How well does SSH translate to higher level games?

[Stork]

For example, say 5 limpers see the flop for 2 small bets in 2-4 game with the preflop raiser being on your right. You flop middle pair. The preflop raiser bets. Here, Ed would tell you just about all the time that this is a raise. How effective is this advice if it was same situation but in a 30-60 game? Would you give the raiser more credit, or do you still have enough estimated equity that it's worth protecting the pot? This is just an example but I'm wondering for all the concepts in the book, how effective are they in higher limit games?

[augie00]

Not to sound like a jerk, but I think it's called "Small Stakes" Hold'em for a reason.

[Ed Miller]

For example, say 5 limpers see the flop for 2 small bets in 2-4 game with the preflop raiser being on your right. You flop middle pair. The preflop raiser bets. Here, Ed would tell you just about all the time that this is a raise. How effective is this advice if it was same situation but in a 30-60 game? Would you give the raiser more credit, or do you still have enough estimated equity that it's worth protecting the pot?

For this particular example, you should basically raise no matter what limit you are playing.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to sound like a jerk, but I think it's called "Small Stakes" Hold'em for a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be a bigger jerk, but why would you play differently vs. bad players just b/c the stakes are higher?

As long as there's loose players, I don't see why SSHE wouldn't apply.

[Stork]

I guess I assumed that the players would gradually get better as you moved up in limits.

[pfkaok]

Well yeah, on average I'm sure the players do get better as you move up, however, anytime you're in a loose, highlimit game, or just if the game starts getting crazy, then SSHE would work just fine IMO

[Yobz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the broader aspects of the game apply everywhere. If you are heads up and someone bets into you and you have the pot odds to call, then call (or raise), dont fold. If you are in a very tight game then I dont think SSH applies as much, but some concepts carry over no matter the limit

[emonrad87]

I posted threads on this recently in a bunch of forums. Bascially, people told me that SSHE is applicable as long as people are playing like the norm at the small stakes. So, in your example, a raise would be correct. It all depends upon the structure of the game.

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to sound like a jerk, but I think it's called "Small Stakes" Hold'em for a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

What reason might that be?

[greg nice]

what do you do vs a 3-bet?

[thekicker]

Given this scenario, I think you raise 100% of the time.

[augie00]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not to sound like a jerk, but I think it's called "Small Stakes" Hold'em for a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

What reason might that be?

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason that the book is called small stakes hold'em? Because it gives advice on what to do in loose games you encounter at small stakes? Maybe you're asking a different question, and I don't understand?

The difference between 30/60 and 2/4 isn't negligible, but it's the play that's important, not the limit. If five people coming in for two bets preflop is the norm, I don't see why SSH wouldn't apply. I wouldn't rely on SSH advice in a "typical" 30/60 game.