Bobby Baldwin, Ed Miller and small stakes hold em

[spurgeon]

Ed Miller, in his book small stakes hold em says that there are two fundamentals of winning poker. 1. Bet and raise your strong hands for value. 2. Play tightly in small pots and loose in large ones. Mr. Miller says that the size of the pot is the most important decision at the table. When you have a marginal hand, like second or third pair, you can continue if the pot is large. Miller says that you can continue in large pots even if your winning chances appear grim. Thus, he thinks that books such as the one by Jones are weak tight.
Is this advice new? Well, let's go and read the limit section of the original supersystem by Bobby Baldwin. Baldwin writes, "Draws to hands other than straights and flushes are seldom good choices in hold em, because of it's common card nature. . . Chasing when you have few outs is a losing proposition. This does NOT mean that you always have to have top pair or better to play. There are many pots when nobody turns any kind of hand. Knowing when a marginal hand, like second or third pair, is likely to be best, and worth a "value" bet, is something that only comes with a lot of experience. There are a few hands when it pays to try to make trips when you have second pair or go to the fourth card to pick up a draw. But, they are exceptional cases. YOU MUST HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF WINNING A VERY LARGE POT or it's NOT worth the gamble."
There you have it. Here is some advice by Bobby Baldwin that is very similar to Miller's advice. This is small stakes hole em advice from 1978. Heck, Mr. Miller was not even born yet!

[Al Mirpuri]

I like this post. It shows that there is nothing really new under the sun. However, Bobby Baldwin was not giving you a whole approach to a type of game whereas Ed Miller is.

Sometimes the prize does not go to the inventor of something but the popularizer of it. Apparently, 49 people "invented" the lightbulb before Thomas Edison.

In Chess, openings are often named after the popularizer rather than the inventor.

The idea that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice verse was 1000 years old when Copernicus championed it.

[Rudbaeck]

If you read Gary Carson's book you'll find even more of the SSH gospel spelled out already. Almost all of it was out there already, that's no secret.

The thing that Ed really did was take it all. Remove all parts that didn't apply, make sure the parts that did apply lined up correctly and then set out to explain it very, very well.

In Carson, Baldwin, HPFAP etc you'll find nuggets that apply to these games, but they are mixed up with lots of information that doesn't apply, and it's damn hard to figure out which is which.

[Eratosthenes]

The difference is that Miller puts these two fundamentals into simple unambiguous statements and then goes into detail about the application of those fundamentals. Baldwin never exposes the fundamentals and focuses on the applications.

[ QUOTE ]
Baldwin writes, "Draws to hands other than straights and flushes are seldom good choices in hold em, because of it's common card nature. . . Chasing when you have few outs is a losing proposition."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Miller's advice disagrees with this statement, especially seldom. Miller advises playing overcards as a weak draw, raising to protect your, second best, hand and other techniques where you aggressively play hands that are drawing to less than a straight. I think I follow Miller's advice and I play these hands often instead of seldom. Sorry if I am picking nits over seldom and often.

I agree with your main point that most or all of Miller's techniques can be found in previous books. I recently reread HEPFAP and TOP for the first time since studying SSH. I was struck by how much of SSH was in HEPFAP and/or TOP. The trouble was that I did not pick the good small stakes bits out of those older books and apply them to my game. After understanding SSH, I routinely apply those techniques to my game and enjoy the results.

[cowboyzfan]

[ QUOTE ]
I was struck by how much of SSH was in HEPFAP and/or TOP. The trouble was that I did not pick the good small stakes bits out of those older books and apply them to my game. After understanding SSH, I routinely apply those techniques to my game and enjoy the results.

[/ QUOTE ]

My TOP book discusses winning big pots right away (protecting your hand?), raising with second pair to increase your chances of winning the pot (forerunner of pot equity?) and playing weak made hands or overcards with as little as a back door draw(hidden outs?).

I consider it a positive that there is some continuity in "correct" poker information. New is nice, right is better.

[BeerMoney]

Well, what Ed's book does is clearly expain certain situations where these decisions are important. The first thing you learn when studying poker is the idea of pot-odds versus odds of hitting your hand. We all know you should sometimes draw to a gutshot if the pot is big enough. Lee Jones taught that in his book.

Ed's book is great, and will make anyone a better poker player because of the way he teaches you to think about certain scenarios. He explains these thing clearly and concisely. Ed Miller's book can not be replaced by the limit hold em section in SuperSystem.

[amulet]

not sure what your point is? ed miller did a wonderful job with ssh. in fact in some ways it combines theory of poker and hold em for advanced players. while there are a few things i do not agree with in ssh, overall i think it is the most comprehensive work on poker that exists. and it is very user friendly. a great book. that bobby baldwin or others wrote similar things in other poker books is not surprising, all good poker books are going to have many things in common.

[Robk]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Miller's advice disagrees with this statement, especially seldom. Miller advises playing overcards as a weak draw, raising to protect your, second best, hand and other techniques where you aggressively play hands that are drawing to less than a straight. I think I follow Miller's advice and I play these hands often instead of seldom.

[/ QUOTE ]

their advice is different and both are correct. the blind structure of holdem changed.