WLLHE and SSH

[Cerril]

Alright, before I knew anything (in my pre-2+2 forums days) I picked up two books to start myself off, WLLHE and HFAP.

Since I've come here all the talk is (understandably) about SSH, and there's a certain amount of derision toward WLLHE. I'm curious what the major differences are between the two books, and whether I'd be well served picking up SSH.

[sublime]

WLLHE. I'm curious what the major differences are between the two books, and whether I'd be well served picking up SSH.

WLLH teaches you how NOT to lose. SSH teaches you how to be a "great" player.

While I am sure this thread will get at least 20 responses, the one I just gave is pretty damn accurate.

[blackaces13]

Saying WLLHE teaches you NOT to lose implies that it will make you a break even player at best. Being that I started playing after reading WLLHE and won at a fair rate I feel that I should reassure the OP that if you read and apply the strategy in WLLHE you will show a nice profit at Party .5/1 or live 2/4-3/6 for instance.

SSH should help you squeeze out the last few drops of EV into your winrate and make you a bona-fide shark.

[sublime]

Saying WLLHE teaches you NOT to lose implies that it will make you a break even player at best. Being that I started playing after reading WLLHE and won at a fair rate I feel that I should reassure the OP that if you read and apply the strategy in WLLHE you will show a nice profit at Party .5/1 or live 2/4-3/6 for instance.

An excellent follow up to my great post /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[flair1239]

The main argument (that might actually be applicable) that I have heard made against WLLH; is that the style will not be successful at higher limits (because they are too passive).

That said Lee Jones acknowledges this in the book and spells out very specifically what types of games that he is refering too.

I thinkto attempt another paraphrase:

WLLH suggests that there will be so many times you have huge edges at the micro/low limits; that you do not need to subject yourself to close calls.

SSH suggests that by pushing slight edges your long term return will overcome your short term variance.

That said if I were to recommend one book for someone starting out it would be WLLH. Not that SSH is not a great book (I am on my third read), it is just that you have to really pay attention to when and where you apply those concepts.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

WLLH has advice that will simply hold you back. It appear to be a big help to many players at first because it gets them to play much tighter, and against weak opposition, that should be enough to help you win a little which is of course much better than losing a lot.

I have stated many times that the current edition of WLLH is okay for a beginners book, and compared to most of the other books out there, that makes it significantly better.

On the other hand, there are too many places where it has you playing too passively. This means you won't extract the maximum from your opponents where you should, and in some spots cost yourself a pot that you could have won by playing better.

Another problem with WLLH is that once you become trained to play this way, it can be difficult to move to a more optimal style. Thus while the book does certainly help a raw beginner, it can also hold you back once you get some experience.

While we feel that SSH can be used as a starter book, it was not designed that way. It's purpose is to help you squeeze out every penny of profit that is available in the exact same games that WLLH is suppose to address. In many places this will mean more aggressive play. In some other spots, it means you simply call where WLLH might have you fold.

So in this sense, there is really no comparing of the two books. It is also why David and I worked with Ed Miller to produce a truly top notch book, and why years ago I declined to publish WLLH.

One other point, my current rating of the second edition of WLLH on my 1 to 10 scale is a 7. My rating of the first edition is a 4. For any book to get my recommendation, it needs to be an 8. Books that I rate a 7 (and to a lessor extent a 6) come in the "may be worth a look" category. That's why I state that WLLH is okay for a beginner, but it is not quite good enough to get my recommendation.

For some contrast, I gave Ken Warren Teaches Texas Hold 'em a 2, Get the Edge at Low-limit Texas Hold ’em by Bill Burton a 3, the second edition of Championship Hold ’em Tom McEvoy and T.J. Cloutier a 4 (the first edition got a 1), Poker at the Millennium by Mike Caro and Mike Cappelletti a 2, Flop: The Art of Winning at Low-Limit Hold ’em by Richard Burke a 3, and Hold ’em Excellence by Lou Krieger a 3. So you can see tthat in my opinion, WLLH is certainly one of the better beginner books out there.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Leavenfish]

While I have been a defender of WLLH, I agree with everything Mason has said.

