Internet Texas Hold'em : Starting Hands ( pg. 73 - 108 )

[Billy Zee]

Introduction :
Strength of Starting Cards
Position
Number of Callers
Type of Game ( Loose /Tight,Passive /Aggressive )
Raised / Unraised Pot
Type of Opponents
Table Image
Strength of Your Own Play


Starting Hands
Beginning / Intermediate Players :

Early Position :
Unraised Pots
Raised Pots

Middle Position :
Unraised Pots
Raised Pots

Late Position :
Unraised Pots
Raised Pots

The Blinds :
Unraised Pots
Raised Pots
Small Blind vs. Big Blind

Starting Hands
Advanced Concepts :

Early Position :
Number of Callers
Raised Pots
Deceptive Plays

Middle Position :
Raised Pots

Late Position :
Raised Pots
Deceptive Plays

The Blinds :
Raised Pots
Small Blind vs. Big Blind


I have been constantly reminded that to play too many hands is to invite Bankroll Destruction. Seeing approximately 20% of Flops is condusive to being a winning player. And that AA is the best you can have to start a hand. Is it that simple ?? I have been using ITH's Starting Hands Chart now for roughly 3 weeks. It has improved my play, especially when deciding to defend my Blinds. Hopefully the discussion to follow will improve my play further.

Let the discussion begin ...

[skirtus]

I found the chart to be very helpful in several areas. I like how Matt lists the number of limpers needed to call with suited connectors in middle and late position. I was always unsure of this prior to seeing this chart. The charts for calling raises out of the blinds was helpful also. I was folding too many hands from the blinds to a raise.

[skirtus]

One area Im trying to improve on is raising first in from MP and LP. These situations dont come up that frequently at .50-1.00 but as I progress I will see these opportunities more often. Im thinking of color coding my chart so any hand in red would be a call but a raise first in. For example, A10o in LP. I would normally just call with 1-2 limpers but raise first in. Anyone have good recommendations on hands to do this with. I basically just raise hands that prefer shorthanded pots if Im first in.

[Leavenfish]

Skirtus,

I have an excellent example and very clean lay-out of how to do this. Give me a day or two to get to the disk I keep these on and I'll email a sample to you.
BTW, Thanks to Billy Zee for taking up the slack and moving this thread forward! Hopefully we can stay on topic this time... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

--Leavenfish

[jeffnc]

Some general comments. First, I believe the starting hand charts are the best anywhere. I don't say this because of the specific recommendations (which is not to say they're wrong.) I say this because of the layout. These are the only charts that give you a decision based on position, raises, and number of players in the pot. You don't have to slog through 30 pages of "if this then do that, but then again if that do this", as you might find in HPFAP or WLLH. There is another good chart in the otherwise unremarkable book Hold'Em Excellence by Krieger, but ITH charts are still better. I highly recommend them for any beginner/intermediate player.

Second, as to the quality of the recommendations, I'm not a pro but I can say they are at least good. As Ed Miller points out (quite correctly IMO), there can be too much emphasis on starting hands, and endless trivial debate about fringe conditions is probably fruitless. I think we could talk about a few controversial cases, but I think it won't make any noticeable difference to your bottom line, while play after the flop will. Like any recommendations such as in HPFAP or SSH, they will give you an advantage over the vast majority of players you face, at least at the low and middle internet limits.

Third, I think it's important to note the context in which any book is written. I think all experienced players have noticed that the play has become looser over the past year or 2 - looser than when the book was first conceived. The book is geared toward what Matthew calls "typical" players, and most of the hand examples are from "high" limits like
$15/30. So it would not necessarily be wrong to make adjustments for looser games. Although Matthew does address this in the "advanced" starting hand chapter, it is not really addressed in the charts. To make this adjustment, I'd recommend first reading SSH if you're at that stage. Then if you'd still like to use the charts, you can, for example, just go straight to the middle position chart when you are playing in early position. You might also consider raising some hands such as ATs as recommended by Miller in loose games with weak players. Of course certain plays like this will happen automatically if you follow the charts, because you will now be raising first in like the chart recommends, just from an earlier position.

[DrNo888]

Please add me to the email list!

Thanks!

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

There's a lot of statements in this section that I disagree with. Even though I stated that I didn't want to do this because I'm not in the business of improving other authors work, I've decided to list out a few of these anyway.

Page 85 concerning calling raises from the big blind against a lone opponent:

[ QUOTE ]
Other hands to consider calling against a lone or early position raiser include: TT, 99, any two suited T and above, AQ, AJ, AT, Axs, KQ, K9s, QJ, and QT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Page 98 concerning early position play:

[ QUOTE ]
If you are playing in a loose passive game and there has already been one or two callers, you can play a few more hands such as 66, 55, KTs, QTs, and JTs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Page 99 concerning early position

[ QUOTE ]
You can either call or reraise with JJ or AQs depending on the circumstances. With JJ, you should reraise against a weak player in a tight game if you think you can isolate him. Tend to only call if the game is loose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Page 100 concerning middle position:

[ QUOTE ]
Hands to consider reraising against a lone middle position raiser include JJ, TT, 99, AQs, AQ, AJs, and AJ

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to let others comment on these before I come back to them. Also, this is the last time (at the moment) I intend to address this book.

Best wishes,
Mason

[DrNo888]

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Double posts are bad!

[DrNo888]

Is that a promise? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Rudbaeck]

He is alot too tight in early position.

Folding JTs in early position in an average game is not right. He adds this hand when the game is loose and passive, but by then you should be adding hands like Axs, baby pocket pairs, 98s etc.

Opencalling JJ in EP is not a good play at any limit that I can think of.

Calling an EP raise while in EP yourself with AQo has to be a negative expectation. Exactly which hand that the raiser had do you figure to beat? (Especially if the raiser plays by Hilger's chart as well, then you are coldcalling with a hand inferior to ALL hands but one of the raiser's possible hands. To coldcall you need a hand that beats more than half of the raiser's hand while at the same time not being strong enough to three-bet. This is quite a narrow field.)

Interestingly enough Hilger advocates playing A7s in EP if there has already been a caller, but says to fold JTs in the same situation.


Middle position:
Too little raising going on here. There is especially too much open-limping here.

I don't think I ever open-limp 99 in MP, and I doubt very many of the other small stakes players here do either. Unfortunately I have no clue if it's correct to open-limp 99 in a 30/60 game, but I doubt it.

Raise limpers with JJ, KQs and quite possibly TT as well.


Late position:
Way, way too little raising going on here.

Limping on the button with JTs after three limpers is giving up alot. Raise high suited cards here. JTs, KQs, QJs. Ok, he has you raising KQs if there is one limper but calling if there is more.


Blinds:
I feel that blind defense isn't covered in nearly enough depth. A couple of paragraphs isn't enough about this, especially not in tighter games. Attacking and defending blinds properly is the difference between being a significant loser and a break-even player in many cases.

Preflop play is very, very passive. You really need to take control of the pot early with good hands, and pump it for your drawing hands.

In advancced pre-flop strategy he touches upon more raising, but never comes through with the concept.

I'd guesstimate that his recommendations for preflop raising leaves you at maybe 3-5% preflop raise, while you should be at 8-10% preflop raise.

[Billy Zee]

For a beginning player such as myself, I find the EP hands to open about right. I've mentioned this before, Lou Krieger in his " Internet Poker - How to Play and Beat Online Poker Games " , recommends the following on pg 53, " Play few hands from early position. You'll throw some hands away, but you'll save money. " I have taken this advice to heart and since the Charts are for Beginners/Intermediate Players, I don't come in even when I do get some of the hands listed in the charts. It depends on how early I am into the game and most importantly , what am I playing ... SnG, MTT or Ring.

Billy Zee

[Billy Zee]

I want him in this discussion. His opinions are just that, opinions but, he is an accomplished Hold'em player and noted Author. As with any discussion I am in, saying it doesn't make it so. I am old enough to draw my own conclusions even though I am a beginner.

The Internet is a vast library and 2+2 is but a grain of sand on it's beach. Whoa ... philosophic or what ??

Regards

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Zee:

I hope you don't mind if I call you Zee. You see, we have our own Zee on Two Plus Two, our beloved Ray Zee, but he rarely makes it over to this forum. But if you were interested in skinning a bear or hiking through the woods, Ray Zee is the man. So now you'll be a second Zee. (I hope Bruce Z doesn't mind since this lowers him to a third Zee. But Ray Zee is definitely Numer One Zee.)

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
I find the EP hands to open about right. I've mentioned this before, Lou Krieger in his " Internet Poker - How to Play and Beat Online Poker Games " ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I know it's been exposed that I don't really play poker, but I do occasionally get to talk to some people (like our own Zee aka Number One Zee) who are knowledgeable about the game. All I need to see is your quote above to know that, well, you are a beginner and you have a way to go. Nothing wrong with that, we all (except for me since I don't play) had to start somewhere.

Now with that being said, when some of the more knowledgeable people on these forums question certain advice, I suggest that you read it carefully and try to understand what they are saying.

Now to be specific. My rating of the Krieger book that you mention was a 4. This compares to a 7 that I gave Hilger.

Here's the first paragraph of my review of the above Krieger book.

[ QUOTE ]
Despite the title, this book is aimed at complete beginners, and much of the advice, particularly in hold ’em, is extremely weak. For instance, the table of starting hands is much too loose, particularly for a novice. This includes advice to play ace-ten offsuit and queen-ten offsuit in early position; or any suited queen (for only a limp) in late position. The authors also need to understand that ace-king is not necessarily a drawing hand, and “fit or fold” on the flop is not at all accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Best wishes,
Mason

[Billy Zee]

My Zee comes from my last name ... Zimmerman so I have no problem being in the same company of Ray Zee. /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

And I believe we ALL now know that you have played a " Little " bit of Hold'em . /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I am definitely a Beginner and I bought Lous book when I first started playing. ( 3 months ago ) I am no stranger to Poker however as I am Retired Navy and have played a bit here and there.

I intend to absorb as much as possible, never losing sight of the fact that I am a Newbie and not as knowledgeable as others. This will not, however , keep me from interjecting what is working for me, especially since the Charts are aimed at players such as I. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Regards

[Billy Zee]

The following info has been made available from the Author. Matthew Hilger :



How did you come up with the Starting Hand charts?





Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:35 am Post subject: How did you come up with the Starting Hand charts?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Writing the starting hand chapters took quite a lot of time and research. I worked very hard at organizing the material and working on the charts so that they could be easy to understand, but at the same time comprehensive.

With that said, I generated the Starting Hand requirements primarily through three different means:
1/ PokerStat - I played over 60,000 hands at Paradise and PokerStat allowed me to effectively evaluate the expectation of every starting hand I played. I was also able to filter the results by including how many players had called. Of course, I was also able to look at results by position.
2/ Pokerroom gives you access to their starting hand database of over 60 million hands (see Recommended Links). It is important to note that the results shown there are for good and bad players, but very interesting nevertheless.
3/ Experience. Even with 60,000 hands in the PokerStat database, this was not enough to get complete results.

I did not use any computer simulations to derive the starting hands. I believe actual live play gives a better indication than a simulation.

One thing to keep in mind, there are a lot of borderline starting hands which have an expection very close to 0. A lot of this depends a lot on how well you play after the flop. The charts are 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) since many beginning to intermediate players are playing on a limited bankroll.

Advanced players can play a few more hands than the Charts show which is discussed in detail in my Advanced Concepts chapter on Starting Hands in the book.

One final point. I have noticed that a lot of beginning players spend a lot of time on starting hand play (myself included when starting out).
"Should I call or raise with AA preflop?"
"Can I play Axs from early position?"
"Can I call with 76s with two callers instead of three."

The fact is, there are a lot of borderline decisions in regards to starting hand play that will not make a significant impact on your overall results. Of course, your first goal in Hold'em is to understand basic starting hand play...the charts do this for you. Once you understand this, you will gain a lot more by focusing on your post-flop play than worrying whether 76s is profitable with two callers or three callers.

There is not a lot to gain by playing a few more hands, but there is a lot to lose for beginning players who don't know how to play these borderline hands. Bottomline when starting out, stick to tight preflop play and focus on your post-flop strategy.

