What if everyone played a little like Ed Miller, but badly?

[Fnord]

What if everyone played a little like Ed Miller, but badly?

They would play Axs, any pocket pair, suited connectors and heck a couple other hands from any position. Then defend with a wide range of suited hands, creating regular 4-5 way pots.

They would raise all sorts of marginal-good hands in position for value. If ATs is a raise from the button with 4 limpers, why not A2s with 3 limpers?

They would start raising second pair with backdoor draws on the flop (ignoring the size of the pot), then call down with any piece of it. Everyone knows you don’t fold marginal hands to these bozos.

Now play this all out at a table with 2 rocks, 2 loose passive victims and 6 wanna-be Millers. Is this the recently aggressive Party 3/6 game everyone’s talking about? Is a somewhat loose small stakes game a self-fulfilling prophecy? Has SSH now made a somewhat loose, somewhat aggressive small stakes game a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Food for thought...

[AdamL]

The book is fabulous because if mis-applied in any way, it creates very juicy games.

Those who study it seriously will benefit. Those who read it without really absorbing it and hashing it out will do at least some of the things you mention. I know, I was there. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I think it's a good thing, personally. Poker books should be written somewhat esoterically (though this one isn't).

[Tosh]

[ QUOTE ]
The book is fabulous because if mis-applied in any way, it creates very juicy games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see this a lot and happen to think the statement is nonsense. Even someone who doesn't fully understand a lot of what is in the book can read it and get a clue on preflop play and hand strength. Even if they then go on spewing chips in a laggy way, which isn't always that easy to play against, I'd still rather have normal totally clueless opponents.

[AdamL]

Tosh,

I think that poker-books are here to stay. I also think that some fraction of players are always going to mis-apply what they read. Not all will really care to study something thoroughly.

That said, I'd rather a book that when mis-applied will create a loose game than one where the players will be very tight and only get aggressive with their monsters.

Everyone would prefer totally clueless opponents, but if there need be books available, I'm happy they keep the games alive and plentiful.

Adam

[Tosh]

The content is still good, I would rather they read a book that was flat out bad; we know there are plenty of those.

[InchoateHand]

I would much prefer people follow Lee Jones than Ed Miller. That way I can bet them out of the pot.

I prefer a loose-passive game over anything. I win the most, I lose the least, and I can make pretty accurate folds.

That said, I actually prefer best of all a loose-passive game with ONE maniac. Makes for bigger pots.

I agree with Tosh here. Even if folks only understood the PF section of Ed's book...or even Lee Jones' book....it means less money more work for me.

I think ignorant poker players are the best opponents. "Misapplying" books still implicates them in the faintest bit of awareness.

[AdamL]

Sure. I'm afraid the bad ones seem to create very tight, somewhat weak players.

The biggest factor for me, with respect to how a poker book is going to influence the games, is the preflop standards. Most players pick up on the preflop play fairly easily. The tighter the preflop advice, the less profitable the games will be in general after the influence of the book.

Post-flop play isn't as commonly absorbed.

This is a really interesting thread btw.

[MAxx]

While I know that SSH has sold a lot of copies, I honestly do not think a lot of the poor players you go up against do much or any study of poker literature at all. I think a pretty big part of the party population do not have the desire to put the that kind of effort into their game. They are misguided in their level of play and like to gamble it up.

[Ed Miller]

The book is fabulous because if mis-applied in any way, it creates very juicy games.

I keep hearing this, and I think it's silly. Someone who reads my book and gets it wrong will still probably play better than your average player who hasn't bothered to read it at all.

In fact, believe it or not, but I wrote my book with the intention of it being somewhat "idiot-proof." That is, I tried to avoid concepts if I thought they could be very dangerous to people who misapplied them.

Frankly, I think people who say this stuff really just don't understand limit hold 'em that well. Throwing in a loose raise here and there with middle pair is NOT a big mistake. Playing pocket deuces under the gun in an aggressive game is NOT a big mistake. Calling down in a medium-sized pot with a hand that is a little light is NOT a big mistake.

I believe that anyone who sticks to my starting guidelines, but who plays way too loose and aggressive post-flop will be a WINNER in the Party $3-$6 game. Not a big winner, but a winner nonetheless.

A table full of such players would be ANYTHING but a good game.

[InchoateHand]

To your credit, you are entirely correct.

Sadly, you are entirely correct.




