ITH or SSH? [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

Blarg

08-20-2004, 01:16 AM

If you read ITH, you'll have a solid foundation, but add an extra step. If you go directly to SSH, you'll do it without a really balanced foundation yet, and add in a lot of advice it can be hard to apply correctly, coming from a background that's a little iffy on the tools you'll have to judge it with or fall back on if things get confusing or go south.

It would be easier to get ahead reading ITH first and you'd do it in a much more solid, coordinated fashion. SSHE will be the icing on the cake.

SSHE w/o ITH after WLLH will make things harder to find your equilibrium point. Two potentially unbalancing influences and you have to find the fulcrum yourself. Could be tricky. Or maybe not, depends on you.

If you think you catch on very fast and have a natural sense of balance and perspective, you may not benefit much from ITH. It's not like it would hurt, though. If you're not sure of your quality as a player or your ability to always figure things out just right on your own, read ITH first and get a solid foundation before Ed starts your head spinning on your neck.

bonanz

08-20-2004, 02:09 AM

may i take this opportunity to direct you to "the clarkmeister 5"

clarkmeister 5 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=929929&page=0&view=co llapsed&sb=5&o=14&vc=1)

Stew

08-20-2004, 01:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
may i take this opportunity to direct you to "the clarkmeister 5"

clarkmeister 5 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=929929&page=0&view=co llapsed&sb=5&o=14&vc=1)

[/ QUOTE ]

that's an excellent progression for a beginner, but I'd probably substitue Hilger for Jones and/or Jones then Hilger. But, I definitely think Hilger's book needs to be read as it is that solid in it's advice. After that AND BEFORE SSH, I'd recommend Theory of Poker.

Leavenfish

08-20-2004, 01:33 PM

I would tend to agree with the Sheriff in some respects. ITH is more balanced and more of a general work--not geared towards trying to get every last drop of (somewhat risky) profit out of the low limits.

By more balanced, I not only mean that it has a more broad focus but that it can help restore a sense of balance to one's play. Here is an example:

I've noticed some others wailing about their luck with QQ on this board. If you look, for example, at SSH you see the blanket recommendation to RAISE QQ in late position. ITH notes that sometimes you should just call--like when 4 or 5 people are already in ahead of you. The reason? Well, it's two fold.

One: with QQ an A or K will come on the flop a good percentage of the time (elsewhere I have read that there is only an 18% chance of an A or K NOT hitting by the river). When that happens, you stand a very good chance of losing.

Two: You have a better chance of driving out your opponents on a favorable flop by keeping the pot small.

So, I guess I would read ITH first...and SSH later. One needs to be excellent at lay ups before one starts to consider mastering the pick and roll.

SlantNGo

08-20-2004, 01:57 PM

Well, the SSH explanation for that is that raising is greater EV. It doesn't increase your chance for winning the pot any but who cares? When you get a nice flop and win the pot you'll more than enough to justify the raise to losing 1 extra SB on a poor flop.

AliasMrJones

08-20-2004, 02:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
One: with QQ an A or K will come on the flop a good percentage of the time (elsewhere I have read that there is only an 18% chance of an A or K NOT hitting by the river). When that happens, you stand a very good chance of losing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that 12% of the time you're going to hit a set of queens on the flop and even if an A or K (or both!) come by the river, the pair of aces or kings or aces up are worthless. As we know from watching WPT, QQ vs. AK is a very close race all-in with QQ having a very slight edge in % chance to win by the river.

What you really need to be looking at is the % chance that QQ is going to be the winning hand by the river vs. the range of hands that your opponents will be holding. 4-5 limpers likely hold much weaker hands than your QQ (again in terms of what will be the winner by the river). Given 5 random hands, each will win 20% of the time. QQ has a greater than 20% chance of winning against 4 other limp-worthy hands. Therefore, it is +EV to raise now.

Ed Miller

08-20-2004, 03:15 PM

If you look, for example, at SSH you see the blanket recommendation to RAISE QQ in late position. ITH notes that sometimes you should just call--like when 4 or 5 people are already in ahead of you.

IMO, this is a weakness of ITH, not a strength. In 99% of games these guys are playing in, they SHOULD raise QQ 100% of the time if it is unraised to them.

Your reasons for not raising are more or less valid... but they do not provide ENOUGH value to overcome what you give up by not raising.

spamuell

08-20-2004, 03:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I've noticed some others wailing about their luck with QQ on this board. If you look, for example, at SSH you see the blanket recommendation to RAISE QQ in late position. ITH notes that sometimes you should just call--like when 4 or 5 people are already in ahead of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been reading about how good ITH is and I was going to buy it, but now I have no intention of doing so.