[Billy Zee]

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 2:37 pm Post subject: I like raising with JJ from early position but...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I receive a lot of questions about how to play JJ and why I recommend limping from early position in the starting hand charts in my book. There is a very good argument for raising but just limping does several things for beginning players.

Realize first that the starting hand charts in my book are intended for beginning to intermediate players. The goal is to reduce volatility in earnings (standard deviations) while putting players in profitable situations where they can avoid tough decisions. Most beginners have a limited bankroll and by limping this will help them avoid large swings.

Also, beginning players tend to make mistakes with this hand when an A, K, or Q flops which is another reason for beginning players to limp. When someone recommends Raise to a beginning player, they have a tendency to play the hands too strongly after the flop.

Nevertheless, I also state some exceptions in the text to the starting hand charts. Page 81 says...You can raise with JJ if the game is rather tight; otherwise, it is better to just call in a loose game.

Even beginners should raise from early position in tight games but in loose games you are generally aiming to hit a set. As far as profit expection, raising or limping in loose games is quite close but limping minimizes standard deviation which I believe is helpful for beginning players.

Once players start to gain more experience so that they know better what to do after the flop then you should start raising more often with JJ.

[Billy Zee]

Posts: 2606
Location: Atlanta, GeJoined: 30 Jun 2003orgia
Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 10:27 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J, to some extent you are right but there are also reasons why I recommend what I recommend, .

There has been a lot of discussion about my starting hand charts. I think one of the reasons they have created a lot of debate is that my charts are designed for beginning/intermediate players while charts in other books are often designed toward "optimal" strategy.

The problem is that only advanced players can truly play the hands optimally, and if you think about it, advanced players don't really need starting hand charts. The truth is that beginning players should play fewer hands than advanced players until they develop the post-flop experience to be able to play more hands profitably. Many beginning players also have a problem with a limited bankroll which needs to be protected.

My charts are designed to keep beginning/intermediate players in profitable situations while also minimizing their fluctuations with a limited bankroll. With this goal in mind, there was a lot of judgment that went into designing the guidelines. For example, I can play this hand profitably, but can a beginner? Where/how do I define the cutoff in experience level. This took a lot of judgment from my part.

Your question focuses on passivity. It is very important to learn aggressive play, but at the same time, there is a downside to it. For example, if one play is slightly more profitable than another play, but this play increases your fluctuations, I prefer the more conservative approach for players with a limited bankroll. There are a lot of players who sit down at poker for the first time with $50, $100, or $200. The worst thing that can happen is for them to lose it all. There is higher chance this can happen with aggressive play. Of course you don't want to give up too much in profitability either. Obviously raising with AA will protect a player's bankroll more than just limping. There is a tradeoff and I had to use my best judgment when deciding between these tradeoffs.

One final point. If you look at all of the hands I recommend raising with, they are not too difficult to play after the flop. When you raise with JJ or TT, these hands are often difficult to play so they can get beginners in trouble. There is this ego thing that I had when starting out and I believe a lot of players have when they raise preflop...they want to control the hand after the flop no matter what. A lot of beginning players make the mistake that because they raised preflop they ought to bet or raise the flop. A couple of posters in this thread have even recognized this weakness in their game. Hopefully my starting hand guidelines prevent beginning players from making these types of mistakes as often.

So my charts are guidelines. The Advanced Concepts chapter talks about how you begin to stray from those guidelines. Some have asked me, when can I start to move from the charts to the Advanced Concepts chapter? I think every beginner should put in at least a few hundred hours before doing so. As many have said, you really should concentrate more on your post-flop play before worrying a lot about little things here and there for starting hand play. I can assure you that you will be able to make plenty of money following my guidelines. If you have an unlimited bankroll you can also afford to take a more aggressive approach to maximize those profitable opportunities.

Wait...one more final point, ...My charts were also designed for the "typical" game on the Internet for small limits up to the high limits. The number of callers feature helps the player adjust between loose and tight games. The truth is, the typical Internet game has loosened up significantly since when I wrote the book a couple of years ago. This is true even at the higher limits. With more bad players playing at an average table there are more profitable opportunities. Therefore, beginning players could play a few more hands today than they probably could a couple of years ago.

For example, I would have no problem recommending that players limp in with small pairs like 55 and 66 from early position in a "typical" game you find on the net nowadays. There are also situations now with 5, 6, or even 7 callers from late position in many of the games at the micro-limits. My guidelines don't really address these types of situations since it was just not very common to find games with more than 5 callers a couple of years ago. I suspect there are also more situations where one can raise a little more. I'm planning a 2nd edition of the book for late next year and will be reviewing the guidelines/charts in detail for that edition. Of course I also need to consider the usability of the charts as I don't want them to become too complicated.

Matthew

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Zee:

What is your point?

Here's a quote from page 25 of HPFAP:

[ QUOTE ]
One hand that we have not yet addressed is a pair of jacks in the pocket. If no one has opened and you are in an early position, it is usually best to raise with JJ in a tight game and to just call with it in a loose game. With two jacks you would prefer either to have no more than one or two opponents in the hope that your hand holds up without improvement, or to have as many opponents as possible when the majority of your profits come from flopping three-of-a-kind. The worst scenario is when exactly three or four opponents see the flop with you. This most likely would occur if you called in a tight game or raised in a loose game.

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, in the original edition of HPFAP which was published in 1988 a similar paragraph appears.

Best wishes,
Mason

[niin]

I think any intermediate to beyond player would agree that some of the suggestions in the ITH charts are too tight. But the book is geared more towards starting players, and not putting them in uncomfortable situations. Once players learn how to play better post-flop, they can start being more aggressive ala SSH's advice, which is geared towards more advanced play.

But for a beginning to just at intermediate player, it's important they not get themselves into trouble early on.

[Billy Zee]

No point except what is written in the subject /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Regards
Billy Zee

[Billy Zee]

A number of people are saying the same thing to me. Enough that I have ordered SSH and eagerly await it arrival.
I believe it is also the next book to be discussed here. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Zee:

Well it looked to me that the point you were trying to make is that Hilger spent an amazing amount of hours doing research using PokerStat, Pokerroom, and his own incredible experience.

We didn't use any of that. All we did was understand the underlying theory of the game, and we produced the same information that Hilger came up with many years later all the way back in 1988. (Actually, it came from our private notes that David and I developed in 1986.)

By the way, I believe, until ITH, that this specific advice on how to play two jacks never appeared any place else.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Billy Zee]

It is what is is . /images/graemlins/smile.gif A History . /images/graemlins/smile.gif My hat is off to the Man himself ... Doyle Brunson /images/graemlins/smile.gif) He learned the real hard way. 71 yrs old and still beatin' up the tables. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Hmmm, I gotta get Super System 2 also.

Okee ... back to the ITH Discussion. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Regards
Billy Zee

[TwoNiner]

Mason, what's the problem here with this quote? That it doesn't include all pocket pairs? "Page 98 concerning early position play:


If you are playing in a loose passive game and there has already been one or two callers, you can play a few more hands such as 66, 55, KTs, QTs, and JTs.
".......

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]

Page 98 concerning early position play:

If you are playing in a loose passive game and there has already been one or two callers, you can play a few more hands such as 66, 55, KTs, QTs, and JTs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,
While I followed ITH's opening hand suggestions early on, I no longer do so for various reasons...mainly because I find them too loose in certain situations for the kind of games I play. Still, I can't help but wonder something:

As SSH suggest that in "loose Games" you can play these very same hands in early position, I will be interested in hearing your beef with Hilgers suggestion.

---Leavenfish

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi fish:

I have two problems with this statement. The first is the obvious one that in loose passive games, all pairs can be played in this spot.

The second is mort subtle. It is the implication that in more typical games you shouldn't be playing KTs, QTs, and JTS. Generally speaking, I play all of these hands up front if there is no raise in most games. But once there are already one or two callers, I'll even play them in the tough aggressive games.

By the way, while there are games where I will throw away KTs and QTs up front for no raise. I'm virtually never folding JTs in early position if the pot is not yet raised.

One of the reasons for this is that even if you knew for sure that these hands, for some particular game, were slightly unprofitable, you would still want to play them to help balance the other hands you play in early position. It's also good to be seen winning a pot occasionally from an early position with a hand weaker than aces, kings, or ace-king.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi fish:

I have two problems with this statement. The first is the obvious one that in loose passive games, all pairs can be played in this spot.



[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,
So Hilger says you can add hands such as 66,55 as the games get looser but doesn't doesn't come right out and suggest one go as low as you would suggest...it's a recommendation for beginning to intermediate players looking to add a few more hands once they begin to get better.

I think the point is that as a beginning/intermediate player, your post flop play is going to be rather poor so you should probably shy away from hands that are closer to the borderline of what might result in bigger bankroll swings and stick with the better ones until you have developed your abilities. Hilger has constantly pointed this out as his reasoning behind much of what he recommends.

You know, he doesn't actually say anything like, "Never play 22-44 even if you are an excellent player--it's a bad play". Why does he stop at 55 in early position? I believe it is for the reasons mentioned above. Until you get to be much better, there is a very good chance that all manner of things can happen yet in the hand that would lead you astray too often for it to be profitable.

Serious question: For a beginning to intermediate player that you are tutoring, do you suggest he play the same hands you play, even though his post-flop play is light years away from yours? I would not think so but I could be wrong.

When I am teaching someone chess, I do not show him how I go about squeezing the most out of the middlegame; I give him basic tools and lead him that way. As he gets better, I'll push that idea of getting the absolute maximum out of a position. If I tried that too early, he would get frustrated and despondent over the losses that would result from trying to run before he can walk.

But back to poker. Can you prove that 22-44 is profitable for the beginning to intermediate player who is beginning to get better but by no means a whiz at post flop play? I seriously doubt it. Me, well I usually do play 22-44 in the games mentioned but I believe I have progressed to that point...thanks to Mr. Hilger and yes, many books I have read from 2+2.

Thanks,
Leavenfish

[fred22]

[ QUOTE ]

I have two problems with this statement. The first is the obvious one that in loose passive games, all pairs can be played in this spot.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mason, I'm confused about your statement also.

Seems to me that Hilger is saying you can play 55 & 66(not any pair) in early position with 1 or 2 callers(advanced players only), where SSHE is saying to play any pair in this same position. (page 82 - "If there is no raise, any pocket pair"). ?

[fred22]

[ QUOTE ]

The second is mort subtle. It is the implication that in more typical games you shouldn't be playing KTs, QTs, and JTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's the implication from ITH. ITH is saying to play KTs,QTs & JTs from EP with 1 or 2 callers. (Page 98 ITH)

Also, I think a lot of people don't seem to realize that the starting charts in ITH are explicity for beginners. Hilger states this time and again. He has an "Advanced Chapter" for starting hands that "allows" advanced players to play more hands.

A lot of people seem to always say that the ITH starting hands are way too tight. I think people who say this might not be reading the "Advanced" chapter that follows his charts.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi fish:

One of the nice things about limit hold 'em is that an expert player can quickly tell which of his opponents understands the game and is dangerous and who does not. The same is true when I either read a post or read a book.

You need to understand what I'm about to state because the above applies to you. (Please don't take this personally.)

First off, in a game where you expect to get many opponents in a pot and they are already starting to come in, if you play a small pair you're only going to win if you make at least a set. So there is essentially no difference between a pair of deuces and a pair of sixes. (Yes I'm aware of set over set which virtually never happens and I'm aware of the possibility that you might make a straight and win.)

Second off, when you play one of these hands, if you don't flop a set, you fold, and if you do flop a set you either bet or raise. So a novice will play this hand just like an expert.

Now when I read in a book such as ITH the advice I referenced, it's clear to me that the author doesn't understand how these simple hands even play, and obviously neither do you. But that's okay in your case, that's what these forums are for. However, I don't believe it's okay for the author.

In these threads, I've been criticized for not giving non-Two Plus Two books my highest ratings. Here is an example why.

Also, I hope either you or some of our other posters will take a shot at the other passages I quoted. Then I'll respond to those.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi fred:

While the advice here is certainly too tight, in many other spots it is way too loose. Hint: Look at my four quotes.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The second is mort subtle. It is the implication that in more typical games you shouldn't be playing KTs, QTs, and JTS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's the implication from ITH. ITH is saying to play KTs,QTs & JTs from EP with 1 or 2 callers. (Page 98 ITH)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's unprofitable even for an utter newbie to open limp these in EP. But it's not a huge sin to fold them, as long as you add them back soon enough.