Of course, had it been said THAT WAY by certain people to begin with...we might have had a very informative 'debate' between Lee Jones and Ed Miller...but sadly that is long lost water under the bridge.

By all means, get SSH IF you are already a winner at the game...if not, re-read WLLH or maybe get ITH, that's a very good book as well--better all around than SSH in my opinion as it covers more and is more for all around play, not just low limits. If you are not, you may well end up losing more money quicker.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi L...fish:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, had it been said THAT WAY by certain people to begin with...we might have had a very informative 'debate' between Lee Jones and Ed Miller...but sadly that is long lost water under the bridge.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this completely. If there would have been any sort of debate, I believe that many of Jones' positions would have been indefensible, and the debate would have been over very quickly.

However, if Jones wants to come on here and debate some of these issues, he's welcome to do so, and we at Two Plus Two will make sure he's treated with respect.

Best wishes,
Mason

[MicroBob]

Hi Mason - Back to beating a dead-horse here. Sorry, can't resist getting involved.

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with this completely. If there would have been any sort of debate, I believe that many of Jones' positions would have been indefensible, and the debate would have been over very quickly.


[/ QUOTE ]


I think this in itself would have been somewhat informative for many of the WLLHE defenders (and would have been fun to watch).


Of course, many 2+2'ers already shared your views on WLLHE before SSHE.
But there were obviously many who continued to dispute the idea that it is an inferior playing style....and there just don't seem to be as many of those around here anymore.


So if the debate had indeed happened I think we might have reached the same end-result anyway....and maybe just a little bit quicker (but only by a few days imo).
Lee's playing style would have been called out for what it is; inferior. And that's exactly what's been happening more and more of late.


SSHE had not come out when the debate WOULD have happened or progressed....
since then there has been so much deserved praise for SSHE's logic that more and more are realizing that your analysis of WLLHE is precisely on the money.



Interesting to analyze what has happened in the post-mortem.

[avatar77]

Mason,

You also gave ITH a 7 - does this mean you feel that both ITH and WLLH are equal? I am confident that most posters here would say that ITH is hands down much better than WLLH - especially for beginners.

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi L...fish:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, had it been said THAT WAY by certain people to begin with...we might have had a very informative 'debate' between Lee Jones and Ed Miller...but sadly that is long lost water under the bridge.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this completely. If there would have been any sort of debate, I believe that many of Jones' positions would have been indefensible, and the debate would have been over very quickly.



[/ QUOTE ]

Quickly or not, that would not have been informative??? I take it that you are simply disagreeing that the debate would have been 'informative'?

As MicroBob pointed out, the debate offer occurred before SSH came out and the derision which scuttled the whole thing, did as well. I can see where Jones probably thought, "Well, screw (some of)you people--I offer to debate playing styles for Low Limit and I get treated THIS way?"

Understandable...if a little thin skinned. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Anyway--and this is just my guess--before long Jones would have agreed that SSH is the way to go once someone has a good basic foundation of play at LL, if said person is willing to risk potentially greater bankroll swings to squeeze a little more out of their game and has the money to do so....but that his book is a more general work aimed at trying to get the newbie with perhaps a limited bank roll up to that point. That seems to have been the general consensus that has been arrived at on this forum as I see it.
--Leavenfish

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Fish:

I see your points, but I still disagree. When the first edition of Jones came out and after it began to become popular, I was attacked over and over for being critical of it. Jones has been aware of the criticisms of his book for many years, but if he was to finally agree that SSH has it right and he didn't, then it comes out that he was told this sort of thing over and over, ... well, my point is that this creates another set of problems for Jones. So from his point of view he's probably better off announcing that he's been mistreated and therefore won't participate in any debate.

And, as I already stated, the debate would have been over very quickly. Part of the reason for this, as you point out, is that much of the debate had already occurred on these forums. There wouldn't have been much else to say.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Leavenfish]

Well, as it was Jones that made the offer, it would have been nice if certain people had acted a bit nicer and it had come to fruition. I simply say that as an avid reader on this forum. It would have been a unique event.