Ed Miller

08-20-2004, 03:21 PM

I've been reading about how good ITH is and I was going to buy it, but now I have no intention of doing so.

This is ITH's one major weakness, IMO. It is WAY too passive with big hands preflop. There are a few other more minor problems, but Hilger is clearly a solidly winning poker player, and his advice overall is good.

moondogg

08-20-2004, 03:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
One: with QQ an A or K will come on the flop a good percentage of the time (elsewhere I have read that there is only an 18% chance of an A or K NOT hitting by the river). When that happens, you stand a very good chance of losing.

[/ QUOTE ]

(I did not agree with this statment on principle, so this is just me thinking out loud exactly WHY it is wrong; feel free to point out any errors)

By my calculations, if noone has an A or K, then the chance that there will be no A or K by the river is about 16.5%. However, that does not mean that it will necessarily make your opponent a pair to beat you.

If exactly one A or K is out there against you, there will be no A or K on the board by the river 27% of the time.

If there is both one A and one K out there in your opponent's hand, there will be no A or K on the board 37.4% of the time.

Based on the number of A's and K's that are in your opponent's hands, here are the probabilities that one will not come on the board by the river:
(# A's/K's) - (Change of no A/K by river)
0 - 0.165942218
1 - 0.270199441
2 - 0.374456663
3 - 0.478713886
4 - 0.582971109
5 - 0.687228332
6 - 0.791485554
7 - 0.895742777
8 - 1.00

Basically, the very fact that your opponent has a A or K in his/her hand lessens the chance of it coming on the board.

Another point, if you have QQ, the only hands that are ahead of you are AA, KK, and AK is about tied. Everything else, you are way ahead of. If you have four opponents, you are virtually guanteed to be way ahead of most of them, and probably way ahead of all of them. If everyone limped to you, the chance of being up against AA, KK, or even AK is extremely small. You will win far more than your fair share here, and it's not even close. Get the damn money in the damn pot while you're way ahead.

Before the flop, as much as I would like to be able to protect the pot later, I would rather to have a very large equity of a very large pot to protect. You're pot equity is usually huge, so you might as well make the pot huge. Sure, they're all going to call you before the flop (and probably on the flop), but that's a good thing. If they want to play out the hand with a naked A or K, all the better; in fact the more people in the hand doing this, the better, as it drops the chance of one coming on the board, causing us to lose or at least slow down.

One of the worse case scenerios (beyond being up is if one of your opponents has a A and one of your opponents (possibly the same one) has a K, and no other A or K have been dealt out. In this case, an A or K will flop 36.7% of the time. You are favored to have the best hand on the flop, and you're getting 4-1 on your money PF. In the 63.3% of the time that an A or K does not flop, there is a 25.8% chance that one will come by the river. If your opponents may fold and A or K, bet out and get them to fold. If they will not, you probably can't protect the pot on the flop, so possibly check it through( /images/graemlins/confused.gif) and then bet/raise on the turn if no A or K comes (I don't giving taking a free card here /images/graemlins/mad.gif, but you probably cannot make it correct for them to fold a A or K because there are 9 SB in the pot, and this may induce a top pair or pocket pair bet on the turn which you can raise if no A or K comes, building the pot more and making it a mistake of a A or K to continue by coldcalling 2 BB for a 7 BB pot, and calling a 1 BB bet 5BB pot is almost as bad). Or, just slam the f'n gas throughout the remainder of the hand, only slowing down an A or K comes AND you get raised back.

Criticisms welcome. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Edit: Hmm, 3 or 4 other replies while I was writing this. I didn't even bother factoring in the set of Q probability. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Leavenfish

08-20-2004, 03:48 PM

Heads up on the WPT vs AK is a pointless argument. We are talking about 4 or 5 and possibly more people playing, Alias.

"Given 5 random hands, each will win 20% of the time. QQ has a greater than 20% chance of winning against 4 other limp-worthy hands. Therefore, it is +EV to raise now.”

Show me where this is the case, please.