I regularly...REGULARLY....am told that I am stupid for raiseing before the flop. Obviously, that is dumb, because who knows what cards are going to come. This is at 2/4. God Forbid that these people ever, even without understanding why, learn to the contrary.

[Malcom Reynolds]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's a good thing, personally. Poker books should be written somewhat esoterically (though this one isn't).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that having many high quality books like SSHE will not be a problem. I found that SSHE presented the material extremely clearly and also believe that all poker books should be like this. The reason that I don't think that clear high-quality poker books will be -EV for the rest of us is because:

1) People like to gamble. There will always be people who like to play poker like a lottery, throwing in money and hoping they get a pair by the river.

2) People don't like to study. Honestly, most of the people I've seen pick up a book, seem to get some idea of preflop strategy and really not understand the rest. There are zillions of clear, well-written math books out there, but proportionately fewer math experts.

3) A book doesn't replace the hard work of playing hundreds of thousands of hands, analyzing hands, or reading twoplustwo /images/graemlins/smile.gif Applying the ideas are extremely difficult.

In short, I think it would benefit us a lot more than anyone else to have better quality, clearly written and easy to understand books.

[AdamL]

[ QUOTE ]
The book is fabulous because if mis-applied in any way, it creates very juicy games.
Someone who reads my book and gets it wrong will still probably play better than your average player who hasn't bothered to read it at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct. The argument made was a preference for laggy opponents who know more than people with zero-knowledge over very tight weak opponents who have read a little.

IOW, I'd rather them mis-apply and become looser than they should be playing than have them get real tight and cautious.

The fact that they are still better than those who haven't read anything at all isn't really what I'm talking about. I am comparing two groups of players who have read but not understood two different poker books.

I was exaggerating when I said "in any way". I am pretty much specifically talking about people being too aggressive and playing too many hands.

None of this is meant to reflect on you Ed. The players do what they want. I don't think your book encourages people to play badly, if that is the impression. Far from it.


Adam

Edit -- I'll provide an example. Hellmuth's book recommends playing only some very premium hands in it's beginner advice, period. It isn't max EV stuff. I think he has a "Top 10"... Position isn't even factored in.

These guys are *tight*.

[AdamL]

I am curious though, btw, whether really tight players are actually more profitable to play against than laggy ones.

[Malcom Reynolds]

[ QUOTE ]
I am curious though, btw, whether really tight players are actually more profitable to play against than laggy ones.

[/ QUOTE ]
Laggy players are by far more profitable to play against. It goes back to the fundamental theorem of poker, where people are playing clearly very differently from the play if you could see all the cards face up. When you have AQo and people are calling pre-flop with 53o or Q3o you are making money. It's even worse for them when you raise with such a hand and they cold call. Since they make so many of these mistakes your EV goes up substantially.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that poker-books are here to stay. I also think that some fraction of players are always going to mis-apply what they read. Not all will really care to study something thoroughly.

That said, I'd rather a book that when mis-applied will create a loose game than one where the players will be very tight and only get aggressive with their monsters

[/ QUOTE ]

The main thing is most people will try it out. They may win a little at first. Then the first big swing hits 'em. They'll blame it on the book and revert back to their old, losing ways. It takes alot more than just reading a book and applying it for a few sessions. It isn't going to happen too often where players will keep playing that way. Playing winning cards is hard work and lots of boredom. Players will get bored, play a crap hand, win a nice pot and the leak will be sprung. It takes the right kind of mindset to do it. Along with commitment to keep playing 'well' which many, many don't have. Nor do they have the drive to do it longterm. (see the whole description of a stone killer in Schoonies book, psychology of poker, for a better explanation of how playing this way is, in many ways, opposite of normal thinking/emotional raction/impulse to given situations presented in the game)

One of the most important sections in the book that will likely be the most least read, or reread, is the 1st section. Where Ed lays out that you really have to trust in the longrun. Even in the down times. He goes over it really well. I think the best i've seen done in a book. Many will skim that and head to the actual playing part. Then, as mentioned above, when it doesn't go their way, and their 'magik' book disappoints them with a 100BB swing, as all the other books they bought 'seem' to do, they'll abandon it to the bookshelf, see that hellmuth was on tv touting his bracelets, then pick up his book again. After all, who is this Ed Miller guy anyways, and how many bracelets has he won? The dust will collect, the games will be good.

The great percentage of players out there do not have the longterm mental make-up or strength or drive to beat the game. Most want to just have fun and play a lil' cards and go home with a story about a huge pot they were involved in. Or yap about how someone sucked out on them with a longshot beating a hand that they shouldn't have been in with anyways.

b

[AdamL]

There is an upside to the books too. They are attracting players to the games.

