SSH broke my game!

[Monty Cantsin]

This is in response to Puck'n'Poker's post in Nate's tightness thread. Rather than unravelling yet another sub-thread out of that one I am replying to this here.

Puck sed:

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, I did ok until I read SSH lol (well I think I was doing ok, sample size was pretty small). I have no doubt it is an excellent book, I am just trying to figure out which parts I am applying incorrectly or if I have just been running bad for the last 3k hands (doubtful).

[/ QUOTE ]

I see this comment a lot.

Here are a couple of thoughts in response:

It's not that doubtful that you are running bad for 3k hands. It's easy to run bad for 3k and much, much more.

First of all, get some goddamn confidence.

You are a winning player. Anyone with the desire and discipline to study the game and the basic intelligence to find the right table is capable of playing a winning game. Yes you have leaks, but if you don't start out with a solid belief that you have a positive expectation then don't bother playing.

Don't try to extrapolate your leaks from your results. The lag is just too great. Poring over your stats to tweak your game is actually something that is more appropriate to advanced players.

Guys like Nate and Peter_Rus are long-term winners with huge databases and the analytical skills needed to squeeze knowledge out of this data. Guys like us need to forget about results and focus on what's right in front of our faces.

That means finding your leaks in real-time. Are you in a hand without a plan? Leak. Are you feeling uncomfortable and out of your depth? Leak. Feel like someone at the table is playing sub-optimally but don't know how to exploit it? Leak. Are you caught by surprise by someone's bet or raise and not sure how to respond? Leak.

Are you making plays because you think you're supposed to instead of understanding why? Big, big leak.

I think you'll get a lot more value out of SSH, 2+2, and all other forms of strategy if you take the following approach:

The main lesson to learn from these tools is not "play loosely in large pots" or "don't call a raise with AQ" or "bet out on the river when the 4th card to a flush comes and you've been the aggressor the whole hand".

The main lesson to learn is how to think about the game.

I think a major disease for Poker novices is rule-of-thumb-itis. Our heads are stuffed with so many heuristics and guidelines that we become sloppy state machines. We get into a situation and check our look-up tables to see what the "expert" response is. We're like the guy in Searle's Chinese Room (http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/chineser.htm#The%20Chinese%20Room%20Thought%20Expe riment), just manipulating tokens.

When you read SSH, you shouldn't come away with a better set of rules to apply to your game you should come away with a deeper understanding of the process of Poker thinking.

Stop asking "what should I do with an unimproved AK?" And start asking how does Ed Miller, or David Sklansky, or Nate tha Great, or Tommy Angelo, or Izmet Fekali - or whomever you want - how do they think about the game? How do they analyze a situation in order to find the value in it? What conceptual tools are they using to break down complicated situations into understandable chunks? What skills are they using to develop their own rules of thumb and guidelines?

Because if you aren't creating your own strategy you aren't on the path to expert play.

Btw, don't take this personally. I'm a major offender in this respect and this rant is directed at myself as much as anyone else.

/mc

[medaugh]

[ QUOTE ]
The main lesson to learn is how to think about the game

[/ QUOTE ] You know I never thought of it that way but that is the exact reason that I like that book so much. Don't care if anyone else likes this topic but I think it is great. Thanks.

[Bluffoon]

Great Post Monty. Independent thinking is a skill all unto itself that can be developed and applied with great results in all areas of life.

I believe It is incorrect to consider SSH to be a complete guide to profitable play. It certainly doesn't purport itself to be.

SSH was the fourth of fifth Holdem book I read and I have a lot of practical experience to boot. After studying the concepts in SSH I was able to incorporate a couple of changes to my game with positive results. Without the information in the other four or five books and my playing experience, following the results in SSH would have been disastrous IMO.

If your game has suffered while trying to incorporate SSH concepts it may be that you need to further develop your fundamentals.

[KaiShin]

Good post, well deserving of a read.

[HopeydaFish]

I couldn't agree with you more. Many people try too hard to turn Hold'em into Blackjack in that they believe that there's a concrete "optimal" way to play, and that playing any differently is -EV. Hold'em is a great game because every time you play it is different -- you need to play your opponents at least as much or more so as you need to play your cards.

Many players see every situation in black and white. They're the same posters who will respond with the one line "Raise pre-flop" or whatever whenever anyone posts a hand on here for analysis. The reason their responses don't lack any depth is that they really don't know *why* you should fold pre-flop, or raise pre-flop, or what have you -- just that their handy Texas Hold'em chart that they've printed off tells them that this is how they were supposed to play.