Do however factor in a perfectly plausible assumption like the following:

Don’t assume all 5 of your opponents are absolute idiots (not to mention those yet to be heard from in late position and the blinds which might play...you should consider those) that call in with totally random hands, like 3 8 offsuit. After all, your QQ isn’t exactly an average, random hand, is it? It’s random but it isn’t your average random hand…give them playable hands like maybe three of them having an A or K (and whatever might go with them—A 3 offsuit, K Q offsuit, K T suited)…someone with J 9 suited, a pair of 4’s—something like that anyway. Give them credit for at least having somewhat playable hands and for being somewhat close to you in intelligence.

Do remember that Hilger isn't saying to do this EVERYTIME...in fact he says that you should "ALMOST ALWAYS RAISE WITH THIS PREMIUM HAND". I add that for the person who said that because of the example he was no longer going to consider buying the book. He should...no book is perfect--even probably SSH...but like SSH most books have something to offer.

spamuell

08-20-2004, 04:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Given 5 random hands, each will win 20% of the time. QQ has a greater than 20% chance of winning against 4 other limp-worthy hands. Therefore, it is +EV to raise now.”

Show me where this is the case, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been extremely fair to the other players and I really think players limp with a lot more trash than this. Also, players are really unlikely to limp with AA and KK but I've included them anyway:

[ QUOTE ]
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>Monte carlo simulation results from Poker Calculator 1.1.4.1
Texas Hold'em, 100000 combinations tested.

Hand 1:
Range of hands: AA , KK , QQ , JJ , TT , 99 , 88 , 77
66 , 55 , AKs, AQs, AJs, ATs, KQs, KJs
KTs, QJs, QTs, JTs, J9s, T9s, 98s, AKo
AQo, AJo, KQo

Hand 2:
Range of hands: AA , KK , QQ , JJ , TT , 99 , 88 , 77
66 , 55 , AKs, AQs, AJs, ATs, A9s, A8s
A7s, A6s, A5s, A4s, A3s, A2s, KQs, KJs
KTs, QJs, QTs, Q9s, JTs, J9s, T9s, T8s
98s, 97s, 87s, 76s, 65s, AKo, AQo, AJo
KQo, KJo, QJo, JTo

Hand 3:
Range of hands: AA , KK , QQ , JJ , TT , 99 , 88 , 77
66 , 55 , 44 , 33 , 22 , AKs, AQs, AJs
ATs, A9s, A8s, A7s, A6s, A5s, A4s, A3s
A2s, KQs, KJs, KTs, K9s, QJs, QTs, Q9s
JTs, J9s, T9s, T8s, 98s, 97s, 87s, 76s
65s, AKo, AQo, AJo, KQo, KJo, QJo, JTo

Hand 4:
Range of hands: AA , KK , QQ , JJ , TT , 99 , 88 , 77
66 , 55 , AKs, AQs, AJs, ATs, A9s, A8s
A7s, A6s, A5s, A4s, A3s, A2s, KQs, KJs
KTs, K9s, QJs, QTs, Q9s, JTs, J9s, J8s
T9s, T8s, 98s, 97s, 87s, 86s, 76s, 75s
65s, 54s, AKo, AQo, AJo, ATo, KQo, KJo
KTo, QJo, QTo, JTo

Hand 5:
Range of hands: QQ

Hand | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
Win | 17280 | 15679 | 15585 | 15034 | 33155 |
Draw | 1615 | 1641 | 1443 | 1578 | 1082 |
Lose | 81105 | 82680 | 82972 | 83388 | 65763 |
------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
Win% | 18.0% | 16.41% | 16.22% | 15.74% | 33.62% |
------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+

</pre><hr />

[/ QUOTE ]

If I remove AA and KK then QQ jumps to over a 38% favourite.

Ed Miller

08-20-2004, 04:50 PM

It’s random but it isn’t your average random hand…give them playable hands like maybe three of them having an A or K (and whatever might go with them—A 3 offsuit, K Q offsuit, K T suited)…someone with J 9 suited, a pair of 4’s—something like that anyway.