"but if he was to finally agree that SSH has it right and he didn't, then it comes out that he was told this sort of thing over and over,"--Mason

Again, I believe that SSH "has it right" in the sense of squeezing MORE out of the game and into the pockets of an already winning player--it's not a general poker primer and therefore not suitable for people realatively new to the game. WLLH, in contrast, was geared to a totally different audience and towards giving one in that audience the chance to become better and become a winning player. MANY people on this forum have attested to the fact that it has done that for them (even though the advice may not always be 'optimal')...and that they have simply gone to the next step with the methods advocated in SSH. In that sense, Jones could have mounted a defense for his often advocating weak-tight play.

You have to be fairly proficient at walking before you dare to run...

---Leavenfish

[skibum]

I bought WLLH(second edition) as my second book on Hold'em, after HFAP(ME). I thought I was ready for HFAP, but I wasn't, and I wasn't able to transfer much of it to my low limit home game. WLLH was the consensus best low limit book available, and was a valuable asset to me. I recently purchased SSH, and am studiously involved with it. It certainly seems like the way I want to play, and it has also helped me in my weekly game, a decidedly loose aggressive affair. I have no regrets about WLLH, and am pleased to see that Mason also agrees it was a good book, and probably the best at that time for my purposes. Aggressive by nature, and with several readings of HFAP under my belt, WLLH served me well. I re-read it again yesterday just to get a feel for the major differences with SSH. If everything I've read by S&M is pretty sound, and I believe it is, then WLLH clearly does have some fundamental flaws. I'm not sure when ITH came out, but I haven't read it and didn't start reading the available literature until 2001. I do know ITH is highly regarded by the locals. Should I read it? Does it cover anything important that isn't adequately covered in SSH? I don't need just another book, just wondering if it elucidates some ideas more effectively, or if it is a valuable addition to an experienced and well read low limit player. My other dedicated Hold-em book is by Ciaffone/Brier. One last question. Where does Mason review books written by other people? Now THAT would be interesting reading, mainly because I consider him an authority. Nick Christenson is the only reviewer I know of, and I generally agree with what he's written about the books I've read.
Cheers

[Joseph Busti]

[ QUOTE ]
You have to be fairly proficient at walking before you dare to run...

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats the problem, Most people never run, dare to run, jog, hop, skip, whatever the hell. They just always walk.

[Moyer]

Yes, you'd be well served in picking up SSH.

They're two very different books. WLLH is meant for beginners. SSH is not. Miller said once that it should probably be called SSH for Advanced Players.

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have to be fairly proficient at walking before you dare to run...

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats the problem, Most people never run, dare to run, jog, hop, skip, whatever the hell. They just always walk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re-read my post. What I am saying is that even Sklansky and Malmuth had to learn to walk (and be pretty decent at it) before they could run. It applies to everyone.

As another has said under this thread, even with the flaws in WLLH, it served him well at that time. Had he picked up SSH as his first book, he probably would have bled money left and right.

"Every stone has it's purpose"--La Strada

[Joseph Busti]

OK,
Im still not sold on the idea of teaching and learning incorrect concepts and playing techniques is a good way to start your poker career.

[David Sklansky]

It could be OK to teach a few incorrect ideas to beginners if it will keep them out of trouble. However it would be nice if the author let the reader know when he was doing it. Not possible if the author himself doesn't know.

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
It could be OK to teach a few incorrect ideas to beginners if it will keep them out of trouble. However it would be nice if the author let the reader know when he was doing it. Not possible if the author himself doesn't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

On that I would tend to agree.

For some reason I am reminded of the Garden of Eden fable: 'never you mind touching that apple...just trust me on this right now--you just are not equiped to know better at this point so we'll not go into it any further right now'. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

---Leavenfish

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
It could be OK to teach a few incorrect ideas to beginners if it will keep them out of trouble. However it would be nice if the author let the reader know when he was doing it. Not possible if the author himself doesn't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also think that you need to consider the goals of the reader. Most people on this forum, go beyond just thinking that the game is fun. Many of us (even those of us who play 3/6 and lower, treat this more as a 2nd job that we actually enjoy, than we do an interesting hobby.

So for us "serious" players, yes we do need to progress beyond the ideas in WLLH. I will also agree that it takes a concerted effort to break out of the mindset expressed in WLLH.