[Greg J]

Awesome post!

[ QUOTE ]
I think a major disease for Poker novices is rule-of-thumb-itis.

[/ QUOTE ]
Excactly.

[ QUOTE ]
Because if you aren't creating your own strategy you aren't on the path to expert play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

While I totally appreciate Nate tha Great's post about preflop play, and how we are missing opportunities passing up many profitable hands preflop, the biggest issue for my development is not bumping up my vpip a few points. It's taking how I think about the game to the next level. It's very cliche, but what most moderately good, but not great players here (I would like to consider myself one of those) need to to is learn to play "outside the box." (I can't beleive I used that term -- I need a shower now.)

[istewart]

I've got the disease.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
It's very cliche, but what most moderately good, but not great players here (I would like to consider myself one of those) need to to is learn to play "outside the box." (I can't beleive I used that term -- I need a shower now.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody plays outside the box. You just need to get a bigger box. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[bicyclekick]

great post monty. Keep em comin.

[tdarko]

excellent post monty /images/graemlins/smile.gif

SSH helped me in a different way, a player (friend) at my home game read it and playing anything suited is what he got out of it (i know absurd huh?). needless to say he hates the book and has been donating for awhile, i won't let him read this post! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[SA125]

n/m

[trainslayer]

[ QUOTE ]
That means finding your leaks in real-time. Are you in a hand without a plan? Leak. Are you feeling uncomfortable and out of your depth? Leak. Feel like someone at the table is playing sub-optimally but don't know how to exploit it? Leak. Are you caught by surprise by someone's bet or raise and not sure how to respond? Leak.

Are you making plays because you think you're supposed to instead of understanding why? Big, big leak.

[/ QUOTE ]

dammit boy, that hurt.

Thanks.

[jar]

This post is EXCELLENT. I'd think about sending it or something based on it to Mason for the magazine.

[PuckNPoker]

[ QUOTE ]


Btw, don't take this personally. I'm a major offender in this respect and this rant is directed at myself as much as anyone else.

/mc

[/ QUOTE ]

I will take your advice "personally" but in a good way. Such a great post, I prefer honesty to sugarcoating. I will read and re-read what you have to say, and will learn from it.

Thank you.

[cowboyzfan]

[ QUOTE ]
Without the information in the other four or five books and my playing experience, following the results in SSH would have been disastrous IMO.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would be really informative if you explained why you have this opinion. I read comments like this a lot but it rarely goes beyond "IMO". Just as this excellent thread discusses, we are really not learning anything in these discussions unless we are learning "why" we do X or think X.

thanks

[cowboyzfan]

Just to follow up, I understand that SSH is not "complete" in that it does not cover every possible game situation. For example, it does not say much about short handed play. Also, the writers of SSH did assume that most readers have read books such as WLLH or ITH.

But what I really want to know is what in SSH do people find so "dangerous"? These comments border on implying the book is wrong in some way. Because if someone says it is dangerous simply if you do not follow the advice correctly, that could be said about any poker book ever written. What is so exceptional about the danger of SSH?

[witeknite]

First thing off the top of my head is hand protection. I can see where an inexperienced player could raise trying to protect their hand without realising that their hand isn't worth protecting.

WiteKnite

[Monty Cantsin]

[ QUOTE ]

But what I really want to know is what in SSH do people find so "dangerous"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Compared to, say, Winning Low Limit Hold'em, SSH recommends folding less with your marginal hands. In some cases it recommends playing marginal hands pretty strongly. In general it recommends folding less in large pots.

Many people already play too many hands and go too far with them. For them, the rule of thumb "don't fold in large pots" could cause problems if they don't understand the fundamental reasoning behind this idea which is that your expectation is a product of your winning chances times the size of the pot. (Btw, I think Ed Miller does a good job of communicating this idea.)

Also SSH stresses using bets and raises to protect vulnerable hands. Again, the fundamental idea is that there is a cost associated with betting and raising and there is a corresponding payoff in terms of increased winning chances. These values are always different for each unique situation, if you don't get into the habit of calculating for yourself the cost/benefit of each of your plays you could easily end up playing aggressively for its own sake and not making the most profit on your plays.

Here's a good example of someone thinking beyond the "raise to protect your vulnerable hand" and getting greater value because of it: Stellar Wind's Difficult 99 Hand (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1782616&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1). Whether you agree with his play or not, you have to admire this example of someone seeing past the rules of thumb to understand the thinking process behind them.