But I do think it's a major drain on the earnings for newbies not to raise way more before the flop than Hilger recommends. As it stands the newbie is telegraphing his holdings to the table whenever he makes a raise, as well as missing alot of value raising when he clearly has the best of it.

Not even in advanced concept does he touch upon value raising good hands after several limpers. If you are on the button and four people have limped it's an obviously profitable move to raise JTs, and it won't get you into any extra trouble. (Actually the most likely trouble it will get someone into is that the newbie will fold when he shouldn't!)

There is too little raising in the main chapter, and significantly too little raising in the advanced chapter. The advanced chapter should have been much more thorough. Giving newbies a foolproof (if weak) preflop strategy so they can get into the postflop play is ok, if you return and fix that strategy later on. Unfortunately the advanced chapter isn't advanced at all.

[TwoNiner]

Wow, so Hilger is calling Ax(s) from the big blind heads up against an early position raiser? Crap advice.

[Billy Zee]

Have you written any " Limit/NL " books for beginners such as I. I believe in keeping an extensive library, as I may be a beginner for some time. ( bankroll limitations, time constraints and old age to name a few. )

Regards
Billy Zee

[Billy Zee]

Today is my birthday, and as a present, my wife and I are going to Bossier City for the weekend. I hope that you will all play nice while I'm gone, and the next part of this discussion , " The Flop I " , will begin as scheduled on Monday. Have a GREAT weekend and ... " May all your hands be Monsters "

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Zee:

One is on the way. It's tentatively called Getting Started in Hold 'em. Ed Miller is the author. It will cover both limit and no limit.

best wishes,
Mason

[Billy Zee]

Sounds good. Thank you. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


Regards
Billy Zee

[cov47]

In looking at the sections Mason is talking about, the one that jumps out at me is the list of calls from the big blind against a lone EP raise. I'm no expert, but these look like recipes for disaster. Any sane EP raiser is going to dominate most of these hands - they will frequently have AK or a high pair. If you do hit a set with 99 (or beat an unimproved AK with it), hit a flush with K9s, etc, there's only one guy to pay you off. Granted, even at 3/6 I find people open raising A3o UTG, but unless I have a read that the EP raiser is loose, I'm not anxious to play a heads up game vs an EP raiser with anything but a premium hand.

The rest of the quoted passages don't really bother me. I'm assuming some people think they should. Some is a bit tighter than I play, some a bit looser, but I don't think anyone is going to have a huge problem if they follow these recommendations. Really I haven't read the book and don't have any context for what Hilger intends exactly.

Also a general comment: basing what cards you play on what Pokerroom tells you isn't that great. Pokerroom doesn't tell you how good the cards are, it tells you how good average people are at playing them. I don't want to play like an average player. Players are losing tons of money with A4o because they're playing it too much, but is there really any circumstance in which you'd rather have 93o? There's also a lesson here about sample size. Look at the line on pokerroom for 22. From position 7, it's a winner. From 8, it's a loser; from 9, a winner again. 22 has probably been dealt hundreds of times in those stats - shows you how little your personal PT stats mean.

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
22 has probably been dealt hundreds of times in those stats....

[/ QUOTE ]

Cards EV Count
22 -0.09 553,171

[cov47]

Well, you do have to consider how many times it's been dealt in a full game in a particular position, which will be somewhat less. But yes, "thousands" was a far better word to pick. I have seen people though who get into saying things like "33 is a huge loser for me from LP," because they were dealt 33 in LP a total of 15 times and happened to lose set over set once - that's the bigger point I'm trying to get at.

[Leavenfish]

Mason,

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

I understand what you are saying: 22 is idiot proof. Perhaps you are right on that and intuitively it has always made sense to me, though I have not seen anyone advance any data to support the claim. I’m not even sure one can because each hand is situational.

Like I said, I play it myself these days but I have to say that my profit seems to edge closer to borderline the lower the pairs become in EP. It’s not by too terribly much though, but perhaps there is a reason for that?

I would think that there is still a reason for caution to the relatively inexperienced player because while he may be playing at a table that is ‘loose’, that doesn’t guarantee that he is always playing in a hand where he can be sure to get enough callers for this particular play.

Internet play (what Hilgers book is all about) is much more fast paced and people come and go much more frequently (certainly at the .50/$1 tables I frequent!) than in a B&M (and a number of players try to multi-table as well leading to missing things) so a tables complexion can change rather quickly. It’s a bit like driving in New Orleans: One moment you are amongst the wealthy homes in the Garden District, the next…you are reaching to lock your door!

I’m just not sure that a relatively inexperienced player is going to always pay attention to such factors as this and might find themselves playing 22-44 at times when perhaps he should not…so I guess I’m disagreeing that it’s fully idiot proof though intrinsically it should lean that way.

Now, I do not want to presume to speak for Hilger but perhaps these kinds of thought line his thinking process on the matter. Now granted, I think he could and should have fleshed out out his ‘advanced concepts’ better here and said that one could consider playing ANY pkt pair in the right situation. But as a sort of text book for the aspiring player, I’m not sure one needs to quibble over the fact that while he says you can loosen up, gives some example hands and the reasons you can now play them, but doesn’t actually come out and recommend going all the way down to 22-44 can be explained by some of the reasons I mentioned. I do not know for sure why he stopped at 55. At least he doesn’t recommend 'against' it as you get better. Me, I’ll continue to play them—in the right situations.

---Leavenfish

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel that blind defense isn't covered in nearly enough depth. A couple of paragraphs isn't enough about this, especially not in tighter games. Attacking and defending blinds properly is the difference between being a significant loser and a break-even player in many cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree - I'd like to see more about blind play and heads up play between late position players. But you were talking earlier about "small stakes players". Attacking and defending your blinds in typical internet small stakes games is not the difference between break even and winning. See how much space SSH allocates to this. The book is not focused on small stakes games anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd guesstimate that his recommendations for preflop raising leaves you at maybe 3-5% preflop raise, while you should be at 8-10% preflop raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you put it in context of what he has to say in the rest of the book, it's probably more like 7%. Whether you should be at 9 or 10% and in what type of game is debatable.

[Noo Yawk]

Page 85 concerning calling raises from the big blind against a lone opponent:

[ QUOTE ]
Other hands to consider calling against a lone or early position raiser include: TT, 99, any two suited T and above, AQ, AJ, AT, Axs, KQ, K9s, QJ, and QT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling early position raises with hands like QJ and QT will get you into a lot of trouble, unless you know the player will raise a wide range of hands. If the author is trying to keep players out of trouble as some have suggested, than this is not the way to do it. Particualrly if the original raiser is a tight player. You need to consider who is doing the raising. I know alot of players that limp under the gun with hands stronger than A-J or Q-J.

Page 98 concerning early position play:

[ QUOTE ]
If you are playing in a loose passive game and there has already been one or two callers, you can play a few more hands such as 66, 55, KTs, QTs, and JTs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing any pair down to 22's is a no brainer in loose-passive games, as is playing suited connectors down through 6-7 and suited aces. The implication of loose-passive games is that you will have many players and the ability to draw at straights and flushs cheaply post flop. In other words you get cheap shots at huge pots. Passing up this type of opportunity in loose-passive games is not going to get you the big wins these games net smart players.

I won't get into why 22's and 66's are the same hand or why JTs can be played in tighter more aggressive games, as Mason has already covered that.

Page 99 concerning early position

[ QUOTE ]
You can either call or reraise with JJ or AQs depending on the circumstances. With JJ, you should reraise against a weak player in a tight game if you think you can isolate him. Tend to only call if the game is loose.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should be re-raising these hands virtually every time, as you would want to try and get these hand heads up or at least as short handed a possible. In loose games if everyone still comes in then you have hands that also play well in a big multi-way pot. You also need to learn how to protect these hands post-flop.
Get your full value out of these hands. They don't come up often enough.

Page 100 concerning middle position:

[ QUOTE ]
Hands to consider reraising against a lone middle position raiser include JJ, TT, 99, AQs, AQ, AJs, and AJ

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on who's doing the original raising. Against some players you should also consider folding some of these hands. Particularly the off-suit hands like AQ and AJ.

As an aside, I have not read the book, so I'm not sure how the author suggests playing these hands post flop, or in what context they were intended. I do believe that from what Mason has posted, the pre-flop advice has you passing up too many good opportunities, while at the same time putting you in situations that will cost you without explaining why. Most authors of poker books leave out the why's because they're not sure themselves.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree - I'd like to see more about blind play and heads up play between late position players. But you were talking earlier about "small stakes players". Attacking and defending your blinds in typical internet small stakes games is not the difference between break even and winning. See how much space SSH allocates to this. The book is not focused on small stakes games anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blind defense is much more important if you play for higher stakes. You'll be attacking blinds more often and with worse hands at 15/30 than you will at 3/6.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd guesstimate that his recommendations for preflop raising leaves you at maybe 3-5% preflop raise, while you should be at 8-10% preflop raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you put it in context of what he has to say in the rest of the book, it's probably more like 7%. Whether you should be at 9 or 10% and in what type of game is debatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I re-read the advanced chapter and don't see how he can reach that high.

I've only played up to 5/10 online, and only up to 3/6 with any real regularity. And at these stakes, as well as up to maybe 10/20 live you definitely want to be raising ~9% of your hands.

But instead of discussing what percentage it would leave us at we can conclude that he basically doesn't value raise multiple limpers at all. Not raising JTs on the button after four limpers is giving up alot.

He also advocates merely calling QQ after multiple limpers for fear of an ace or king flopping. (In the advanced section to boot.) That this is wrong is pretty trivial for anyone to see.

It's the best newbie book out there. Still, there should be more on which advice is geared toward a 15/30 game with opponents who know what they are doing and what is geared to a 2/4 game with opponents who can't figure out if they just made a straight or not.

[Rudbaeck]

Page 73 discussion

Hilger says "In general players should only be playing 15% to 25% of their hands. This varies depending if the game is loose or tight, but in either case, playing fewer hands than your opponents is a big advantage."

One part of this statement is wrong. Which part and why?

[Rudbaeck]

Exchange "~9%" for ">8%". Edit time is over.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
I re-read the advanced chapter and don't see how he can reach that high. I've only played up to 5/10 online, and only up to 3/6 with any real regularity. And at these stakes, as well as up to maybe 10/20 live you definitely want to be raising ~9% of your hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm at 8% myself in 3/6 and 5/10 games. The difficult thing about figuring this out is we're not taking the number of players at the table into account. Basically, the book assumes a full ring table of 10 players. But obviuosly sometimes we're sitting at tables with 9, 8, 7 and on down - your stats might include all the way down to 3 or 4 players, where obviously you will be raising much more.

[ QUOTE ]
He also advocates merely calling QQ after multiple limpers for fear of an ace or king flopping. (In the advanced section to boot.) That this is wrong is pretty trivial for anyone to see.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have the book in front of me, but I'm not sure where you got this. In the charts, it suggests reraising all limpers and raisers with QQ in any position, regardless of the number of players in the pot. Basically that implies you'd cap it if you can, but I don't know if there are any tempering words in the text to refine that.

[Rudbaeck]

[quoteI'm at 8% myself in 3/6 and 5/10 games. The difficult thing about figuring this out is we're not taking the number of players at the table into account.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can tell PT to disregard all hands with fewer than X players at the table. Anyway, even without doing that my average table has 8.99 players on it.

And if you are raising 8% I'm betting my firstborn that you are raising JTs on the button after four limpers. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have the book in front of me, but I'm not sure where you got this. In the charts, it suggests reraising all limpers and raisers with QQ in any position, regardless of the number of players in the pot. Basically that implies you'd cap it if you can, but I don't know if there are any tempering words in the text to refine that.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a deception play, I read the passage to fast. (Page 102.)


Sorry for totally derailing this thread. For a beginner the preflop chart is a roadmap to decent success without too many dangerous sidetreks.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
I would think that there is still a reason for caution to the relatively inexperienced player because while he may be playing at a table that is ‘loose’, that doesn’t guarantee that he is always playing in a hand where he can be sure to get enough callers for this particular play.