However, for what I would say are the majority of small stakes players out there, they are not looking to do anything other than have fun. They are also not willing to invest much time or money (ie.. purchasing numerous books, poker tracker, funding an adequate bankroll for their level...etc.) in their hobby. Most of them just want to be able to deposit $100 on line and make it last.

For this type of player I think WLLH is a excellent choice. The reason being is that it is simple and straight forward, and does not take long to read. I believe that a casual player who reads WLLH and takes most of it to heart, would be able to maintain his deposit and grow it by quite a bit.

Granted as they moved up in levels, they would get hurt if they did not adapt. I found in even in my modest move from .5/1 to 1/2 that the aggression level jumped more than I thought it would.

I think SSH is great for the serious player, but would be very bad for a casual player. The ideas take alot of thought to apply, and for me anyway they take alot of review time of hand histories to make sure they are not being misapplied. For the casual player too attempt to play the "SSH" style, the result would probably be something resembling a maniac. (As a matter of fact, I believe we are seeing some of that online now.)

As a side note the only way to truly convince the undecided on this issue is too have a 3-man tag team match. In one corner Sklansky, Malmuth, and Miller Vs. Jones, Hilger, and Carson (I know he is not Small Stakes, but WTH he would be up for a grudge match.) Each player plays 30,000 hands on PP .5/1, the team with the highest BB/100 is declared the victor.

[theghost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It could be OK to teach a few incorrect ideas to beginners if it will keep them out of trouble. However it would be nice if the author let the reader know when he was doing it. Not possible if the author himself doesn't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

On that I would tend to agree.

For some reason I am reminded of the Garden of Eden fable: 'never you mind touching that apple...just trust me on this right now--you just are not equiped to know better at this point so we'll not go into it any further right now'. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

---Leavenfish

[/ QUOTE ]

Jones does treat a few points this way. When he is discussing overcards he says something like "you won't be losing much if you fold your overcards when the folp doesn't hit you - postflop play with overcards is difficult to do right, and you could make mistakes if you don't know what you're doing..."
(can you tell it's not in front of me? hopefully you get the idea /images/graemlins/ooo.gif)

He's making the point that in some situations an expert might play it differently, but you are not that expert if you are reading his book.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It could be OK to teach a few incorrect ideas to beginners if it will keep them out of trouble. However it would be nice if the author let the reader know when he was doing it. Not possible if the author himself doesn't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

On that I would tend to agree.

For some reason I am reminded of the Garden of Eden fable: 'never you mind touching that apple...just trust me on this right now--you just are not equiped to know better at this point so we'll not go into it any further right now'. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

---Leavenfish

[/ QUOTE ]

Jones does treat a few points this way. When he is discussing overcards he says something like "you won't be losing much if you fold your overcards when the folp doesn't hit you - postflop play with overcards is difficult to do right, and you could make mistakes if you don't know what you're doing..."
(can you tell it's not in front of me? hopefully you get the idea /images/graemlins/ooo.gif)

He's making the point that in some situations an expert might play it differently, but you are not that expert if you are reading his book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, in a few situations he says "experts can make money in this situation... but until you get more experience you are better off folding."

He also basically comes right out and says that you should continue studying and even lists numerous 2+2 books in his recommended reading. I am not saying that everything he says is correct, but I feel that Sklansky and a couple other posters have been too hard on him. They stop just short of calling him a moron.

[pastabatman]

Are we expecting too much objectivity from 2+2 authors here? I find it interesting that they are so disdainful of WLLH, yet can't recommend a decent beginners book for low-limit hold 'em. (Mason said a book would have to get an '8' to get his recommendation, and only gave both WLLH and ITH a '7').

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
Are we expecting too much objectivity from 2+2 authors here? I find it interesting that they are so disdainful of WLLH, yet can't recommend a decent beginners book for low-limit hold 'em. (Mason said a book would have to get an '8' to get his recommendation, and only gave both WLLH and ITH a '7').

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps there just hasn’t been a book made that warrants the great “8”? I started to say ‘until SSH’…but that would be wrong—it’s NOT a beginners book! Perhaps WLLH or ITH is simply the best all around book there is for the beginner?