Your wish is my command:

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=459627
pokenum -h qs qc - ad 3h - kc tc - jh 9h - 4s 4d
Holdem Hi: 850668 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Qs Qc 247291 29.07 602466 70.82 911 0.11 0.291
Ad 3h 147602 17.35 702155 82.54 911 0.11 0.174
Kc Tc 184725 21.72 665032 78.18 911 0.11 0.217
Jh 9h 145162 17.06 704595 82.83 911 0.11 0.171
4s 4d 124977 14.69 724780 85.20 911 0.11 0.147

Or with KQ of KTs:

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=459628
pokenum -h qs qc - ad 3h - kc qd - jh 9h - 4s 4d
Holdem Hi: 850668 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Qs Qc 220467 25.92 622636 73.19 7565 0.89 0.263
Ad 3h 173396 20.38 675565 79.42 1707 0.20 0.204
Kc Qd 144926 17.04 698177 82.07 7565 0.89 0.174
Jh 9h 156968 18.45 691993 81.35 1707 0.20 0.185
4s 4d 147346 17.32 701615 82.48 1707 0.20 0.174

Ed Miller

08-20-2004, 04:57 PM

Both queens dead, exactly one ace and one king out, a live suited connector, and a live small pair. Definitely a serious worst-case scenario...

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=459632
pokenum -h qs qc - ad qh - kc qd - 9h 8h - 4s 4d
Holdem Hi: 850668 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Qs Qc 165591 19.47 679303 79.86 5774 0.68 0.197
Ad Qh 172583 20.29 672311 79.03 5774 0.68 0.205
Kc Qd 149966 17.63 694928 81.69 5774 0.68 0.178
9h 8h 192558 22.64 656313 77.15 1797 0.21 0.227
4s 4d 164196 19.30 684675 80.49 1797 0.21 0.193

sprmario

08-20-2004, 05:11 PM

Read them both. I'm 150 pages into Ed's book and it's great, but I think ITH is better to read before reading Ed's book. His book isn't a beginners book as stated in the intro. ITH is more of a beginner's book and is better than WLLHE. Read ITH... spend a month or two playing some more and then hit SSH. The best part of ITH is the way its laid out and how he gives you a lot of examples. The best part of SSH so far is the explanations of why you make certain decisions (calling, folding, and raising). I've had multiple "lightbulb above the head" moments while reading SSH. There were many things I was doing because I knew I was supposed to do them but I didn't understand why that was the right play, or when to make an adjustment.

IMO the 2+2 guys are great but they are very quick to say that such and such is a wrong play. I don't think that some of those plays are wrong given a certain tolerance for variance. I think SSH lets you squeeze out more out of your game but you are going to have more variance as well. A more conservative play might not make as much but it won't cost you as much and beginning players need to learn to walk before they can run. Here's the way I see it:

1. WLLHE: stops you from losing and puts you on the right track to winning.
2. ITH: builds on the fundamentals and makes you a solid winning player.
3. SSH: teaches you how to make decisions and understand the game better and takes you to the next level.

Sure raising QQ from late might always be the most +EV play but if you are newer and you make this play 4 times and lose all four big, it isn't very consoling to know that you made the right +EV play when you are way down w/ QQ.

spamuell

08-20-2004, 05:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sure raising QQ from late might always be the most +EV play but if you are newer and you make this play 4 times and lose all four big, it isn't very consoling to know that you made the right +EV play when you are way down w/ QQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps new players should just limp with all hands? Sure raising with AA after some limpers might be the most "+EV" play for all you maths guys out there who focus on this "pot equity" idea but who cares about all that if you might lose a big pot with AA because you raised pre-flop when you could have lost a smaller one by not raising, right?

chesspain

08-20-2004, 05:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps new players should just limp with all hands? Sure raising with AA after some limpers might be the most "+EV" play for all you maths guys out there who focus on this "pot equity" idea but who cares about all that if you might lose a big pot with AA because you raised pre-flop when you could have lost a smaller one by not raising, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

You must be talking about all of the Party 2/4 games in which I've played over the past few days. I've never seen so much limping preflop with AA/KK/QQ--and it's not like they're trying to limp-raise. So many of these players are either playing scared and/or trying to be overly tricky.

Nottom

08-20-2004, 06:13 PM

Last time I was in AC playing 10/20 I think I saw the other players get AA about 5 times in my somewhat short session and 4 of them limped preflop. Fortunately, I got AA 3 times myself, raised preflop everytime, and never had any problems getting action.

BugsBunny

08-20-2004, 06:31 PM

I agree with this assessment.

Also as far as the QQ example goes - the starting hand chart doesn't make this case. The starting chart has you raising/reraising no matter how many people are in the pot.