/mc

[Bluffoon]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to follow up, I understand that SSH is not "complete" in that it does not cover every possible game situation. For example, it does not say much about short handed play. Also, the writers of SSH did assume that most readers have read books such as WLLH or ITH.

But what I really want to know is what in SSH do people find so "dangerous"? These comments border on implying the book is wrong in some way. Because if someone says it is dangerous simply if you do not follow the advice correctly, that could be said about any poker book ever written. What is so exceptional about the danger of SSH?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Cowboy hopefully I play poker better than I express myself.

SSH preaches aggression. Without the proper fundamentals this aggression can easily result in a lot of chip-spewing.

If you don't fully understand the differences between a loose/tight/passive/aggressive games you are going to be playing aggriessively with a lot of hands you shouldn't be playing. Evaluating a game and adjusting your hand selection is a fundamental skill.

Folding is also a fundamental skill. If you don't fold in appropriate situations you are going to to be playing aggressively with a lot of losing hands. Very expensive.

Gutshots and second pair with an overcard and back door draws are tricky and dificult hands to play. It takes a lot of experience to know when these hands can be played and when you should push with them and when you should lay low. SSH advocates that you play these hands very aggressively. Without a lot of experience playing these types of hands you can get cleaned out very quickly.

So I guess what I am saying is that I believe that it is better for a novice to play in a weak-tight Lee Jones style and to add aggressiveness and skills slowly in order to be able to better evaluate how effectively you are implementing various plays.

So I have worked on various skills and my fundamentals are sound and I am winning steady and I pick up SSH and I see that I can improve my hand protection skills and be more selective with overcard play. So I plug these skills into an already functioning agame and I immediately see positive results. But if my semi-bluffing skills were weak and I peeled too many cards on the flop with I would be making horriblly expensive mistakes trying to protect hands on the turn with inadvisable semi-bluff raises with hands that I should have either folded or never even played.

[Bluffoon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But what I really want to know is what in SSH do people find so "dangerous"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Compared to, say, Winning Low Limit Hold'em, SSH recommends folding less with your marginal hands. In some cases it recommends playing marginal hands pretty strongly. In general it recommends folding less in large pots.

Many people already play too many hands and go too far with them. For them, the rule of thumb "don't fold in large pots" could cause problems if they don't understand the fundamental reasoning behind this idea which is that your expectation is a product of your winning chances times the size of the pot. (Btw, I think Ed Miller does a good job of communicating this idea.)

Also SSH stresses using bets and raises to protect vulnerable hands. Again, the fundamental idea is that there is a cost associated with betting and raising and there is a corresponding payoff in terms of increased winning chances. These values are always different for each unique situation, if you don't get into the habit of calculating for yourself the cost/benefit of each of your plays you could easily end up playing aggressively for its own sake and not making the most profit on your plays.

Here's a good example of someone thinking beyond the "raise to protect your vulnerable hand" and getting greater value because of it: Stellar Wind's Difficult 99 Hand (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1782616&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1). Whether you agree with his play or not, you have to admire this example of someone seeing past the rules of thumb to understand the thinking process behind them.

/mc

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. You said that so much better than I did. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[cowboyzfan]

I think you both said it well. This to me is an important conversation. I do understand what you guys are saying. Basically the key is to understand why you make certain plays. You can't make a play only for the reason you "think" that is what SSH says you should do, instead of understanding why and when you should do it.

Here is a problem I am having, and this is probably why I responded to your post. I think most people consider the "fundamentals" to be the standard, slightly weak-tightish play offered in WLLH, ITH, and MLH.

SSH is considered by many to be a way of adjusting that "standard" play so as to maximize results in certain situations. But here is my problem. In some ways I see SSH as not just a method of tweaking a basically sound approach in certain situations. Rather, it seems more of a radical rethink of what we should really be doing in a Hold'em game.


I will give you one example. In reviewing Internet Texas Hold'em by Matt Hilger I read that hands such as JJ and TT should only be limping hands in a passive game. I seem to remember pretty much most of the "fundamental" books agreed with this basic theme. Hands such as JJ and 10 10 are played for "set value", so you want as many limpers as possible. The basic point is: These hands are not worth raising if you can't knock most opponents out.

Now, doesn't SSH teach us that we should be raising hands that are likely best, from almost all positions? How does one reconcile these "standard" ideas with those ideas of SSH?

