SSHE quiestion

[meanjean]

I was just curious as to what people thought about the outcome applying the principles of SSHE in a tight aggressive game.

Would one win?
Would you lose?
Break even?

I have my opinion, I just wanted to see what others thought
thanks

[PennDenn]

Hey there meanjean,
You would be better off posting this in the book forum section.

Also mebenhoe is having posts about this book. He is on part 3 now but if you look him up in a search you may find your answer.

[Rasputin]

I think you'd get crushed.

There's quite a bit of the strategy that is based on your opponents being loose and passive. If they are neither loose nor passive then it stands to reason that strategy would be ineffective at best.

[Token]

At worst, you'd break even. It's silly to think that you'd get crushed. While SSHE teaches to take advantage of mistakes common to loose and unaggressive games, by no means can its strategies not be applied to tighter games. It constantly stresses position and reads... strategies that would apply under any circumstance. Besides, aren't tight players easier to read?

[Rasputin]

Lets put it this way.

If you use the starting hand recommendations you'd be in a bunch of pots you had no business being in.

If you value bet expecting to get paid off by the second best hand it's going to fail much more often.

Now if you want to abstract the strategies to things like "protect your hand"; "pay attention to position" and the like, then of course they still apply at other levels.

Since the point of SSHE is to take basic poker strategies, apply them to the loose low limit games the strategies outlined in the book will have at their core the same strategies that apply to all other levels of limit games. So when one refers to the strategies outlined in SSHE one is obviously referring to the application of the fundamental strategies to the loose low limit games rather than every other game in the world.

And, as Sklansky says in the "Why this book..." section (page 2 in my edition) "Techniques that extract the greatest profit in small games won't work in bigger games."

[Beavis68]

If you accurately apply them, you would do well, if you mis-apply them and think you are in a loose-agressive game, you will leak money like crazy.

[darydarling]

Just from my experiences when I'm in a tight game I cannot play the same aggressive style as discussed in SSHE. If I do I'm down anywhere from 20-40 bbs in no time at all. But once I adjust my game and tighten up I can usually get it back.
But apply those principals in a loose game and you're golden.

[__Q__]

Your Question doesn't work.

Miller never says to just play your cards and the board. In every instance you have to look at your table position, the number of people who've entered the pot, your chances of getting raised, and ultimately, to calculate your pot-odds. If a game is tight and agressive, then the pots will be smaller and you will not have the pot odds to make certain plays, and therefore, following his strategy, you would be playing a tight agressive also, and thus would have adjusted properly to the conditions of the game.

Of course this isn't what you really mean. What you really mean is if you play as loose as Miller suggests when there is a Big pot, but the game is really a tight agressive one with small pots, how would you do. And then, yes, you would get crushed. If your playing a small pot with one other person and all you have is a flush draw, you will get destroyed.

But Miller would never tell you to do that. Small pots occur every now and then in loose games too and Miller makes it very clear that it is a HUGE mistake to chase after small pots.

[FrankLu99]

doesnt the book give guidelines on how to play against a tight field?

[Klak]

the book lists a "tight" game as being one where there are 4-6 players on the flop.

[timmer]

I suggest if yoiu find yourself in a tight aggressive game to switch to a looser game if at all possible.

timmer