When you read the advanced concepts part he says, about QQ from LP:
[ QUOTE ]

Of course you should almost always raise this premium hand, however somtimes you might just call when there are 3 or 4 callers already in the pot. Calling can be a good play for 2 reasons. First an A or K will come on the flop 43% of the time, which is bad news against so many callers. The more important reason is that you have a better chance of driving out your opponents on a favorable flop by keeping the pot small. With a raised pot your opponents will be correct to draw to many hands on the flop. If the pot is small, your bet or raise on the flop could drive out many of your opponents giving you a better chance of winning if an A or K comes on the turn or river. You can still raise in this situation as either play is close in regards to profit expectation, but just calling can add a little deception to your game to confuse your opponents

[/ QUOTE ]

So he doesn't say that this play should be made all the time. It isn't even the default play (which is to raise, as stated in his charts) He says sometimes you might call and add deception to your game.

(I still raise though)

Overall the flaws that exist in the book are minor (but they do exist), and as a starter text I think it's the best on the market. It's fundamentally sound and will give you a very good base to grow from.

Saborion

08-20-2004, 07:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Last time I was in AC playing 10/20 I think I saw the other players get AA about 5 times in my somewhat short session and 4 of them limped preflop. Fortunately, I got AA 3 times myself, raised preflop everytime, and never had any problems getting action.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course you hadn't any problem getting action. You added deception to your hand by raising with it pre-flop!

mchilger

08-21-2004, 01:50 PM

Just a few clarifications about this thread. Sometimes pulling sentences out of a book gives a different message than the context that it was meant to be read.

ITH has three chapters on Starting Hands.
- The introduction explains criteria to use when evaluating starting hands.
- The second chapter is Starting Hands/Beginning-Intermediate Players. That chapter includes the starting hand charts and recommends raising or reraising with QQ in all situations. In fact, in the text I state in several different spots that you should raise/reraise with QQ.
- Starting Hands/Advanced Concepts. This chapter is intended for advanced players and starts out saying "we will discuss situations where you might add a little deception to your game." Later, when discussing late position I discuss how QQ can be played. The paragraph starts, "Of course, you should almost always raise with this premium hand..." The paragraph then explains a specific situation where you might call and finishes, "you can still raise...but just calling can add a little deception to your game to confuse your opponents."

The entire QQ discussion was just meant to show advanced players how you can add some deception to your game without giving up very much expectation.

There is one other concept that I think is worth mentioning. There has been a lot of discussion on my boards and here about maximizing expectation and taking advantage of every single edge possible. I think Ed's book is the reason for much of this discussion (I am still waiting for delivery so haven't had a chance to read it yet but am looking forward to it).

All of this discussion is quite valuable and is the ultimate goal of every poker player; however, beginning players also have another very important goal...managing and maintaining their bankroll. If they go broke they are finished.

Beginners generally have smaller bankrolls and I believe they should play in a manner which minimizes their fluctuations and standard deviation without giving up too much in profit expectation. They shouldn't be playing a lot of borderline hands for two reasons...1/ it will increasee their fluctuations giving them a higher chance of going broke and 2/ their post flop play generally isn't good enough to play borderline hands profitably.

The Starting Hand charts in my book were not designed to be the optimal strategy for an advanced player. They are designed to put beginning to intermediate players in potentially profitable situations while also minimizing a player's fluctuations (standard deviation).

Regarding pot equity, if five players are in a hand I don't believe it is always the best play for beginners to raise whenever they have a slightly better than average chance of winning the pot. Let's say they have a 22% chance of winning. By raising they will increase their fluctuations increasing their chance of going broke. Another problem is that many beginning players get married to their hands after raising preflop (I know I did when starting out). Many play their hands too far after raising. They take a recommendation of "raise" to be their ticket and they end up losing even more money than they should have when the flop is not advantageous. Managing equity vs. fluctuation is a tight rope walk.

The main audience of my book is beginning to intermediate players although there is a lot of discussion of advanced concepts also. I did my best to include these advanced concepts without hindering the progress of the beginning players.

Best regards, Matthew

Nottom

08-21-2004, 02:29 PM

Glad to see you joining us here Matt, I've heard good things about your book and have it on order.

[ QUOTE ]
Beginners generally have smaller bankrolls and I believe they should play in a manner which minimizes their fluctuations and standard deviation without giving up too much in profit expectation. They shouldn't be playing a lot of borderline hands for two reasons...1/ it will increasee their fluctuations giving them a higher chance of going broke and 2/ their post flop play generally isn't good enough to play borderline hands profitably.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the whole added varience angle of aggressive playing is way overhyped. You don't add a lot of varience by investing an extra SB preflop with good hands, and in most cases this little bit of added varience is in fact overshadowed by increasing your win rate ever so slightly and by thinning the field a bit and giving you goo dhands a better chance of holding up.

