adjusting to life after SSH

[jfletcher]

I just read SSH about 3 weeks ago and am now starting to read it again, because I think somewhere some of the concepts may have been lost on me. After winning for about 12,000 hands (since I got PT), I have been on a pretty good losing streak in the 2500 or so hands since reading SSH.

I think the basic problem is that now I see all other players and first assume they are bad, so I end up calling down to the river when I think I'm beaten much more often than I used to. I was winning about 55 pct at showdown before, and since SSH its about 43 pct.

It seems that SSH endorses value betting like crazy on the river because people will call you with second pair, and also calling on the river because people will bet with unexpected hands. So sure enough, I end up being the one calling with second pair!

Now, I suppose it's possible that I'm making the right decisions but just getting unlucky, that my 1 in 12 river calls are only coming in once in 16 times. Maybe those 5-6 more pots I would have won over these 2500 hands would make all the difference in results. Maybe the more-aggressive style promoted by SSH (I also raise PF more) just causes bigger swings, and this is just a normal downswing for 2500 hands.

In any case, I was wondering if others who have read SSH ran into similar problems when they first got done with the book, and how did you correct yourself.

By the way, right now I'm playing 1-2 at pokerroom. My opponents have been seeing the flop about 35 pct of the time, and that's inflated by a few very loose players. Usually there aren't more than two or three at the table who are more than 35 pct VPIP. Most are between 20 and 30.

[dogmeat]

I also had a reversal of fortune after reading/implementing SSH. There are some flaws in the use of Ed's "ideal" plays. The flaw is not so much the overall play itself, the flaw is in the way that many people will implement changes based on SSH without regard to the actual games they are playing.

Making an assumption that everybody else is a loose fish is an obvious error. Assuming that the game you are playing in fits Ed's "model" of looseness is another fatal flaw. When you find yourself in a game like you mention, with 35% going to the flop, you can not automatically use everything Ed mentions in SSH.

Many of SSH's concepts deal with what can only be described as "super-loose" games. 35% to the flop is not super loose. You should be able to use solid play - aggression, value betting etc., but you can not play nearly as many hands.

Take from the book the parts that deal with understanding when you have a great/good/poor hand, and go from there with aggression. That will get you the best win rates. Leave behind some of the things you mention - like almost always calling for value. When you play a game that habitually gets down to only two or three players by the river, the value of calling is usually not that great unless you have a superior read on a player.

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[BSXX]

[ QUOTE ]
I also had a reversal of fortune after reading/implementing SSH. There are some flaws in the use of Ed's "ideal" plays. The flaw is not so much the overall play itself, the flaw is in the way that many people will implement changes based on SSH without regard to the actual games they are playing.

Making an assumption that everybody else is a loose fish is an obvious error. Assuming that the game you are playing in fits Ed's "model" of looseness is another fatal flaw. When you find yourself in a game like you mention, with 35% going to the flop, you can not automatically use everything Ed mentions in SSH.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good answer. I was in a similar thread discussion last night about making faulty assumptions about player behavior based solely on the level they play at. There are many different player types at every level. When I sit at a table I play my usual game until I have proof the game is super loose or super tight. Ed' strategies in SSHE are obviously designed to exploit very loose games.

Ed posted this in the Jim Brier thread and it bears reading. His entire response is here: web page (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1333365&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1)

"What Jim has been saying about this stuff definitely has value. Namely, he is absolutely right that raising middle pair is no longer correct if you are almost certain your opponent is betting a better hand. All of these "raise your marginal hands" plays assume that there is SOME CHANCE YOU HAVE THE BEST HAND (or can get the one with the actual best hand to fold). Now because the bet size is small compared to the pot size, that chance need not necessarily be large to make raising correct... often 10% is plenty. But if you are playing against someone whose bet means with certainty that he has a better hand, then raising becomes no longer correct."