[/ QUOTE ]

You raise a good point. I'm also of the opinion that, as opposed to Axs, small and middle pocket pairs in multiway pots are idiot proof. So really it's not a question of how to play the hand, it's a question of constantly evaluating the table. That's the difference between playing a hand like this in early position vs. late position when you know for a fact how many people are in the pot, rather than guessing. So I agree - beginners might or might not be good at guessing how the hand will play based on previous hands and player movement.

[mchilger]

This is long but I have to catch up on a few days to address some of these topics…

It is important to put some of these things in perspective. It is quite easy to pull excerpts out of a text and make it into something else. Mason has routinely said that he holds authors to a higher standard and I think it is important to be consistent when publishing reviews of other books and making comments about someone elses work in a public Forum. Below are some examples…

In Mason’s review of my book
[ QUOTE ]
Some of his starting hand advice is also questionable, particularly if there has already been a raise. While the author recognizes that you need to tighten up quite a bit if there is a raise, he still has you routinely calling with ace-queen offsuit which is clearly a mistake against players requiring good hands to make it two bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first point I would like to make is that he qualifies his statement by saying that this is clearly a mistake “against players requiring good hands.” My book is geared towards Internet poker and my charts are geared towards typical games and opponents. In today’s typical Internet games, AQ is a profitable call against a typical unknown Internet player. Yes, sometimes this will put you in unprofitable situations when you happen to be against a good player, but on average, I would rather have players playing this hand than folding it as a general rule until they are good enough to evaluate their opponents.

One thing frustrating about this particular point in his review is that he doesn’t recognize that I agree with him regarding play against solid players. On p. 99, I discuss the play of some hands including AQ and say
[ QUOTE ]
you could reraise with these hands against some opponents, just call in a loose game, or possibly fold against a strong opponent in a tight game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Later on p. 102 when talking about late position,[ QUOTE ]
hands like AQ are borderline hands against players from early position. If you are going to play, you should generally reraise to use your positional advantage”.

[/ QUOTE ]Note the emphasis on “if”.

So I agree with Mason, calling with AQ if a mistake against players requiring good hands to raise with. Maybe in the $30-$60 games at the Bellagio this is the norm to play against solid players (although that comment is debatable), but on the Internet most players just don’t have strict raising standards AND good post-flop play. A good example of this is players playing their big pocket pairs too far no matter what happens on the flop. I routinely get paid a lot more than I should by opponents calling KK down with an ace high flop. Mason's review is misleading in my opinion.

Moving on to another passage in the book, Page 98 concerning early position play:
[ QUOTE ]
If you are playing in a loose passive game and there has already been one or two callers, you can play a few more hands such as 66, 55, KTs, QTs, and JTs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason says the following,
[ QUOTE ]
I have two problems with this statement. The first is the obvious one that in loose passive games, all pairs can be played in this spot.

First off, in a game where you expect to get many opponents in a pot and they are already starting to come in, if you play a small pair you're only going to win if you make at least a set. So there is essentially no difference between a pair of deuces and a pair of sixes. (Yes I'm aware of set over set which virtually never happens and I'm aware of the possibility that you might make a straight and win.)

Second off, when you play one of these hands, if you don't flop a set, you fold, and if you do flop a set you either bet or raise. So a novice will play this hand just like an expert.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this is a discussion about ITH but for context, I think it is interesting to see how Skansky and Malmuth recommend playing from early position in their charts from Hold’em Poker for Advanced Players.
P 18 talking about early position...
[ QUOTE ]
In a loose game, as long as the players are not too aggressive, you can add the Group 5 hands, especially the suited connectors.

[/ QUOTE ]

For those who don’t have a copy, Group 5 includes 77, Group 6…66 and 55, Group 7, 44, 33, and 22.

My first comment is that THFAP also distinguishes between 66 and 55. It is a slight distinction but those straights, higher sets, and those rare times when most of the players decide to fold and you are able to beat the blinds with your pair can make the difference between a profitable and unprofitable hand, albeit a very small difference. You can see this when looking at the average expectation of pairs played at the Poker Room from early position.

THFAP, page 27 when discussing middle position,
[ QUOTE ]
In a loose, passive game it is all right to play the Group 6 hands as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that even from middle position, THFAP does not recommend playing 44, 33, or 22.

If I put this in a book review or post it makes a convincing argument that his advice is contrary to what he posted about my book. But I’m not really giving THFAP fair justice, they do say on p. 28 referring to early position (more as an afterfact about early position since this is stated in the Middle Position section)
[ QUOTE ]
“Suppose the game is loose but not overly aggressive, it would now be correct to play 22”.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes you have to dig into the text to clarify things. Even when doing so you can still be confused as when THFAP says you can play Group 5 hands in loose games, especially the suited connectors, and then later on in a different section, argues that you can play a Group 7 hand (22) in early position.

Mason posted, “In these threads, I've been criticized for not giving non-Two Plus Two books my highest ratings. Here is an example why.” I believe the above inconsistencies is one of the reasons why Mason is sometimes criticized.

I don't mind oversights and I don't mind it when people misinterpret what I am trying to say and I don't mind if people disagree that calling raises with AQ on average is a profitable play. This is what Forums are all about so that topics and concepts can be debated and clarified. However, one needs to be careful when questioning someone's ability, knowledge, or experience level unless they are quite sure that what they are saying is absolulutely correct and not misleading.

Having said all of the above, I do agree with Mason that in super loose games that the small pairs can be played in early position. When I wrote the text a couple of years ago my definition of tight was games where players 30% or less of their hands and loose was more than 30%. That is why you just don’t see “Call 5” or “Call 6” in the late position charts in my book because I thought it was too uncommon to muddy up the charts. I recognize that now with the Internet revolution that these situations are much more common today and I will be taking a look at this with the 2nd edition next year including playing a few more hands from all positions.

On to a more subtle point,
[ QUOTE ]
One of the reasons for this is that even if you knew for sure that these hands, for some particular game, were slightly unprofitable, you would still want to play them to help balance the other hands you play in early position. It's also good to be seen winning a pot occasionally from an early position with a hand weaker than aces, kings, or ace-king.”

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the big themes in my book is that table image is just not important on the Internet. I agree with Mason that in games with advanced players such as the $100-$200 Poker Stars game, short-handed games, or a game where players are sitting at the table for a long time (very uncommon on the net), that you should consider these types of things but I would never play a hand on the Internet in a full ring game with a slightly unprofitable expection just for table image. I only bring this up as I believe players bluff way too often on the Internet because of their worries about table image and I believe it is important to emphasize that worrying about table image is just not very important.

Regarding some of the other comments by other posters. I do recommend some borderline calls from the big blind. One reason for this is the attrocious post-flop play of my opponents. I play these hands profitably against many opponents, but in retrospective, I think this is a mistake for beginning to intermediate players mostly for the fluctuations involved in playing them and I plan on reevaluating this part of the charts in the 2nd edition.

I plan on also looking at playing a few more hands from every position due to the fact that the typical game is looser today than it was 2 years ago. Nevertheless, I still think my charts are the best guidelines out there in any book, especially to help players evaluate the importance of the number of callers in your decision and whether or not the pot has been raised.

The QQ discussion in the advanced concepts chapter was meant to serve as an argument for varying your play occasionally without diminishing your expected value all that much against solid players. It’s also a play for table image which I recognize is against one of the major concepts I try to convey in the book. This type of discussion is one that belongs in my Forum as it takes away from the main points in the chapter and I will also be looking at taking that out in the 2nd edition.

By the way, all of these topics and more about starting hands has already been discussed at one time or another on my Forum for those who want to try and search for them.

Thanks everyone for the constructive criticism and thanks for those who complemented the charts. I believe they are are innovative within the poker literature and I plan on continuing to reevaluate them every couple of years as the nature of the typical game continues to evolve.

These debates are becoming quite time-consuming trying to defend my abilities as a player and author. I can't possibly respond to every argument but I will still try to jump in when I think there are important parts to discuss or clarify.

Best regards, Matthew

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
The first point I would like to make is that he qualifies his statement by saying that this is clearly a mistake “against players requiring good hands.” My book is geared towards Internet poker and my charts are geared towards typical games and opponents. In today’s typical Internet games, AQ is a profitable call against a typical unknown Internet player.

[/ QUOTE ]

A call may be profitable, but I doubt it's ever the best play. If you're going to cold call a raise with AQ in this position then you should be 3 betting it. Especially as you say in "today's typical internet games", this is pretty much a standard 3 bet unless it is against a rock type opponent who has very tight raising standards in which case folding is the best play.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi MEbenhoe:

You're absolutely correct. Calling here is virtually never right. You either fold or you three bet. The reason for this is simply the range of hands that the initial raiser will play and the fact that there is a shared board in hold 'em.

Best wishes,
Mason

[AtlChip10]

It doesn't really depend on how loose or tight the game is, but on how passive or aggressive it is.

[TwoNiner]

Can we get a reply on playing A(x)s from the big blind against a lone early position raiser...

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
Later on p. 102 when talking about late position,
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hands like AQ are borderline hands against players from early position. If you are going to play, you should generally reraise to use your positional advantage”.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note the emphasis on “if”.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. I'll let others elaborate.

MM

[Rudbaeck]

A fair point, but not the answer I was looking for.

There is something more wrong here.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
Can we get a reply on playing A(x)s from the big blind against a lone early position raiser...

[/ QUOTE ]

What hands would villain raise with? Is Axs worth 3.5:1 against this set of hands? Add in that villain will have position on you for the rest of the hand.

Basically it's right when villain has loose raising standards, pays you off religiously and you know with near certainty that you can outplay him postflop.

[Piers]

My advice to beginners is to get ITH and SSH, but ignore ITH’s chapter on pre flop play and read SSH’s instead. SSH is probably unique in this respect.

Still ITH’s advice on preflop play is clearly winning poker, and a weak player will improve by applying it. However the author does not convince me that he fully understood pre flop play. I assume he has read SSH by now.

[mchilger]

Piers, I have read most of Small Stakes. I think it is an excellent book for players who have a good knowledge of the game and have a sufficient bankroll to apply the aggressive strategies. It will definitely help these types of players reach the next level of play as it emphasizes those strategies which you should push against weak opponents.

However, I think that many of those strategies are a recipe for disaster for beginning players. It isn't clear to me if they are targeting that audience or not, but I just don't have that much faith in beginning players to be able to play as many hands as they recommend as it takes most players a lot of time to develop solid post-flop skills.

I also believe in the notion that beginning players overplay their hands too much when they are told to raise preflop. Many beginners feel that a recommendation to raise or reraise is an endorsement to always play aggressively after the flop. I often did that when starting out and I have talked to many others who have admitted doing the same.

There is also the problem of bankroll. When you go after small edges, this inevitably increases the fluctuations you will incur and this can be disastrous for those players who are just starting out if they hit a bad run. I realize you are also adding small increase in expectation, but many of those increases come with a large increase in fluctuation.

These small edges also apply to postflop play.

But the book is excellent on emphasizing those strategies that work well against weak opponents and where you need to push your advantage. So many people focus on bluffing and Small Stakes shows players where the money is at.

So I think it is a great book. I would recommend it to all the regulars of my Forum and to anyone who has read my book and played at least 4-6 months. I would just be worried that beginners would misapply the concepts and take a bigger beating than is necessary until they have the time to become more experienced post-flop.

Matthew

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
I have read most of Small Stakes. I think it is an excellent book for players who have a good knowledge of the game and have a sufficient bankroll to apply the aggressive strategies. It will definitely help these types of players reach the next level of play as it emphasizes those strategies which you should push against weak opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based partly on a detailed analysis of current literature, the pookerroom statistics and general thinking of things I developed my own way of thinking of pre-flop play. All the books that I read seem to miss the mark /images/graemlins/confused.gif However when I read SSH it hit just about every idea I had dead center /images/graemlins/cool.gif Possibly I am overreacting because of this.

[ QUOTE ]
I think that many of those strategies are a recipe for disaster for beginning players. It isn't clear to me if they are targeting that audience or not, but I just don't have that much faith in beginning players to be able to play as many hands as they recommend as it takes most players a lot of time to develop solid post-flop skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are probably referring to their (6-8 average seeing the flop) chart. Well I here what you say but I just don’t agree, guess I believe in teaching things to people correctly the first time.