That said ... I think the second point you make is very true for a lot of players, especially when you are raising these types of hands from the blinds and will be out of position for the rest of the hand.

bigslickfitz

08-21-2004, 05:14 PM

I decided to go with ITH for now and will probably get SSH and the theory of poker in the comming months.

Ed Miller

08-21-2004, 09:45 PM

Regarding pot equity, if five players are in a hand I don't believe it is always the best play for beginners to raise whenever they have a slightly better than average chance of winning the pot. Let's say they have a 22% chance of winning. By raising they will increase their fluctuations increasing their chance of going broke.

You are right here. (Though I think variance is not the main concern... you often maximize your EV by not raising if you have such a small edge.) If you have a 22% chance of winning, often not raising is correct not just for beginners but also for experts. It's when you have a 30% chance of winning (like you often do with QQ) that raising is mandatory.

Another problem is that many beginning players get married to their hands after raising preflop (I know I did when starting out). Many play their hands too far after raising. They take a recommendation of "raise" to be their ticket and they end up losing even more money than they should have when the flop is not advantageous.

I'm not sure I agree with that. For sure, having raised the pot certainly forgives some postflop looseness (which is one reason you should avoid doing it with marginal "22%" hands... because it forgives the looseness of your opponents). In fact, a raised pot forgives a whole lot of looseness. Its hard for me to believe that a new player will see a raised pot and play SO MUCH more loosely than he would in an unraised pot that his mistakes are actually worse in the former. I think new players don't take pot size into account often enough...

In other words, I somewhat agree with Matt on this matter, but I think the line needs to be drawn a LOT lower on what hands should be raised. QQ is an easy raise in basically any unraised pot in any small or medium stakes game because it wins SO MUCH more often than the average hand. (In a 5-way pot, you are often looking at 28%+ equity... that's too much to miss.)

If Matt made the same argument about A7s or even 88, I wouldn't argue. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

EDIT: BTW, you have to be VERY careful about asserting which plays increase or lower your risk of ruin. Often raising in a certain spot actually lowers your longterm risk of ruin (even though it increases the variance for that hand). To illustrate the concept, which option has a higher risk of ruin for a $100 bankroll:

Betting $2 per hand with a 1% edge
Betting $5 per hand with a 10% edge

In this manner, raising preflop with AA almost certainly LOWERS your risk of ruin (even though it increases your variance). I think the same logic probably applies to QQ as well.

mchilger

08-22-2004, 12:13 AM

Ed, I basically agree with everything you have said. I think the differences are very slight in the arguments. I agree beginning to intermediate players should raise and reraise QQ in every preflop situation. My book and charts show that...I just explain one certain situation where an advanced player might add deception without losing much expected value.

My point about the 22% is just that there is a point when preflop expectation isn't the only consideration and I think some players may be missing that point. For example, when playing JJ or TT. You probably have the preflop advantage against 4 opponents but beginners on a limited bankroll are probably better off calling depending on their postflop skills.

[ QUOTE ]
Its hard for me to believe that a new player will see a raised pot and play SO MUCH more loosely than he would in an unraised pot that his mistakes are actually worse in the former.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously every player is a little different. I just think that there is a macho factor involved when people raise preflop. This was a big leak of mine when I started out and I eventually learned that raising preflop doesn't necessarily mean that you must always be aggressive on the flop. With many beginning players, you know they will bet every single time on the flop after a preflop raise...but hopefully you are right in that anyone reading our books would not be this type of player, /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Regarding risk of ruin I agree. As I stated, beginners should minimize their fluctuations and standard deviation without giving up too much in profit expectation. How you define "too much" is a fine line and you never want to give up too much expectation.

I think the main point of my post was just to show that bankroll and fluctuations are an additional consideration for many players and I think it's important that people keep that in mind while learning the game and developing their style of play.

Blarg

08-22-2004, 07:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
2/ their post flop play generally isn't good enough to play borderline hands profitably.

[/ QUOTE ]

When Hilger says this about beginners, I think he's making an extremely important point.

Many people speak of playing any suited or most any suited ace or many other hands that to them might be quite playable. However, the reason they are playable is because some posters have anywhere from quite good to superior post-flop skills. A beginner is almost guaranteed to have neither. So a beginner trying to play the hands -- and apply a great deal of the advice -- of better players can find himself taking a tremendous pounding because of it. Nobody is meaning anyone any harm and everyone is trying their best, but advice has to be taken in context according to who's giving and who's receiving.