You have to remove all preconceived notions about low limit games from your mind, play your normal game, and concentrate on the type of game you are actaully in, regardless of the limits: tight?/loose?/passive?/aggressive?/etc.., and THEN implement the appropriate strategy.

[lehighguy]

I was a consistent winner a 3/6 over 14,000+ hands. I picked up SSH because I had hit a snag and was flat for many many sessions. I think the book is a little advanced (as they say in the book). Some of the advice is really good. I layed down to many hands before. But when you first read it I think you get to excited and loosen up to much. I think what really improves you game is to spend at least 10-15 seconds thinking about a more advanced play like raising for a free card or second pair raising. Ask yourself why you are doing it. What do I think other people at the table have, how will they react to my action and is it desirable.

I'm starting to stablize and move back up. I'll keep trying to learn.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems that SSH endorses value betting like crazy on the river because people will call you with second pair,

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what Ed's book says.

In poker, you can't just make a blanket statement like "value bet like crazy on the river, because every player is going to call me with second pair." You have to actually think about these situations, and they're player dependent. If you have a good read on a player, and he has demonstrated that he's a calling station, that's when you want to value bet the hell out of your hand on the river. On the other hand, if he's a weak/tight rock, then you don't value bet your fair hands on the river, because he'll fold if he's behind and he'll only call if he's ahead.

Go back and re-read the book. The strategies are tied together by pot size, and they are very consistent. Tend to play looser and more aggressively in large pots. That's when you want to push your marginal edges and knock out other players to gain more equity. When you have marginal hands, let the bad players slug it out in small pots.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
Making an assumption that everybody else is a loose fish is an obvious error. Assuming that the game you are playing in fits Ed's "model" of looseness is another fatal flaw. When you find yourself in a game like you mention, with 35% going to the flop, you can not automatically use everything Ed mentions in SSH.

Many of SSH's concepts deal with what can only be described as "super-loose" games. 35% to the flop is not super loose. You should be able to use solid play - aggression, value betting etc., but you can not play nearly as many hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with all of the above. I'm certain that the live, low-limit games with which Ed is familiar are way looser and fishier than, say, the average Party 3/6 game.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

I ran super hot for the first 10K hands after reading Ed's book (7.5BB/100) and thought he was the second coming. I overapplied the principles in games that were not so loose, and dropped a bit of that. SSH is powerful medicine, and like any powerful medicine it can be very dangerous if misused. You really have to be sure that the table (or the opponent) meets Ed's criteria.

[jfletcher]

[ QUOTE ]
In poker, you can't just make a blanket statement like "value bet like crazy on the river, because every player is going to call me with second pair." You have to actually think about these situations, and they're player dependent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize this. I was just giving an illustration of one of the underlying theories in the book that has gotten me into trouble.

I'm not so stupid as to do anything in poker "every time."

[Kenrick]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the more-aggressive style promoted by SSH (I also raise PF more) just causes bigger swings, and this is just a normal downswing for 2500 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could be the aggression. As mentioned, the book is for very loose games. I don't have mine with me at the moment, but I think the *tight* preflop strategy is based on an average of six or seven players seeing the flop. You're lucky to see that even at Party .50/1 during primetime. In general, I think 3/6 live players are worse than Party .50/1 players though, so depends where and who you play. Being able to switch gears keeps you competitive no matter what the game is.

SSH is a good book and has good concepts for certain kinds of games you will encounter. This thread is funny to me because I just reread Mason's old less-than-flattering review of Gary Carson's book, and to me SSH is very similar just with more math.

Even if you loosened up after reading SSH, I doubt that would turn you from a winner into a big loser. It might lower your winrate, especially if you are applying the concepts incorrectly, but you'd have to be seriously changing your game to lose a lot over 2500 hands that you wouldn't have lost anyway. The concepts are good, but you may be applying them incorrectly or too liberally, or are simply not in games geared for those concepts.

Also, 2500 hands really isn't much anyway.