The SSH (3-5) is close to yours, but more aggressive, with address the main problem with as I see it with your pre flop algorithm.

However it’s the descriptive text that makes SSH shine, not the charts.

[ QUOTE ]
I also believe in the notion that beginning players overplay their hands too much when they are told to raise preflop. Many beginners feel that a recommendation to raise or reraise is an endorsement to always play aggressively after the flop. I often did that when starting out and I have talked to many others who have admitted doing the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/blush.gif

You are correct of course, however I would say fix the problem at source and not try patch up elsewhere.

Its true that a bad player should play less hands because all hands EV’s are reduced across the board. However I think the difference is smaller than often claimed. Also bear in mind that anyone who has read your pre flop chapter has probably read the rest of your book as well.

[ QUOTE ]
There is also the problem of bankroll. When you go after small edges, this inevitably increases the fluctuations you will incur and this can be disastrous for those players who are just starting out if they hit a bad run. I realize you are also adding small increase in expectation, but many of those increases come with a large increase in fluctuation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes again you are right but you give the point too much weight.

As to fluctuations, playing more hands increases variance of course, however I believe in general raising reduces variance, at least in any situation where the raise might drive people out of the pot. I mention this in case there is a link between the general passive nature of your opening system and criticism of too much fluctuation.

[ QUOTE ]
So many people focus on bluffing

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I would just be worried that beginners would misapply the concepts and take a bigger beating than is necessary until they have the time to become more experienced post-flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

The important thing IMHO is to get it right eventually. Not be encouraged to form bad habits. Nothing wrong in taking a few hard knocks to lean something properly.

[Beach-Whale]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, while there are games where I will throw away KTs and QTs up front for no raise. I'm virtually never folding JTs in early position if the pot is not yet raised.


One of the reasons for this is that even if you knew for sure that these hands, for some particular game, were slightly unprofitable, you would still want to play them to help balance the other hands you play in early position. It's also good to be seen winning a pot occasionally from an early position with a hand weaker than aces, kings, or ace-king.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, here is obviously one area where there is a reason why the book is called INTERNET Texas Hold'em. Generally, games on the Internet change so fast, people come and go, and most don't pay that much attention, many playing several tables, that "mixing it up" have a lot less value than in "B&M" games.

If you disagree, please state so, and why.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Whale:

If you're arguing not to play these hands in these games then you are really confused. That's because in the games that you are describing, these hands should all be profitable up front (for no raise). Do you see why?

Best wishes,
mason

[Billy Zee]

Well, I'm back from Bossier City and it's nice to see the Discussion moving along. Thanks Matthew for taking time from your schedule to defend ?!?! your book. Reread the "Starting Hands" section while I was in Louisiana and it still seems right to me. Ironically the SSH came while I was at work, but my wife ( A GEM ) packed it as well. I must admit I jumped the gun abit and read a few pages of the Intro aqnd Who's Who. Stopped there because I have a full plate with your book.
The Flop I starts tomorrow, please feel free to help us at anytime.

Regards
Billy Zee

[Billy Zee]

If a call is profitable ... then I want a piece of it.

I doubt if any poker player knows the BEST approach til AFTER the hand is played. I know I sure don't. Especially short-handed play.

Regards
Billy Zee

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
If a call is profitable ... then I want a piece of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is arguing that playing AQo after a raise is sometimes profitable. What everyone is saying is that in almost all those instances you should re-raise AQo.

Cold calling AQo routinely is a -EV play at 3/6 on Party atleast, and pretty much all lower limits as well. I'm fairly sure it's wrong in almost any given live 10/20 as well.

Re-raise weak raisers, fold the rest of the time. Big off-suit cards don't want to invite those behind you into the pot.

[Billy Zee]

Hiya's

He uses no absolutes in his recommendations. These are clearly left to the player ( beginner !? ) to decide. The options are made available.

I agree with you ... it will depend on ...

Regards
Billy Zee

[Billy Zee]

My hat's off to ya. /images/graemlins/smile.gif You just earned my respect for what it's worth. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Regards,
Billy Zee

[Billy Zee]

Neither, he says "in general" . For beginning players I have seen simply 20 - 25 % recommended in a few books. Need Titles and Pages ... let me know. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Depending on IF I'm playing on Ultimet Bet or Empire my % is 16 - 20 on UB and 30 - 34 on Empire. Tight vs Loose

Regards
Billy Zee

[Billy Zee]

Don't be too hard on me IF I don't take your advice. I think I'll use his charts for awhile yet. Being a beginner, I think I need a little more " expert" advice at the moment. Over 7000 hours of Internet play ... wonder how many hands that is ??

Regards
Billy Zee

[Rudbaeck]

I'll spill the beans now as it sparked surprisingly little discussion.

If the game is tight and you know you play better postflop than your opponents the right decision is to play more hands.

If the game is tight and you don't play better postflop the right decision is to not play at all. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Billy Zee]

I'm, a beginner with non extensive notes on players. When am I supposed to determine if I play better than those I'm playing against ? Especially in a Ring Game ? If I play more hands at all, it will be because the Table is Tight. As far as I know, the books for beginners back me up.

Regards
Billy Zee

[Rudbaeck]

Table average see flop?

But I doubt that online at the micro or small limits it will come up very often. (Except on Ultimate Bet, where you can on happy occasions find an entire table at 0.25/0.50 trying to play HPFAP.)

ITH isn't solely a beginner's book, atleast not according to the cover text.

[Billy Zee]

I agree it isn't only a beginners book, however, the Intermediate player is defined as what ? What do you consider yourself ? I'm a beginner but bnm am I newbie now. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

regards
Billy Zee

ps: Just finished playing a MTT on Bugsy. NLH with 47 players, I finished 19th by playing Tight , and the best pf hand I had was jj which I hit the Flop for a SET. If I was to play more hands, I would have finished 30th or worse. I can't play with rags and win. I couldn't get a good flop if I tried. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Rudbaeck]

I'm an intermediate I guess, pretty recently graduated from beginner. Pretty comfortable 4-tabling 3/6 on party most days, 2/4 when I am not my sharpest.

Still making horrible amounts of mistakes in actual play. But I guess that will carry on for quite a while longer.

[Billy Zee]

I'd say your waaaaaay ahead of me. I have trouble playing 1 table. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif Well good luck at that them tables. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[David Sklansky]

Haven't read this thread in detail. But I have noticed that unlike Lee Jones, Matthew Hilger seems to be willing to debate and to try to make his points with precise reasoning and logic. I applaud that even if he is wrong.

[Billy Zee]

Is or could or may be wrong ? I haven't seen one shread of logic displayed in any of the discussion here to make me see any errors in his thinking.
I now own SSH as well, and I will be looking forward to the upcoming discussion on it.

Regards
Billy Zee

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
Is or could or may be wrong ? I haven't seen one shread of logic displayed in any of the discussion here to make me see any errors in his thinking.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh then you haven't been reading close enough Mr. Zee.

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]


Page 100 concerning middle position:

[ QUOTE ]
Hands to consider reraising against a lone middle position raiser include JJ, TT, 99, AQs, AQ, AJs, and AJ

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,
Given that there are (as is typical in poker literature) various caveats concerning your opposition, the position of the raiser, who is left to act behind you, can you isolate the raiser, etc.; I was scratching my head wondering if there could be anything definitively wrong with these recommendations. The discussion in ITH at this point is what to do with a middle position raiser when they will raise with hands like KQ.

Me, I tend to think the advice is a bit too loose and I would not be re-raising with some of these hands, like 99, simply because there are still too many combinations of cards which would have better chances against me—after all, the assumption is that he would raise with KQ or ‘better’.

While one might be trying to isolate the bettor with a re-raise, there isn’t any real money in the pot and the odds are pretty good that you would need to flop a set (if holding 99 for example) against many possible raising hands to win…and if I had to flop a set, I might prefer another caller or two and I would not expect in a typical game to be getting many cold callers here.

Of course, I play low limit games - .50/1 and $1/2. Maybe in higher limit games where there is the proverbial ‘struggle for the blinds’ things might me different; but me, I would just fold unless I felt this particular raiser was one to take a shot with even looser hands, then I would re-raise. I Fold much of the stuff that might get you a small profit when there are small pots at stake and play the percentages in loose games to net more than my fair share of big pots. I look at my results and I can’t honestly say that this approach is wrong. For me, fold.

---Leavenfish

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
Haven't read this thread in detail. But I have noticed that unlike Lee Jones, Matthew Hilger seems to be willing to debate and to try to make his points with precise reasoning and logic. I applaud that even if he is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Talk about a backhanded compliment...

[Billy Zee]

Case in point ?


Regards
Billy Zee

[Billy Zee]

Not to make to big a point of this but, I see Lee Jones's column in Cardplayer Magazine every month. I'm sure he has many more things to do, than worry about coming over here.
As Mr. Sklanskys' not reading the posts in detail is concerned ... I'm believe he's aware of their contents , second hand or otherwise.
The nice thing now is that all I have to do is make sure that every four days I post a new discussion because it looks like " The Flop I " may not get many threads. Oh well ...

" You can lead a horse to water ... "

Regards
Billy Zee

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
Case in point ?


Regards
Billy Zee

[/ QUOTE ]

Read my first post in this thread and the responses to it. You should be able to see a very clear error in ITH right there.

[Billy Zee]

I don't want to cut too fine a point on this but, I answered your first post. 3 betting an AQo is NOT in my playbook as a beginner. Even if you all were correct in your accessment ALL the time, it still doesn't trash his work. I'm getting better and better in MTT NL Tourneys and it's not because I'm 3 betting AQo. It's because I'm playing better using his book. I can't argue with results. I don't see how anyone else can either.
I'm sure that when I graduate to the " Advanced " books of MM asd DS , my play will advance even further. For now, unless I can be shown some glaring discrepancies in his Starting Hands charts, statements to the effect that he is " wrong " , carry very little weight with me.

Regards
Billy Zee

[darvon]

As best as I can understand ITH's primary target is the beginning TH player. Someone who has usually played a little, probably has started to lose after an initial good run and wants to "get serious" so he buys a book. ITH's primary value is taking a person from playing TH poorly and losing -10bb/100 to winning 1-2bb/100, again, probably as the first or second book read.

If you all agree to this point, then I don't think debating "whether the advice to play JTs when you are in the 3rd seat and the 4th seat has a table stat of VPIP between 23.5 and 24.6 is correct on Tuesdays. "

I think the questions to be debated/decided are the following:

1) Will the advice given, if followed, take a target player from losing to winning 1bb/100?

2) Does the book PRESENT this info such that most target readers find it usable?

3) Have most people who bought the book end up becoming winners?


I am WAAY too inexperienced a player (<10,000 hands) to have a learned opinion on #1 from a theoretical basis. But my anecdotal evidence, as well as most target readers that I have read about say yes. What are the opinions of the posters herein?

For #2, again I would say yes. Here is a question where the opinions of more experienced players are at a disadvantage. Although any of us will have cogent opinions of clear presentation and writing, people who haven't been beginners for years will have a more difficult time trying to evaluate text from a beginner's POV, while I simply have to remember back about 6 months, not a stretch.

#3 takes real data, but all we have in anecdotal evidence. The only real "learned" opinion here is people who have read ITH as a beginner. Again, I did and it did.

So if it is a concensus here that the answers are Yes/Yes/Yes then this is a good book to recommend, whereas No/No/No would make it not useful.

So my opinion is "I am not qualified"/Yes/"For Me Yes". What is yours?

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to cut too fine a point on this but, I answered your first post. 3 betting an AQo is NOT in my playbook as a beginner. Even if you all were correct in your accessment ALL the time, it still doesn't trash his work. I'm getting better and better in MTT NL Tourneys and it's not because I'm 3 betting AQo. It's because I'm playing better using his book. I can't argue with results. I don't see how anyone else can either.
I'm sure that when I graduate to the " Advanced " books of MM asd DS , my play will advance even further. For now, unless I can be shown some glaring discrepancies in his Starting Hands charts, statements to the effect that he is " wrong " , carry very little weight with me.