Interesting question: Just what ‘beginners book’ WOULD Sklansky or Malmuth or Miller recommend to a beginner who will likely begin with low limit play?

Perhaps the telling truth in all of this is that a beginner is NOT to be expected to assimulate ‘perfection’ because he is simply…well, a beginner and perfection does not come easy to even the more experienced among us? SO, is it really terribly sporting to point to an adult trying to teach a child to speak English when he (the adult) is using language that may not be exact or convey the most precise meaning…but is language the child can understand and work with at that age to form basic sentences and be able to communicate with some efficiency?

Is that to say that one should not STRIVE to teach precise principles? Well, where it is truly beneficial at that point, yes. But, you must always take into account who you are working with and at what point they are in their development.

I know when I am teaching a person chess, I do not throw complex ideas at them right off the bat but chose simpler, less risky and more easily understood ideas that give the student the possibility of obtaining the objective (ex: maybe venturing a closed Sicilian before walking into the laybrinth of the open Sicilians when learning how to open 1. e4). I ‘might’ say that “there are more effecient ways with potential greater reward but that they are complex and approaches you can not handle just yet, so lets stick with these and learn to get a feel for the game until you can try for a little more precision in your game”. Of course, I would NOT try and teach them the more complex methods at the same session because when you are teaching one thing, you do not want fog their eyes over with multiple methods….those can be imparted at a later time, when they are ready to progress. Similarly, perhaps those more efficient and more difficult to apply methods should be left to other (non-beginner) books when it comes to poker and WLLH for example might just be perfect for what it sets out to do?

Of course, like Sklansky said earlier…perhaps the author did not know that he was not being precise…but then maybe Sklansky is thinking a little too precise for the intended audience of WLLH?

---Leavenfish

[Moyer]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting question: Just what ‘beginners book’ WOULD Sklansky or Malmuth or Miller recommend to a beginner who will likely begin with low limit play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Miller has said that while WLLH has its flaws, it is still the best beginner book out there.

[pastabatman]

Perhaps the authors of SSH just doesn't buy into the idea of a beginner's book, i.e., they believe if one is going to tackle this subject, then take the hard road from the start, and don't waste time with 'training-wheels'? I guess I'm just puzzeled by the lack of an alternative from 2+2. (anything in the works /images/graemlins/wink.gif ? ).

[Ed Miller]

I guess I'm just puzzeled by the lack of an alternative from 2+2. (anything in the works ? ).

Perhaps...

[timmer]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I'm just puzzeled by the lack of an alternative from 2+2. (anything in the works ? ).

Perhaps...

[/ QUOTE ]

Like a beginners 7Stud high book that addresses the lower limits, antes, and structures ?

I mean to say its" more of a trapping game rather than a game of knocking people out of the pot" is a rather vague description.

timmer

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi L_Fish:

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps there just hasn’t been a book made that warrants the great “8”? I started to say ‘until SSH’…but that would be wrong—it’s NOT a beginners book! Perhaps WLLH or ITH is simply the best all around book there is for the beginner?


[/ QUOTE ]

That's not quite true. Getting Started in Hold 'em (tentative title) by Ed Miller is now in the works.

Best wishes,
Mason

[djack]

Is this a book announcement?

I love the sly way you interject a book announcement, Mason.

Although I've been away from the forums for a couple weeks, so maybe you'd announced it previously.

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi L_Fish:

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps there just hasn’t been a book made that warrants the great “8”? I started to say ‘until SSH’…but that would be wrong—it’s NOT a beginners book! Perhaps WLLH or ITH is simply the best all around book there is for the beginner?


[/ QUOTE ]

That's not quite true. Getting Started in Hold 'em (tentative title) by Ed Miller is now in the works.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL Mason, you guys never cease to amaze and amuse me: "not quiet true"...rather than saying, "Yes, you are quiet right at the moment--but that is soon to be rectified by Ed Miller's upcoming opus: Getting Started in Hold 'em!" /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

--Leavenfish

[Blarg]

Funny thing is, I'd be surprised if a great many of the people who've read SSHE wouldn't still receive a lot of benefit out of a simpler Miller book that prepares them better to get maximum value out of SSHE.