This in a nutshell is why I am confused /images/graemlins/confused.gif I agree SSH does not have all the answers or cover many things that one would need to know. But when I go back to the standard texts, I read things that are in fundamental disagreement with SSH. And if these standard texts have this wrong (do they?), then how are they not even more dangerous than SSH? Because what they are talking about are the fundamental concepts of how you win money playing Hold'em.

Cowboy

[Bluffoon]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you both said it well. This to me is an important conversation. I do understand what you guys are saying. Basically the key is to understand why you make certain plays. You can't make a play only for the reason you "think" that is what SSH says you should do, instead of understanding why and when you should do it.

Here is a problem I am having, and this is probably why I responded to your post. I think most people consider the "fundamentals" to be the standard, slightly weak-tightish play offered in WLLH, ITH, and MLH.

SSH is considered by many to be a way of adjusting that "standard" play so as to maximize results in certain situations. But here is my problem. In some ways I see SSH as not just a method of tweaking a basically sound approach in certain situations. Rather, it seems more of a radical rethink of what we should really be doing in a Hold'em game.


I will give you one example. In reviewing Internet Texas Hold'em by Matt Hilger I read that hands such as JJ and TT should only be limping hands in a passive game. I seem to remember pretty much most of the "fundamental" books agreed with this basic theme. Hands such as JJ and 10 10 are played for "set value", so you want as many limpers as possible. The basic point is: These hands are not worth raising if you can't knock most opponents out.

Now, doesn't SSH teach us that we should be raising hands that are likely best, from almost all positions? How does one reconcile these "standard" ideas with those ideas of SSH?

This in a nutshell is why I am confused /images/graemlins/confused.gif I agree SSH does not have all the answers or cover many things that one would need to know. But when I go back to the standard texts, I read things that are in fundamental disagreement with SSH. And if these standard texts have this wrong (do they?), then how are they not even more dangerous than SSH? Because what they are talking about are the fundamental concepts of how you win money playing Hold'em.

Cowboy

[/ QUOTE ]

You will get decent results correctly playing the WLLH way. You are going to lose some incorrectly playing the WLLH way.

You can make more correctly playing the SSH way. You can get killed incorrectly playing the SSH way.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


Because if someone says it is dangerous simply if you do not follow the advice correctly, that could be said about any poker book ever written. What is so exceptional about the danger of SSH?

[/ QUOTE ]

The danger of SSH is that it is easy to misinterpret what it is saying if you read the book superficially.

First of all, it is easy for the uninformed to view it as a beginner's book. It is not. The book assumes a certain level of knowledge and experience. This is particularly dangerous for a new player with an instinctively aggressive style.

Secondly, the book advocates what at first glance appears to be a much more aggressive style than almost any other non-expert book. It is easy for an uninformed player to mistake selectively aggressive strategy for generally or universally aggressive strategy. It is interesting that the only other writer in this area that focusses on aggressive play is Gary Carson, who is also the only other author quoted in the book.

Thirdly, the authors assume a certain knowledge of starting hand strategy, and focus a lot more on postflop play, since this is the major weakness of players at this level. This focus can lead inexperienced players to think that they can play more hands if they play them more aggressively, which is certainly not what the book recommends.

All of the "dangers" of the book fall under your catagory of not following the advice correctly, but these dangers are more subtle and easier to fall into than not following advice like don't cold call a raise with 54 offsuit.

[Bjorn]

Well i think it is not that unreasonable to expect a bit of a downswing after reading a big poker text like SSH or any other good poker book.

You have to consider that the amount of "poker wisdom" in a text of the size probably took the authors 1000ths of hours to gain and even though it all has been prepackaged into a nice little package it is still more than what most of us can digest in a short time, let alone incorporate into our play.

It didn't get any easier when i ploughed through both SSH and 7CS for AP in about a week either...
/images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Reading TOP cover to cover nonstop on one 14h trip was probably not the smartest either.

/Bjorn

[QTip]

Great post!

[theRealMacoy]

Great post Gentlemen,

Thanks for getting it started Monty.

Cheers,
The Real Macoy

[SenecaJim]

Monty, that was an excellent post. I read a post of Ed Miller's somewhere that basically said he wrote the book to stimulate and guide thinking about the game. However, if somebody wanted to use it as a recipe book it would help them win more as well, just not as much. Also , it wouldnt' improve them as much.

As for me, I began following the recipe and it helped my game a lot. My current 3rd reading I'm reading it with the purpose of helping me think about my game, interspersed with rereadings of top and gtaot. Great book, great post.