Regards
Billy Zee

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm first off you just talked about 3 betting with AQ in a NL MTT??????

Now aside from this error lets talk about the 3 betting AQ against a raiser in limit play, which is what this discussion was intended for:

Hilger recommends cold calling a raise with AQ here. This is simply wrong. While it is possible that this play is profitable it is never the correct play. The reason for this is the range of hands that you will put your initial raiser on.

If the raiser has very tight raising standards you will be dominated or a big dog to a hand he is raising here. In this case it is correct for you to fold here. However you will not run into this opponent very often. Most often you will run into the aggressive online players of today. These players will raise a large variety of hands in this position. Because of this a raise from them will less often mean one of the few hands that really has you in trouble here. The large majority of the time you will be up against which you have dominated or at worst are only a slight dog to. In this instance 3 betting is the correct play. You will likely be able to isolate this player heads up with position on them. Also anyone who would cold call 3 bets behind you is making a clear mistake as it is absolutely positively never correct to cold call 3 bets. And thats how you make money in poker making people make mistakes while you make the correct plays.

It comes down to the point that a lot of people say that they like learning from Hilger's book first or Jones book first or whatever and then moving on to learn the better and more and advanced way. Well personally if I was relearning or if I was teaching somebody how to play poker wouldn't you rather learn the correct way first, rather than learning a weak way of playing and then having to relearn again? Cold Calling in this position is a weak beginner play.

[Billy Zee]

I read all of the posts as you recommended and 3 betting AQo was mentioned in one of them. My mention of not 3 betting was in regards to that post.

Now to my using ITH vs an Advanced book . It's simply a need for an easy to understand approach. In regards to his Charts ... they are great for me as a beginner.

I shied away from reading " Hold'em for Advanced Players " because of David Sklanskys' own admission of the study required. I'm just not there yet. Of all the books I have, ITH is by far the best in my estimation, from this beginners point of view. As it is , I believe I'm spending too much time reading and not enough time applying what I've read. Add to that my attempt at taking notes during playing ... whew.

Regards
Billy Zee

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
I read all of the posts as you recommended and 3 betting AQo was mentioned in one of them. My mention of not 3 betting was in regards to that post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but you spoke of not 3 betting in NL, that doesnt even make sense. Also you apparently ignored my entire response which was a total explanation of why 3 betting or folding is the correct play.

[uuDevil]

Hi Billy,

Thanks for carrying on the discussion-- I think you're doing a fine job.

A suggestion: if you quote the portions of posts that you are replying or referring to, it would be a little easier to follow along.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to cut too fine a point on this but, I answered your first post. 3 betting an AQo is NOT in my playbook as a beginner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you should fold AQo if someone has raised already. Calling puts you in a trickier position than raising does.

If you play it on your first ever orbit of Hold'em raising is a better play than calling. (Though folding would be preferable.) After that raising gets better and better.

This also means that if several people have already called the raise cold you should most likely fold.

[Billy Zee]

Hiyas,

Thank you for the kind words. I think you have a good point. I'll take your advice.

Regards
Billy Zee

[Billy Zee]

"Haven't read this thread in detail. But I have noticed that unlike Lee Jones, Matthew Hilger seems to be willing to debate and to try to make his points with precise reasoning and logic. I applaud that even if he is wrong."

From the original thread which started this, I'd like to hear from the poster as to where is he wrong.
The AQo issue remains a personal preference instead of bad advice. If I'm in middle or late position and a EP player raises the pot preflop, I see no problem with saving money by limping to see a Flop. Flop doesn't improve, I fold. For a player like myself, I see inherent danger in overplaying the hand preflop.

I also keep forgetting that this book is geared toward LH, and not NLH. Sorry about my post about MTT NL game.

Regards
Billy Zee

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Haven't read this thread in detail. But I have noticed that unlike Lee Jones, Matthew Hilger seems to be willing to debate and to try to make his points with precise reasoning and logic. I applaud that even if he is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Talk about a backhanded compliment...

[/ QUOTE ]


not really. he said he didn't read the thread, so I think the "if" is a geniune if, not an incinuation that he's wrong

[Billy Zee]

Hiya's

Check the quote and you will see the words "in detail", which leads me to believe that " even if " = although .

Of course it's still just my opinion, and only Mr. Sklansky can answer the question for sure.

Regards
Billy Zee

[mchilger]

Mebenhoe, I understand your point but I don't think it is as clear cut as you indicate. I believe it is much easier to debate advanced strategies than it is to debate how a beginning player should play a hand. There are so many additional issues that come into play.

Just so its clear, my starting hand charts recommend cold-calling with AQ. My advanced concepts chapter in two different places recommends either folding or reraising.

The question becomes...how should a beginning player play AQ when faced with a raise from early position. Since they are new to Hold'em they don't have the ability to recognize when they should reraise or fold based on their opponent. It's also not very easy putting what ifs in a starting hand chart so sometimes you have to sacrifice a little on substance for usability. So what do you tell them?

Reraise every time? That is quite aggressive for such a borderline hand, especially when you run into a strong opponent. Also recognize that beginners often overplay their hands when given aggressive preflop advise.

Fold it every time? As you say, that gives so many weak online opponents a lot of credit. I believe for beginners, it is either fold or call...I think reraising every time would get them in much more trouble. I went with cold-calling as I believe it is slightly profitable in the typical game against the typical opponent.

I recognize that its only slightly profitable at best. Its difficult to know as we are talking about how beginners play post flop after reading a poker book once-through. I wouldn't argue with someone if they said to fold it every time. But I don't think its clearly wrong as you indicate to cold-call.

Regarding Mr. Sklansky's post, I'm not sure if that was a complement or not, /images/graemlins/smile.gif but I appreciate the post in either case. In defense of other authors, I will say that "debating" here often seems one-sided as people rarely recognize the positive points being made. The tone of some of the messages is also one which really doesn't encourage one for participation. So I appreciate it that Mr Sklansky recognizes my contributions, whether or not he agrees with them.

Matthew

[Ed Miller]

Hey Matthew,

So I disagree with you about a few things... things that I think are quite important from a paedagogical perspective. First, I wanted to clarify that my book is definitely NOT intended for beginners. It was written for people who have read a book or two (I had WLLH specifically in mind) and played at least a few months already. I say as much in the introduction.

Having said that, I strongly disagree with you and the many others who seem to think that my book is "dangerous" for beginners. That a beginner who reads my book would somehow perform far worse than he would otherwise... that if a player is exposed to my book at the wrong time, it could send him into a dizzying spiral of dismal results.

I think exactly the opposite is true. While my book isn't INTENDED for beginners, I happen to think that it is one of the best available books for a player to read first. That is, while it is better (and intended) as a second or third book, it also happens to be one of the best available options for a first book. Why do I say that?

To understand why I think that, first you have to appreciate what I call the Mirage Regular Syndrome. MRS is essentially believing that weak-tight play is the OPTIMAL way to play limit hold 'em. The MRS sufferers routinely limp preflop with their pocket jacks, fold their overpairs when they get raised on the turn, and make big laydowns on the river. And they are proud of it. They don't think they are learning... they think they have it right.

To play in a non-optimal style, but to BELIEVE that it is optimal is terribly stunting. It is very difficult to improve your game under those conditions. In my opinion, a person's LONG-TERM results will be MUCH better if they learn right from the start that they have to make daring, aggressive plays to be a big winner. They may take it on the chin a few times while they are learning, but their chances for long-term success are greater... and their chances to achieve EXPERT status are much greater.

Bad habits are difficult to break. If people deliberately learn a non-optimal mindset when they are starting out, my experience has shown me that many will retain that mindset even when they learn better. They will simply rationalize their weak plays by saying things like, "Well, I could get a little extra expectation at the expense of a lot higher fluctuations. I understand that some people might prefer that, but I prefer the safer plays." Quite frankly, big winners don't say stuff like that. They just don't.

I know a fair number of really good, very successful players, people who soundly thrash medium and high limit games. None of them play a weak-tight style. All of them raise when they should raise. It is not a coincidence. Success at this game requires an understanding of when to raise in sometimes precarious situations, and then having the psychological fortitude to do it.

I think it's better just to level with new players immediately. Say, poker is a tough game, and you won't be good at it for a while... but when you are good, you are going to think like this. That's one reason I really liked Bill Robertie's Backgammon for Winners, a beginner's book, because that is exactly what he says. He makes it very clear from the start that backgammon isn't for the meek. He doesn't tell you the safe play, he tells you the active, aggressive, correct play. He says you still have a lot to learn, but you've gotten off to the right start. That kind of foundation will make becoming an expert faster and more accessible for more people.

I have a list of more specific points I'd like to make, but I'll split it into a seperate post.

[Ed Miller]

So now you understand my general philosophy toward beginner/intermediate players. I think they should learn from the start how to make the aggressive, correct play... because if they learn a passive play, they are too likely to simply decide, "This is the way I'm comfortable with, so that's what I'll keep doing." I see that attitude ALL the time... and it does nothing but produce mediocre players.

Now, to address the specific critique that my book will cause new players to make expensive, systematic errors. I think it's nonsense.

Now I certainly don't deny that players, particularly new players, will make loose and overaggressive as a result of reading my book. They almost certainly will. They will overplay some marginal hands... overplays they wouldn't have made prior to reading my book.

But that fact alone doesn't prove that my book damaged them, as to show that you must look at the mistakes that they WOULD have made, but don't anymore as a result of reading the book.

That is, new players are going to make lots of mistakes no matter whose book they read. So the question is, "Are the systematic Ed Miller mistakes much worse than the non-Ed Miller ones?" I think the answer to that is definitely "No."

For example, let's take your example of overplaying hands after raising preflop. I actually think the opposite of what you do... I think new players will generally perform better raising and overplaying than not raising and underplaying.

Raising preflop with good hands tends to "lock in" a profit by getting money in with the best of it. So to prove that not raising is better, you cannot merely prove that they will play slightly worse in raised pots. You have to prove that they play MUCH worse... so much so that it loses not only their "locked in" profit, but even more.

For instance, say there is a hand for which an expert player is absolutely indifferent to raising. An example might be a hand like pocket tens in certain situations in a tough game... HPFAP describes some of these "indifferent to raising" situations. Generally, if you are indifferent to raising, then raising will improve your preflop expectation at the expense of expectation after the flop.. and the two will perfectly cancel. So say your hand looks like this:

Limp:
Preflop EV - 0.1 BB
Postflop EV - 0.5 BB

Raise:
Preflop EV - 0.2 BB
Postflop EV - 0.4 BB

That's for an expert. Now a new player won't play nearly as well post-flop. So his EV will be lower across the board for that... but his preflop EV should be roughly the same (that assumes he won't ever wander into situations where he should actually fold rather than limp or raise... a fair assumption with the hands like TT and such that we are talking about).

So the new player might look more like:

Limp:
Preflop EV - 0.1 BB
Postflop EV - 0.25 BB

Raise:
Preflop EV - 0.2 BB
Postflop EV - 0.2 BB

I cut the postflop EV in half for each, and now raising is the preferred play. To show that a new player should actually prefer to limp, you must show that he will play FAR WORSE PROPORTIONALLY in a raised pot compared to an unraised one. I don't really think that's true.

I especially don't think it's true if you think that the systematic error that a new player will make in these spots is to overplay his hand... as playing somewhat too loosely and aggressively in raised pots is the least-costly systematic mistake you could choose to make in that spot. As the pot gets bigger, you are SUPPOSED to play more loosely and aggressively. Now obviously you can take it too far, and that will cost you something. But over the entire range of mistakes you can make in a raised pot, overplaying is generally among the least expensive.

This is even more true when YOU happen to be the raiser (as opposed to getting into a raised pot by limping and calling a raise behind you), as your hand will generally be a strong one. Strong hands typically have more outs postflop than weak ones... when you miss, you flop overcards. When an overcard flops to your pocket pair, you win more often (that is, you'll win more often with QQ on a K84 flop than with 66). If you are raising more often with suited hands as you should be, then you will have more backdoor potential. All these things add up and soften the blow of overplaying. It would generally be more expensive to overplay weak hands like 75s in raised pots... but that's not what we're talking about when we're talking about overplaying raising hands. We're talking about overplaying AJs. And I'm really just not that worried about that.

