of bad cards and bad play, limping in with K6s from UTG and that crap. I finally tightened up appropriately, and ended up folding post flop a little more often when I it was bet raised and called back to me. Now, SSH helps me lose less - by playing aggressively early and getting cards cheaply later, and win more when my hand hits. It also has made me much harder to read. Am I check-raising with trips, middle pair, or a flush draw?

[maurile]

This is for PokerHorse:

Reducing Variance With Simultaneous Play (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=14233)

[dogmeat]

I first read this standard of advice in David's book "Winning Poker", which is with Roger Dionne and lays out the fundamental theorem of poker. I understand the concept, but have found that what happens when I don't bet in these situations is that somebody that would have gotten out (such as a small pair that hits trips on the turn) winds up getting a free shot at beating me. I don't often use this approach.

As for Ed's book, I think I may not be applying all the concepts correctly for the $2/$4 and $3/$6 Party games. I have tried very hard to adopt them into my game since the beginning of August, however, for the first time in 13 months I am in the middle of a 5-week slump. Must be a coincidence, but if I am not back on track in a week, I am starting over with my old, foolish ways.

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[Beavis68]

There are plenty of concepts in this book that are with out a doubt true, and you should always keep those with you. A few I can think of.

1. None paired hand strenghts (connect, suited, high-card)
2. Pot equity - never would have raised for value with a flush draw before.
3. Hidden outs.
4. Discounting over-card outs (this is arguable I guess, but it made perfect sense to me).

You can change your pre-flop play and hand selection, and tweak your post flop play to account for opponents and table conditions, but there are concpets that are priceless no matter what type of poker you play.

The players I play are not as maniacal as the book describes, so I do fold more post flop now than I did after first reading the book.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
I am surprised to hear that BM is looser than on-line, I always assumed the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're surprised to hear that people who use the Internet are more intelligent than those that don't? /images/graemlins/wink.gif