It would be working backwards, but could move some people forward. I wouldn't be surprised if I were one of them in at least a few ways.

By the way, when are you going to rename your company 2+2+1?

[hackermike]

if it wasnt for WLLHE, i would have never even heard of and read Holdem poker for advanced players, SSH, or the theory of poker. WLLHE gave a general understanding of the game that SSh doesnt give, such as reading boards, seeing the nuts, and other basic concepts. WLLHE was the stepping stone for me to understand SSh and the others.

[cowboyzfan]

I hope the new book uses the low limit internet game as the standard. Some free marketing advice that i know you don't need, the potential market is larger for an internet-centric book than for a Gardena CA centric book. No offense to the peeps in Caly.

Also, even if it was on another forum, Ed Miller has said very nice things about ITH. If you have read WLLH and ITH i think a comparison would not be that difficult, they don't compare. However, ITH is not a small stakes book, although it is for begginers i guess. At the moment i think WLLH, then ITH, then SSH would be the "core curriculum"

I will buy anything Miller rights, and already have bought most 2+2. Keep it up.

[helpmeout]

WLLHE is a great beginner book. I don't see why a lot of you complain about it.

The whole idea of it is to give a new player a few basic tactics and to become aware of certain plays as well as tightening up instead of loosely calling everything down.

You have to take a bit of good info here and there and work with it. Why does he say this and why does he say that? is it right? maybe I will do some of my own studies to figure it out.

If you want to follow everything in a book you will never be very good. Doesn't matter how good the book is.

Its the same with reading stuff online, just cos some expert says something doesn't mean it is right. You gotta do your own research.

You'll never be a great player just from reading a few books and blindly following advice.

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]

Its the same with reading stuff online, just cos some expert says something doesn't mean it is right. You gotta do your own research.

You'll never be a great player just from reading a few books and blindly following advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Helpmeout,

Doesn't your name contradict what you just said? /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

In any case, would you propose to a new airplane mfg. that they reinvent the wheel by learning all about airplane design (aero-dynamics,etc) from scratch...because one should 'not follow the advice of experts in the field'? Of course not. You stand upon the shoulders of giants in all fields. The trick is simply knowing that all 'experts' are not equal.

---Leavenfish

[helpmeout]

You don't need to reinvent the wheel just do a bit of study to confirm things.

Its like starting hands, if you wanna blindly follow someone elses starting hands then you will be totally clueless when you arent in a standard game.

I'll workout probabilies so i know the odds of flopping two pair, trips, OESD with, 0 gappers 1 gappers 2 gappers, flush draws etc. Not just know that I can play 87s in late position with lots of callers.

If you wanna blindly follow the advice written in books go ahead, it doesn't bother me.

[Leavenfish]

I never said anything about "blindly" following books. I only said that we:

" stand upon the shoulders of giants in all fields. The trick is simply knowing that all 'experts' are not equal."

I stand by that. Of course one should think for oneself...but you were beginning to sound like there are no books that you should "follow". There are.

---Leavenfish

[Moyer]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't need to reinvent the wheel just do a bit of study to confirm things.

Its like starting hands, if you wanna blindly follow someone elses starting hands then you will be totally clueless when you arent in a standard game.

I'll workout probabilies so i know the odds of flopping two pair, trips, OESD with, 0 gappers 1 gappers 2 gappers, flush draws etc. Not just know that I can play 87s in late position with lots of callers.

If you wanna blindly follow the advice written in books go ahead, it doesn't bother me.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your argument is that we shouldn't criticize WLLH because it doesn't matter if the advice in it is correct?

[Cerril]

Well on the strength of the recommendations from everyone here I picked it up. If it helps at all (how could it not), it'll shoot me through to the upper end games where I can mesh these tactics with HEFAP much faster (you know, in a couple years only)

The extra girth is worth the price of admission alone. I won't tear through it in a day and wonder where the strategies are. I shudder at the thought of what this will do to my variance, comined with the tables themselves, but it's a shudder of anticipation. Thanks guys!

[goofball]

this happens in physics and other sciences all the time, authors do not, as a general rule, tell their students taht the concepts they are learning are wrong.