So basically, I think it's a flat out mistake to tell new players to limp with stuff like AJs. I think it lowers their immediate expectation, as raising will help them "lock in" a profit. And I really think it lowers their long-term expectation, as it teaches people the wrong way to think about hold 'em. It says, "Play scared, don't push your edges, wait for a sure thing." That mindset will have them not only misplaying AJs in the future, but misplaying all sorts of "marginal" (quotes because raising with AJs is NOT a marginal play) situations. But hey, at least the Mirage games are still excellent. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Ed Miller]

The AQo issue remains a personal preference instead of bad advice. If I'm in middle or late position and a EP player raises the pot preflop, I see no problem with saving money by limping to see a Flop. Flop doesn't improve, I fold. For a player like myself, I see inherent danger in overplaying the hand preflop.

Hi Billy,

This ace-queen debate is most certainly NOT a matter of personal preference. There are two major reasons why it's imperative to reraise with ace-queen in the described situation:

1. If you do not reraise, you allow the blinds to see the flop for a single bet. There is a large range of hands that the big blind can have that are correct to call for one bet, but not two. Examples include small pocket pairs (e.g., 33) and suited connectors (e.g., T9s). When the big blind is offered an opportunity to call profitably, that profit must come from the others in the hand... in other words, you.

2. You place the onus fully upon yourself to hit the flop. You say, "I either hit the flop, or I fold." Well, you will "hit" (flop an ace or queen) about 1/3 of the time. So that means that you will be folding roughly 2/3 of the time... often folding to an opponent who didn't hit the flop either and who you are still ahead of. Folding the best hand is expensive. Adopting a strategy that ensures that you will do it often is very expensive indeed.

There are a couple of other somewhat less important reasons to 3-bet... if you don't 3-bet with ace-queen then that necessarily means that the range of hands you WILL 3-bet with is very small. At low levels this isn't exploitable, but as you progress it becomes very exploitable. For example, say you open-raise with ace-king. Someone 3-bets you, and you call. The flop comes J84 rainbow. You check, and he bets. If your opponent will 3-bet you with only AA-JJ and AK, you have an easy fold. If he will 3-bet with AA-JJ, AK AND AQ... your decision is much tougher, and he makes money as a result (if you don't understand why, you need to read the bluffing chapter in Theory of Poker).

Also, if you are playing ace-queen against a raiser, you are almost always doing so because ace-queen compares favorably to the range of hands the raiser is likely to have. That is, you are, on average, the preflop favorite. So missing the 3-bet also misses getting some extra money in with the best hand. (This isn't 100% true because it can be correct to 3-bet the AQ for the first few reasons I listed yet NOT have the best hand on average. But in the vast majority of cases where playing AQ against a raiser is profitable, you will also have the best hand on average.)

It's ok that, as a new player, you didn't know this. In fact, you probably won't "know" it even after reading this... it will take more study and experience before you internalize these ideas.

What IS important is that you understand that it's NOT a matter of personal preference. That making passive plays is not "ok," not a "matter of style." At least it's not ok if your goal is to become a good player and a big winner. (If you don't care about becoming a good player, basically none of what I say will apply to you. That's fine... you just aren't my audience in that case.)

And this is exactly my gripe with putting advice like this into books... it gives people exactly that impression that this is an "optional" thing... that one play isn't clearly better than the other. There is nothing theoretically wrong with giving a different set of advice to beginners and more advanced players. But if you want to do it, you gotta be VERY careful. You have to MAKE SURE that the beginners KNOW that they are learning a non-optimal rule for simplicity.

If you don't, you end up with people who don't play that well reading new ideas and saying, "Playing that way just isn't my style," not understanding that "their style" will prevent them from ever being a big winner.

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]

Having said that, I strongly disagree with you and the many others who seem to think that my book is "dangerous" for beginners. That a beginner who reads my book would somehow perform far worse than he would otherwise... that if a player is exposed to my book at the wrong time, it could send him into a dizzying spiral of dismal results.



[/ QUOTE ]

Have you fogotten the various posts by fairly regular posters who seemed to have 'read a book or two' who first saw a larger downswing in their results after reading SSH the first time and sometimes misapplying what it's concepts?

Either my memory is failing me terribly or I dreamt it. Now, it was a large number of posters...but they did exist.

---Leavenfish

[uuDevil]

Ed,

This may be too far afield, but have you read the ConjelCo newsletter ("The Intelligent Gambler") that just went out?

There was an interesting article by Rachel Croson on expected value (EV), and expected utility (also prospect theory, which I won't mention further). These are different models of the way people evaluate risk. Most here are familiar with EV.

Expected utility accounts for the fact that in reality, people see money as having "diminishing marginal utility," which means they have an aversion to risk. So they sometimes choose NOT to make the highest EV gamble. In graphic form, expected utility is described by a concave down curve.

These models aren't entirely inconsistent, since utility theory would be identical to EV if the curvature is decreased until it becomes linear. You seem to be saying that players should use the EV model (linear), which is objectively best. Mathew and others would like to leave some curvature, i.e. make concessions to a beginner's natural risk aversion. You could say this point of view is subjectively best.

Not sure this point of view really adds anything but there you have it. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Billy Zee]

Yes I read that ... interesting to say the least. Also liked the article by Lou Krieger.

Regards
Billy Zee

[Billy Zee]

Hiya's

" What IS important is that you understand that it's NOT a matter of personal preference. That making passive plays is not "ok," not a "matter of style." At least it's not ok if your goal is to become a good player and a big winner. (If you don't care about becoming a good player, basically none of what I say will apply to you. That's fine... you just aren't my audience in that case.) "

I will definitely be your audience sooner or later, but for now let me say that as a beginner I am trying out new things, but not all at once. ITH gives me a number of Starting Hands that I still don't open with. Why ?? Because right now, the tighter I play the more I win.

At the moment, winning a lot of money is not my primary goal. HOWEVER , I don't like losing either. /images/graemlins/wink.gif /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Regards
Billy Zee

[Leavenfish]

...that should read: wasn't a large number of posters, but they did exist.

For some reason I am unable to edit the original message...

[uuDevil]

Leavenfish,

Posts of that type, if they provided no statistically signifcant evidence (and I saw none that did), aren't convincing. In any case, there have been even more posts of the type "Ed Miller made me a fortune." Immediately after SSH, my WR went down but so did my SD. Was that attributable to SSH? I doubt it, but I didn't have enough data either before or after to say for sure. What matters to me is that I understand the game better now and play better. This was also true after I read ITH.

Edit: To add context /images/graemlins/grin.gif:
[ QUOTE ]
Have you fogotten the various posts by fairly regular posters who seemed to have 'read a book or two' who first saw a larger downswing in their results after reading SSH the first time and sometimes misapplying what it's concepts?

[/ QUOTE ]

[mchilger]

Ed, your points about post-flop play are quite valid. As far as pushing edges, this is not a main concern of mine regarding beginning players. I think my book advocates pretty aggressive play post-flop also.

The issue of how aggressive one is preflop is another debatable topic. It all depends in how much of an edge you are giving up by not raising. One needs to balance the increased fluctuations with the increased expectation if you are on a limited bankroll. My main concern is with the number of hands one recommends that a beginning player should play.

I do believe that starting hand play should be quite different between advanced players and beginning players. In ITH, I list what I think is a very important criteria for starting hand play...how good of a player you are.

This is really where I have a problem with Small Stakes and THFAP. I'm more familiar with THFAP, but there are a lot of starting hands listed which are just slightly profitable hands for advanced players. Beginning players who have just read a book once-through will lose money playing these "borderline" hands. These hands add up quite quickly within a session. And I believe most beginners can accept this "lesson" when starting out. As their skills develop they will naturally start to stray from the charts.

It takes time for beginners to build solid post-flop skills. I just believe it is much better to put beginners in as favorable a position as possible rather than put them in situations where they must make tough decisions. Add in the fact that all of these additional hands increase a player's fluctuations and I think it can be a recipe for disaster.

I realize that a recipe for disaster sounds quite dramatic, but many beginning players don't understand bankroll and the limits they play and they can easily go broke quite quickly playing a lot of hands and decide never to play again.

So my main issue is the number of hands a beginner would play following advice from Small Stakes and THFAP. Now I will admit that my book leans toward being too tight given the incredible evolution of the typical game over the last couple of years and I plan on loosening my starting hand tables slightly next year...but I would still prefer a more conservative approach than a more aggressive one.

Bottomline, I believe beginning players will make more money by playing fewer hands than by playing more hands whereas advanced players can play more hands to exploit small edges. This is why I dedicate two different chapters to starting hand play.

Now for those players with lots of money, Small Stakes will not give them much of a problem. They will grow and learn, take a few extra knocks along the way, but they will reach advanced level of play with experience. But most players have limited bankrolls which is why I believe a slightly more conservative preflop strategy is better.

Matthew

[Ed Miller]

I agree with you completely that new players should play generally tighter than recommended in SSH. I'm writing a book for beginners right now, and my starting hand strategy in that book will be significantly tighter.

[pastabatman]

I just wanted to mention, just because a chart has some 'keep em out of trouble' entries, I doubt it is going to give me problems in the long run. Early on, all I'm doing is reading the chart. When my post-flop play gets decent, I'll plug in the SSH starting hands instead. Simple as that. And eventually, I'll go 'chartless' (woo hoo!).

Here's an interesting SSH quote, page 11:
[ QUOTE ]
Finally, we anticipate that some readers will concentrate most heavily on the preflop chapter, particularly the two preflop charts that we provide. No doubt, some people will compare our recommendations to those made in other books. We do not recommend that you do this. It is basically a waste of time. As long as the strategies are essentially tight and eschew calling raises with offsuit hands, there is simply not that much to choose between one particular set of guidelines and another. Understanding postflop concepts and play is far more essential to maximizing your win rate. Move quickly through the preflop material, and concentrate on what is important.

[/ QUOTE ]
Amen.

[Saborion]

[ QUOTE ]
Because right now, the tighter I play the more I win.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe you. And I also recommend you being careful about being too tight preflop since you may end up having trouble finding hands to add to your preflop repertoire later.

[Billy Zee]

Hello,

" I don't believe you. "

You don't know me either. /images/graemlins/mad.gif This will be my first and LAST reply to any of your posts.

Billy Zee

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you completely that new players should play generally tighter than recommended in SSH. I'm writing a book for beginners right now, and my starting hand strategy in that book will be significantly tighter.

[/ QUOTE ]



While the ITH discussion has progressed to Post Flop Play, I am trying to wrap this discussion up in my own mind:

So, as Ed Miller himself says that his starting hand chart for this upcoming newbe book will be different (tighter) than his chart in SSH, he is tacitly admitting Hilgers point that beginners should probably be playing different starting hands than someone who has gained a better ability in post-flop play?

I guess I am have trouble squaring this with Ed’s post that one should be taught the optimal or ‘correct’ ways from their first steps. It seems to me that this would necessitate advocating the use of the very same starting hands charts in SSH...assuming a ‘beginner’ starts out playing for small stakes—a fairly logical conclusion. Now I understand your AQ argument (even if I don’t necessarily agree with it) that one should play the same hand the same way regardless of experience level…but by saying that you should be playing different starting hands, are you not essentially agreeing with Hilgers point that a newbe should at times be playing differently than someone who has more experience...because he lacks at that moment the ability to understand or judge correctly what he should be doing and why?

Leavenfish

[mchilger]

Ed, first of all I must commend you and your energy in writing another poker book so soon after Small Stakes. It took me a year after completing ITH before I could even think about writing another one and even then, it is coming along quite slowly.

Thanks for validating at least one of the points I have made in these discussions. Sometimes I feel like I am talking to myself here and I think it leads to a more fruitful discussion when good points are validated in addition to discussing disagreements.

I would just like to add one thing about the Charts. My poker Forum has given me the ability to watch the progress of players over the last year. Many of them came to the Forum after reading the book and were big fans of the starting hand charts. Now a year later you see these same players discussing the merits of playing other types of hands, reraising or folding AQ depending on the type of opponent, etc.

I do believe the two-tiered strategy in my book works quite well and that it is not that hard of a transition for players to make once they gain more experience. At the same time, from an author's perspective, I recognize that it is a difficult line to walk in terms of writing the text. Those chapters literally took me months before i was satisfied with them and they went through numerous rewrites and revisions.