Hilger also says [ QUOTE ]
Beginners generally have smaller bankrolls

[/ QUOTE ] .

Often they have MUCH smaller bankrolls because they probably play undercapitalized even more than pros do -- and that's saying a heck of a lot. Plus they don't have the experience playing to have built up a thick skin about losses yet, and can have emotionally volatile reactions to losses instead of just taking their lumps like everybody else. It's almost impossible for beginners to understand how long the long run in poker really is.

Simply normal bankroll variation hits beginners especially hard. Advice that doesn't fit their skill levels and winds up increasing their bankroll variations can be a very confusing and dispiriting reward for beginners trying to improve their game.

Hilger's book gives extremely solid advice for beginners and non-beginners alike. SSHE gives extremely solid advice, but for beginners it can easily lead to a world of hurt. It's a must-have, but at a later stage of development. As Ed himself says, it's not intended to be a beginner's book.

Piers

08-22-2004, 11:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I have read (and re-read) WLLH and am consistently winning at the micro-limit games. I want to start another book and am curently thinking about going with either ITH or SSH.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are on the right track as ITH and SSH are the two books I would recommend reading, along with TOP. The main thing to realise about SSH is that it is very specifically target at a certain type of game, with little or no discussion about anything else. Even low limit games can get tight at times, and SSH wont really help you that much there where ITH will.

Still if you are playing at low limits there will be a lot of loose games and if you haven’t read SSH yet you should. In fact its only hold’em book I have read where I have felt the pre flop advice was spot on, well the text any way not sure about the tables. Still I guess the tables were deliberately left rather vague to prevent people using them too rigorously.

So I would advise reading both books, but start with SSH as that will likely improve your game the most. However if you were a complete beginner interested in internet poker, I would suggest reading ITH first as it gives a good overview of the whole industry rather than focus on one area.

iceblink

08-23-2004, 04:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Often they have MUCH smaller bankrolls because they probably play undercapitalized even more than pros do -- and that's saying a heck of a lot. Plus they don't have the experience playing to have built up a thick skin about losses yet, and can have emotionally volatile reactions to losses instead of just taking their lumps like everybody else. It's almost impossible for beginners to understand how long the long run in poker really is.

Simply normal bankroll variation hits beginners especially hard. Advice that doesn't fit their skill levels and winds up increasing their bankroll variations can be a very confusing and dispiriting reward for beginners trying to improve their game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good point, Blarg. I like to call this the "psychological bankroll".

Even if the beginning player has a $300 bankroll for a .50/$1 game, it can be very discouraging to lose 100 BB in a row. This can of course become very costly if the player then goes on tilt or otherwise starts to vary their play because they're stuck.

When I first started playing online, I even took the measure of making myself quit while I was ahead if I'd had several losing sessions in a row. I knew I was leaving a very profitable game on some occasions, but I thought it was worth it psychologically to log a winning session to keep my spirits up, then start fresh the next day.

Alan

Leavenfish

08-23-2004, 09:25 AM

Ed, I have a question: The calculations you and spamuell give seem to be based on the output of a computer model; these seem to indicate a win rate should each person stay in with their hand to the end, right?

Blarg

08-23-2004, 09:40 AM

Good idea sometimes. Profitable games can be much easier to find than a good psychological state, especially after you've taken some beatings.

I've often thought of a psychological bankroll too. Good attitude and a clear head are depletable resources just like any other; just like money in poker.

When times are bad, after a while I can reach to reload psychologically so I can buy in for more and give it another try but I can find myself just tapped out. All we can do is our best, and then if things go really sour it can be trouble. Sometimes it's hard to step away, and you can wind up in danger of spiraling down into a crash and burn. I think anyone who has been around either poker or other type of gambling games that are less skill-based for a while has seen this happen to people.

I sometimes take a week or two off when I sense that's about to happen. I usually try to take off more time than I think I need psychologically to reset, because what I think I need usually isn't enough.

Anyway, it's even worse, much worse, for beginners who don't realize that even things going terribly sometimes is expected in the course of poker's long run. So advice that suggests they really hang-ten and ride a lot of marginal edges without the skill really to play them can be very counterproductive. Advice like "play any suited ace" and "I always play any pair" coming from more successful and experienced players can seem like more insight than it really is. For newer players who don't know how to play those hands well, that perhaps well-intentioned advice can be disastrous. And the last thing a newer player would know is how to tell the difference between advice that fits him and advice that doesn't.