[davebytheway]

The 'tight' preflop hand recommendations assume 3-5 see the flop, the 'loose' recommendations assume 6-8

[HesseJam]

I am also suspect for overapplying. I am running -9 bb/100 over 2000 hands since starting the book. The loss is not all due to bad play since I had flushes only about 1.5% of my hands of which 60% were beaten and 0.5 % of full houses. Two pairs is almost a looser for me. Got big starting pairs way below expectation.

During the bus ride this morning, I had a look at the hand quiz and noticed that I am playing overcards too aggressive, raising too much and not giving up soon enough.

I took it too much to heart that I should not give too much credit to the other players (no, the book is not exactly saying this but I "understood" the book this way, it made me think this way).

Also, I think by reading the book I thought I am now better than I actually am and that the other players are fishier than they actually are.

I'll do some more evaluating of my hands and will plug one hole at a time. Multi-tabling will be cut back to 2 tables max for a while.

[djoyce003]

Yeah, you are playing tables that are slightly tighter than the SSHE tables that are discussed in the book. 30% means 3 people to a flop on average. If you are at a table this tight, i'd leave. I use the external game time window and if i'm at a table that doesn't have at least 4 people that are VPIP over 40, preferably over 50, I leave and search out more fertile hunting grounds. The worst thing you can do is sit at a table with 7 people all at around 25% or less VPIP. If you are good, you might still win, but you better have cards to do it with.

[Rasputin]

[ QUOTE ]
During the bus ride this morning, I had a look at the hand quiz and noticed that I am playing overcards too aggressive, raising too much and not giving up soon enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I'm doing the same things. I think those things are the common traps based on the suggested strategies. I mean, you're supposed to be aggressive with marginal hands in large pots but there's no concrete definition of large pots and there's a thin line between aggressive and stupid.

Seems like overcards, middle pairs, and mid range draws are the difference between the "break even/win a little" range and the "I'm crushing this game" range.

[TheHip41]

I play pokerroom 1-2 all the time. I play like it says in SSH. I smash that game. Everyone is tight/passive. Just keep reading, you'll get it eventually /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Derek

[phildirt]

Hi all

Some basic assumptions that have worked for me in appling SSH: Online (1-2, 2-4, 3-6) play tight limit strategy, Live (2-4, 3-6, 4-8) play loose limit strategy. Online it is tougher to find games that meet the loose criteria. One thing that I find tough is finding an online game that simulates a live game at the levels that play, maybee play money.

Another piont that detirmes how much you will follow Ed's montra is pot size. I play much more aggressvly in large pots in attempt to buy outs. It still sucks when you loose a big pot but in the end it pays. Also what is the quality of your draw w/second pair? Backdoor str8 or flush, What do you think your chances are if you do spike your second pair, what are the chances that he's betting a naked AK, Is he one of us who will bet a draw, or is he the run of the mill buffcatcher who calls with any piece of the board all the way. Factor all this in and use SSH to take maximum advantage of them.

[HesseJam]

[ QUOTE ]
..there's a thin line between aggressive and stupid.
..


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I think this is it in a nutshell.

[BSXX]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'm doing the same things. I think those things are the common traps based on the suggested strategies. I mean, you're supposed to be aggressive with marginal hands in large pots but there's no concrete definition of large pots and there's a thin line between aggressive and stupid.

Seems like overcards, middle pairs, and mid range draws are the difference between the "break even/win a little" range and the "I'm crushing this game" range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, I have crossed that line a few times. One thing I had to look closer at was "the action". Are they just calling my aggression or playing back at me? Even in the loosest games you have to re-evaluate if they are playing back at you and you only have a marginal hand or draw. Otherwise, we may be making the very mistakes we are trying to exploit.

Was reading a thread yesterday that correctly pointed out the error of assuming all low limit games are ultra loose. I have played in some very solid .50/$1 games and played in some ultra loose $5/$10 games.