Matthew

[fred22]

Zee,
Thanks for saving this thread from dying.

It's really now turned into a great thread with Ed, Matthew & Mason being pretty active.

Very interesting.

I have both books and I think they are both excellent.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi fish:

There's a difference between not playing a hand and playing a hand wrong. The first has an expectation of zero, and the second may have a negative expectation.

One of the thnigs I have noticed for years in many books and reports is that the authors, while claiming that there advice is tight, will have you calling raises in spots where that call is not profitable. A very good example of this in addition to some of Hilger's advice are the charts in Mike Caro's Professional Hold 'em Report.

Best wishes,
Mason

[BugsBunny]

I like Matthew, post a lot on his forum, and think he's a knowledgeable player and author. I think his book is currently the best beginners book on the market. Having said all that I think your statement goes overboard. I think there are mistakes in his book (and have said so on his forum at times).

Anytime beginners have to 'unlearn' things to advance I think they're at a disadvantage. I think they have to unlearn less after reading his book than WLLH and his book gives a better foundation. But it doesn't change the fact that he's not always correct. (But then neither is Mason or anyone else - but brilliant minds tend to have big egos that often won't admit to being wrong. It's the nature of the beast).

One thing I learned early is that in poker aggression pays off in many ways. And the one general area where I think that Matthews book is weak is that it doesn't have players being aggressive enough. I understand why he does it - I just don't agree with him on this point.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
I think they have to unlearn less after reading his book than WLLH and his book gives a better foundation. But it doesn't change the fact that he's not always correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking of the best beginner's book, I've read Ed Miller's post a couple times and I still can't figure out what he's trying to say (is there some double-speak in there Ed? /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

He says that his book is "one of the best" (whatever that means) first books for beginners. But he seems to imply that WLLH is actually the best first book for beginners. Now, considering the reputation of that book among the cognoscenti of this forum, I really can't figure out what he's talking about vis a vis unlearning bad habits and ITH as a beginner's first book.

[Ed Miller]

I guess I am have trouble squaring this with Ed’s post that one should be taught the optimal or ‘correct’ ways from their first steps. It seems to me that this would necessitate advocating the use of the very same starting hands charts in SSH...assuming a ‘beginner’ starts out playing for small stakes—a fairly logical conclusion.

I believe there are two fundamental principles of winning poker:

1. Bet and raise your strong hands for value.
2. Play tightly in small pots, loosely in big ones.

It is the responsibility of any book on poker strategy... particularly any book targetted at beginners... to convey these principles. They lie at the core of every good strategy.

Unfortunately, when I read many (most) poker books, I often see these principles ignored. Some authors recommend limping preflop with very strong hands like AA, AK, and AJs. Some tell you to stop betting your top pair and overpair hands on fourth and fifth street when someone calls your flop bet on a somewhat dangerous-looking board. Some tell you to check and call with monster draws. All of these ideas run counter to the most fundamental principle of winning poker: Bet and raise your strong hands for value.

Some authors tell you to "fit or fold," regardless of the size of the pot. Some tell you to fold top pair and overpairs routinely on the turn if someone raises you, again without mention of the pot size. Some tell you to fold flush draws on paired boards and straight draws on two flush boards. All of these ideas run counter to the second-most fundamental principle of winning poker: Play tightly in small pots, loosely in big ones.

If I question one of these pieces of advice, often I will be told, "Well, the author was just trying to simplify advice for new players." My question is, "Are not the two fundamental principles of winning poker already simple? Is it impossible to forumlate simple ideas that support and reinforce the core principles rather than ignore and undermine them?"

The reason this issue hits home with me is because I see SO MANY players, many of whom think they play well, who could not articulate these two very basic principles of winning poker. They think winning poker is about making laydowns, saving bets, reading tells, wearing sunglasses, or who knows what else. And it seems so silly and frustrating to me... "How can you have played for years and still not have grasped these two extremely simple ideas?"

I think the answer lies largely in the body of available literature. The overwhelming majority of advice - books, magazine articles, internet sites, etc. - ignores and undermines these principles. It's no wonder so few ever figure it out.

So to answer your question, simplifying for beginners is fine for me. But when you simplify, you must do so ACCORDING TO THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF WINNING POKER. You are supposed to play tightly in small pots, so feel free to tell beginners to play even more tightly than "optimal." But DON'T feel free to tell beginners to limp with their strong hands or lay down overpairs in big pots. These ideas are simple, but they run contrary to the core principles.

Final note: I've said it several times before, but I wanted to reiterate it for this conversation. I think ITH is a good book filled with generally solid advice. My final test for any poker book is, "If you read and follow the advice in this book, will you become a solidly winning player?" (Not a BETTER player, a SOLIDLY WINNING one. Better sets the bar far too low.) I think the answer for ITH is definitely yes... and that is something I cannot say for most poker books.

Nevertheless, there is that one area of the book that I'm negative on.. the advice to limp preflop with strong hands like JJ and AJs. Whether it's "simplified for beginners" or not, it runs counter to basic principles, and it teaches people to think about poker the wrong way.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Nevertheless, there is that one area of the book that I'm negative on.. the advice to limp preflop with strong hands like JJ and AJs. Whether it's "simplified for beginners" or not, it runs counter to basic principles, and it teaches people to think about poker the wrong way.

[/ QUOTE ]

For purposes of this discussion, I'm going to accept that limping preflop with AJs is wrong (even though you haven't given any context, like position or looseness of game, I'm still going to accept it.) I still don't agree with your conclusion. First of all, you make the point quite strongly in your book that your readers should stop wasting their time arguing over decisions about exactly where to draw the line with preflop hands. Most preflop "systems" are good, so now get to working on your more important postflop skills. You jump from that to the conclusion that because he suggests beginners limp with AJs, he is teaching people to think about poker the wrong way. That's just not true. I learned about how to take the pot size into account by reading ITH. I learned how to make loose calls on the river when the pot is large from ITH. I learned how to raise to protect my hand and my outs from ITH. I learned not to slowyplay when the pot is large from ITH. I learned those fundamentals by reading ITH. They are not stated in bold letters as you have above, but you can only read "unless the pot is small", or "if the pot is big", etc so many times, until you get it. So no, just because the book makes a couple preflop recommendations that you say are wrong does not mean it teaches to think about poker the wrong way, because for every prefop hand you disagree with, it says 20 times in the text to follow your poker fundamentals. It would be a gigantic stretch to assume a beginning reader could even make the connection between a particular preflop recommendation and those poker fundamentals to begin with. But even if he managed to do that, any subsequent reading would dispel any such notion.

Now don't get me wrong. SSH is a great book. But the reason that it's a great book is not because it invented those fundamentals. The reason it's a great book is simply because it selects certain concepts that apply to certain (popular and misunderstood) game conditions, and organizes those concepts well, and explains them well, and focuses on them intently. The book "specializes", in other words. I've read both books more than once, and I find nothing in them that is inconsistent, and I can hardly think of single thing I learned from SSH that I didn't already learn from ITH. (Maybe the only thing that strikes me as new was the concept of "edge" you have on one street vs. the edge you have on the next street, and deciding on which street to raise. Of course examples like those are in ITH, but it doesn't discuss trading one "edge" for another later in those terms.) I think ITH is more suited as a first book since it covers a broader range of game conditions, and a broader range of topics like bluffing and bankroll management. This doesn't mean SSH wasn't valuable. I still learned more from reading it - it clarified my understanding of some concepts very nicely.

[Billy Zee]

Hiya's

As a beginner I have just browsed " Advanced Concepts ", if nothing more than to try and understand the " why " of the non-advanced section.
I have yet to find a better breakdown of not only the hands to play, but the circumstances in which to play them and how to play them. This approach has given me a better insight in playing Hold'em . ( NL as well as LH )

Unless I see a drastic difference in hands of say SSH, I plan on just widening my starting hands via your chart recommendations.

Regards
Billy Zee

[Billy Zee]

howdy fred,

Thank you for the kind words. I didn't do this out of the kindness of my heart though. Selfish motives are at work here /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Discussions of this type help me think through a reading. " Reading for comprehension ", has never been one of my strong points.

I'm glad to see the participation of 2+2 Authors and Matthew as well also. And we still have some more Chapters to go ... Woo Hoo !!

Regards
Billy Zee

[paperboy]

I probably missed this, but ITH recommends playing a lot of small non-suited connectors in the blinds. I wondered why SSHE doesn't?

Paperboy

[rusellmj]

I don't know PB. This has been a great thread. Very informative. 4 authors contributing. I came here looking for information about what my first "serious" poker book should be. As a result of this thread I have decided to purchase both SSHE and ITH. The late position play of AQo (or similar) seems to be a (if not the) major bone of contention. All the authors have given their views and the reasons they hold them. Soft play, newby precaution. Either way, armed with these texts, I think I'll be a winner.
Thanks guys,
Russ

[Billy Zee]

Hiya's,

Don't know why SSH doesn't. I think that SSH is the next book up for discussion.

Regards
Billy Zee

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
I came here looking for information about what my first "serious" poker book should be. As a result of this thread I have decided to purchase both SSHE and ITH.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would simplify everything if new students of the game just bought those 2 books and were done with it.

[kevbo]

Just my 2 cents so take it for what it is worth.

I feel any beginning poker player should take it slow and not try to become an expert overnight. Trying to do this will only disappoint and discourage new players. Good poker players are developed over time, not overnight. As with most things in life, getting better takes understanding which generally comes with time and experience. One should always learn the basics and then once they have a solid grasp on those concepts, then move on to more advanced material. Just like when we were in school, we didn't start with trigonometry and skip basic mathematics. It is a gradual learning process.

IMO - Players should probably read WLLH and ITH 1st and then graduate to SSH. Beginning players really need to get their feet wet and learn the basics before taking on the material in SSH. WLLH and ITH are excellent books for the beginner in that they do a good job explaining the game and how to use "basic" strategies to learn and improve one's game. SSH I think takes it a step further and explains how to use aggression to maximize results, but beginning players aren't yet ready for this. Beginners really need to focus on starting hands and why hands are/aren't played in certain positions. They need to understand why a hand will be profitable or not. They also need to learn the basics of things such as pot odds, implied odds, etc.. Many new players will often misread the board completely. In addition, they don't yet fully understand how to profile the other players as loose, tight, tricky, etc.. These folks need to gain more experience before tackling SSH.

I have read SSH a couple of times and think it is an excellent piece of work. I also feel the same about ITH. I just believe that these two books are for players at different points in their knowledge of the game. If I were to advise a new player on which books to read 1st, I would tell them to read WLLH then ITH then SSH. WLLH and ITH will give them a basic understanding of the game and give them the ability to go from a losing to a winning player. They may only win 1BB/100 but they are learning the basics 1st while gaining experience and becoming familiar with many of the different situations that occur in poker. They are learning to read the board better, calculate odds, profile their competition, the importance of position, etc.. Do I think Hilger’s starting hand charts are perfect, of course not, but I believe they are a great reference for a beginning player to use and it gives them the basics of which hands to play in which situations. As they improve, then they can begin adding hands to their arsenal.

Advanced players can debate on specific hands which may or may not be played in particular situations, but Hilger’s charts are the best out there for giving “beginning” and some intermediate players a relatively accurate list of starting hands. While I don’t feel as though all of the recommendations are correct, to paraphrase Hilger “it gives the beginning player the best chance of being put into profitable situations” and this is exactly what a new player needs. Make them a winning player, the show them how to maximize their earnings. Once the folks learn the general principals, then they can begin “fine tuning” their game. I just believe they should learn basic general concepts and have a solid grasp of them before moving on to more advanced material. If they read SSH 1st, there are many situations covered that they would not be familiar enough with to completely grasp the concepts. SSH is a great book, there’s no denying it and I think it is one of the “must haves” for any limit hold’em player’s library. I just believe that new players should work their way up to it. They will become winning players with ITH and once they are ready for it, SSH will show them how to maximize their winnings.

IMHO

- KEVBO -

[Billy Zee]

Hiya's

It's worth a lot more than 2 cents. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Thank you for the input.

Regards
Billy Zee