Nottom

08-23-2004, 10:46 AM

Correct, in reality most of the time you will win more often since most people won't stay around for runner-runner draws or to spike a set on the river.

driller

08-23-2004, 01:33 PM

I love SSH. One of the big points it makes is that close decisions pre-flop aren't as critical as post-flop play. I think this situation may be an example.

Leavenfish

08-23-2004, 01:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]

This is ITH's one major weakness, IMO. It is WAY too passive with big hands preflop. There are a few other more minor problems, but Hilger is clearly a solidly winning poker player, and his advice overall is good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this is what troubles me, though maybe I am just missing something: When these simulations you have posted are run to ‘prove’ this or that point and one attaches dollar (or BB/SB) amounts to the results (as I belive someone did)…the results are bound to be skewed in favor of the desired result…such as in the QQ example in this thread because you are assuming a best case scenario for the holder of QQ—everyone staying in and QQ getting the big payoff when he wins his x% of the time.

I believe you have to assume that your opponents are not total idiots. Therefore, if they are on a draw that isn’t panning out and QQ is betting into them, they will fold before long (at the very least most are not likely to call a river bet with a busted draw!)—perhaps not the ‘idiots’, but the great percentage will fold somewhere along the way. The same goes for someone with a pair of 4’s who sees the flop—they know that if a few people are in, and someone is betting (or raising) that they are likely beaten and will drop out if they do not improve quickly. QQ therefore simply does not get the full profit the simulations would show. It sounds much more reasonable for any model to try to emulate the reality that on average 2, 2 ½ or 3 might go to the showdown, not 5. I have not seen such a model, however.

These simulations are trying to show 5 hands (for example) going to the river and the expected EV when you win with everyone staying in. The idea is to have those instances (much) more than offset the losses from pressing your initial edge (be it with QQ or building up the pot from the get go with high suited connectors in favorable position) and the times that does not pan out. This sounds fine in theory and in general I have no problem with it. But, poker is a game of thinking (not always perfect) human beings, not static simulations or 'absolutes' such as you offer when saying X or Y should be done 100% of the time in accord with your approach. It is very situational. Perhaps that is why I don’t see certain people who lean so heavily towards the math winning the bracelets while I see T.J. Cloutier, for example, with arm loads.

Of course, I am not saying not to bet or raise QQ (I certainly do far more often than not), I am simply saying that I don’t see the $$ amts based on these models reflecting reality.

Ed Miller

08-23-2004, 02:18 PM

Leavenfish,

I'm not making any assumptions about how many bets you will make after the flop. With the hot-and-cold simulations, I am just providing a crude estimate of the percentage of the PREFLOP action that QQ will win.

We're talking about whether or not to raise PREFLOP. Whether four hands call on the river or not isn't the main issue.

Leavenfish

08-23-2004, 03:40 PM

Ed,
Perhaps I have confused my threads as I was away for the weekend.

Still, are you not saying that by ALWAYS raising pre-flop with QQ (as opposed to sometimes not—be it for deceptive purposes or factors associated with the number of callers) you stand to make more money in the long run because of the long run EV of always raising? Else, what does it matter if you play them a bit softly pre-flop at times? I took it that your simulation post was designed to prove otherwise.

I’ve finished the book by the way…and will be going over it again later this week. It’s easily one of my favorite poker books.

Self Made

08-23-2004, 07:09 PM

My first post here.

I'm just finishing up ITH, my first poker book. I'm wondering if I should read WLLHE next or just move on to a more advanced book.

My plan has been to reread ITH, then read Jones's book, and read Theory of Poker after that. I'm wondering if I should skip Jones.

I'm intelligent, but new to poker.

Blarg

08-23-2004, 09:51 PM

There's no point to reading WLLH if you've already ready ITH. ITH is a better and more advanced book. Both Theory of Poker and SSHE are fantastic books. I might incline to read Theory of Poker first, because it will flesh out what you've read in ITH and leave you better prepared for SSHE, while there is no particular benefit to reading SSHE before Theory of Poker. SSHE's concepts are trickiest of those three books to apply, so its order naturally comes at the end point.

Frankly, after reading ITH you're well set just to get some experience for a while. You can do very well on that book's concepts alone, and you can go on overload from reading too much too quick without really having the time to put it all extensively into play before moving on to the next thing.

All three of those books are great though. Different people do it different ways. WLLH is not necessary for you at this point.