Some people don't study them but believe the books will make them winning players nontheless. Or, they absorb the idea that you can beat hold'em without absorbing how you can beat it.

The television series' have been fantastic too.

I wonder if those making a living playing Hold'em will still be able to do so in 5+ years when the trend falls.

Edit -- if the trend falls. But that is another thread! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The tighter the preflop advice, the less profitable the games will be in general after the influence of the book

[/ QUOTE ]

You wait them out. Many will get bored playing tight, wanting to be 'part' of the action. One cause is because they never learn how to watch a hand they're not directly involved in only seeing the result of the hand.

The 'general' profitability will go up after the 'influence' or 'fad/trend' of play has passed. People in general crave action, not sitting and folding pretty picture cards and suited cards that they see winning pots regularly from losing players.

b

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
What if everyone played a little like Ed Miller, but badly?

[/ QUOTE ]


You mean like me??

Seriously, I don't fit the profile in your post, but I do fit the general outline of 'plays a little like Ed but too loose'.
Thankfully, I play a little closer to Ed's style then your post.


[ QUOTE ]
In fact, believe it or not, but I wrote my book with the intention of it being somewhat "idiot-proof."

[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly how it came across to me. So simple that even I could get it!!
I was surprised at some of the misinterpretations I have seen in some posts here. Example: 6d5h counting their backdoor-flush "out" with 2 diamonds on the board (I've seen this a couple of times actually).

Fortunately, there are plenty of extremely kind folks on here to oh-so delicately inform these poor, misinofmred souls how completely stupid they are.


[ QUOTE ]
I believe that anyone who sticks to my starting guidelines, but who plays way too loose and aggressive post-flop will be a WINNER in the Party $3-$6 game. Not a big winner, but a winner nonetheless.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think I am proof of this actually.
I don't know if I am WAY WAY too loose and aggressive....but definitely still on the loose side (especially with unimproved overcards). I'm still beating these games fairly consistently even with all the flaws in my game.



[ QUOTE ]
Throwing in a loose raise here and there with middle pair is NOT a big mistake. Playing pocket deuces under the gun in an aggressive game is NOT a big mistake. Calling down in a medium-sized pot with a hand that is a little light is NOT a big mistake.


[/ QUOTE ]


This is an especially interesting point.

Frankly, some of the plays that I am making now and that SSHE advocates making (such as the Q7s hand at the intro of a chapter where you should raise) are so aggressive that I previously (in my ultra weak-tight days) would have assumed that it was really "bad" poker to make a play like this.
If you don't know any better....super-aggro sure looks like awful poker.

That's part of the beauty of it....so many think it's terribly idiotic to play in such a fashion when, in fact, it is the ideal way to play.

[Malcom Reynolds]

It's true. And I think that a lot of players out there are looking for a get-rich-quick scheme when they buy these books. They don't want to know that with 100BB upswings and downswings they should be happy if they can make 1BB/hour, or less than minimum wage on a low limit table.

Oh yeah, and it's not memorizing some charts like in Blackjack. No, more like you have to think and work hard for that $4/hour.

So they buy the book. Skim it and the only thing they get out of it is "play tight" so instead of playing any two cards, they play any two suited or any Kx, Qx, Ax, get frustrated that the book doesn't work, and go back to their old ways.

It makes me wonder what mindset we all could possibly have been in to somehow surpass that point and get here. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[sublime]

I wouldnt sweat it at all.

Even when I play horrid (and i usually know it at the time /images/graemlins/frown.gif) I am still playing better than my opponents.

[sfer]

If everyone gets the preflop limping/raising standards half right games would quickly become terrible.

[AceHigh]

They all think you are some loose/aggressive player, after reading your book. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

(That's why Clarkmeister is always sitting in your games.)

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
They are misguided in their level of play and like to gamble it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a majority of casual players continue to believe that poker is basically an even-money game... whoever gets the best cards will win.

You can tell some people that it's a skill game as many times as you like, and they won't understand why.

Of course, not telling them at all is the best strategy. Gamb00l!

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
While I know that SSH has sold a lot of copies, I honestly do not think a lot of the poor players you go up against do much or any study of poker literature at all. I think a pretty big part of the party population do not have the desire to put the that kind of effort into their game. They are misguided in their level of play and like to gamble it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

And everyone remember...lets not tell them any different!