HEPAP - I'm at a loss for words

[QTip]

Several of us had a conversation this afternoon about a chapter in HEPAP about blind play. The chief told me that there were some good things in the loose games section. So I started reading when I got home. I got to page 162 and my jaw dropped. Imagine I post either of these 2 hands...what do you think?

Game description: This is in a weak game where people are playing too many hands and going to far with them.

I'm MP1 with A /images/graemlins/diamond.gifJ /images/graemlins/heart.gif

UTG limps, I fold.

How's my line?

Or how about this one? Same game...

I'm UTG with A /images/graemlins/diamond.gifJ /images/graemlins/heart.gif

I fold.

How's my line? Read page 162 in HEPAP...this is the exact hand and exact advice...fold.

OMG...this is sooooooooooo far off of what I read in SSHE, and the description is exactly the same "players playing too many hands and going to far with them".

WTF am I missing here? Someone PLEASE help me understand. I hate being confused. SSHE has me raising in both of these situations.....the same persons pictures are on the back of both of these books with the same game descriptions...loose, too many hands, going too far.

Help.

[CallMeIshmael]

Generally speaking, if they disagree, the disagreement comes from (I'm assuming) the assumed level of thought put forth by your opponents.

Also, SSHE says to limp AJ from EP (in the games we play, ie. 3-5 to the flop). People on here tend to raise with more hands than is recommended in SSHE or HPFAP, for better or for worse.

[istewart]

Cornell sucks.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Cornell sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Where you go? Harvard? (perhaps UPENN?)

[istewart]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cornell sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Where you go to Harvard? (perhaps UPENN?)

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, Cornell's not bad actually. So dead up there though. I'd be jumping into those gorges within the first month.

Yeah Penn.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
lol, Cornell's not bad actually. So dead up there though. I'd be jumping into those gorges within the first month.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have no idea. Its not a coincidence that I find 4 hours a day to post here.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah Penn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quality school! No hockey though. I'm a big hockey guy, and Cornell vs Harvard is big. (And I, of course, got my ass rejected by Harvard).

Also, just so I don't feel guilty about not mentioning poker: never fold in a big pot for 1 bet, unless you're sure you're beat.

[Emmitt2222]

Honestly, I think that until you get past 15/30, you don't really need to take HEFAP to heart. Like I said in the other thread, there is always the underlieing idea that your opponents are not complete morons and are actually thinking players which will affect the game significantly. I read bits and pieces of it and take all of it with a grain of salt.

[Niediam]

I think atleast part of it may be that SSH is assuming that loose players are playing hands like T7 and 62s while HEFAP is assuming that loose players are playing hands such as AT and J9s.

[Evan]

I doubt you've ever played in a game that fits HEPFAP's descriptions. I've played in games with 4 or 5 2+2ers (yes, ones other than drunk 2/4) that didn't even fit those guidelines. Games today, especially at low limits, are way different.

[jason_t]

I doubt that a lot of the concepts that appear in HFAP apply to the limits that we (I) play at.

[ QUOTE ]
the same persons pictures are on the back of both of these books with the same game descriptions

[/ QUOTE ]

Speculative statement: S&M wrote most of HFAP; Miller wrote most of SSH.

[chief444]

That was my explanation to him as well. Even though the descriptions for loose games in HEPFAP and SSHE may be worded similar I don't think the actual games they're describing are. The games today I'm sure are much better and the average opponent much worse.

[Benman]

HPFAP is wrong. You'd raise after one limper. If the players are playing too many hands, you definately want to isolate an UTG caller who is very unlikely to have you dominated as he would have raised himself. People can talk differences between games that the two books describe but give it up, we all know that raising here is right. Knowledge of limit hold'em has advanced a long way since that book was written. It's not a serious knock on Mr. Sklansky to suggest that sometimes he just gets it wrong.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt you've ever played in a game that fits HEPFAP's descriptions. I've played in games with 4 or 5 2+2ers (yes, ones other than drunk 2/4) that didn't even fit those guidelines.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are situational, not just broadstroked as 'games' in general.

Funny. When I'm in a game with 1 or 2 other 2 + 2ers, you bet I'm using/aware of many HEPFAP concepts at times especially if they're in the pot. 3 or more on the table, unless the other 2+2 ers aren't that good, Im using even more.

If your on a table with 5 2+2ers and you don't have to think that deep, what does that really say about the level of 2+2ers your facing?

b

[sweetjazz]

What if UTG plays too many hands, e.g. ATo and J9s in this position, and compensates by also limping preflop with AA, KK, TT, and 99 and reraising these hands as well as JTs.

Assume specifically that his limp means he either has: 88, 99, TT, KK, AA, AJo, ATo, KTs, JTs, J9s. Furthermore, he will reraise with AA, KK, TT, 99, or J9s (assuming you raise and the rest of the field folds). There's also the possibility of getting reraised by a hand yet to act, of course.

Do you still want to raise? Do you want to consider folding?

I am not sure that this is necessarily close to what S&M had in mind in writing the book, but it's that unreasonable. Of course, they don't indicate that there is reason to believe you might get reraised, let alone by a good mixture of hands so that you don't know if you're dominated or dominating as things stand.

AJo isn't really that great of a hand; it's just that people on Party poker manage to make it into a major money winner. That said, I'm looking for a reason to raise with the hand in the situation as described in HPFAP, and only folding/calling if a reason isn't there. I haven't yet found games tough enough yet to fold or call here, and I likely wouldn't call such a game one where players play too many hands and go too far with them.

[edtost]

concepts - definately.

lines - not necessessarily.

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
OMG...this is sooooooooooo far off of what I read in SSHE

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it is. SSH talks about how TP will win it's fair share, but has a tough time in 5-6 way pots. That's why it stresses suited and connectedness.

In a 5-6 way pot, AJo is an unsuited 2 gapper that can't make a fl, can only make 1 str and the J kicker won't hold up on it's own as much as AK or AQ will. That's the point I think.

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt you've ever played in a game that fits HEPFAP's descriptions

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the rock garden games at Party's LL's play like it. Playing 4 tables, you can have 2 gardens and 2 shootouts going on at the same time that play completely different.

[QTip]

I'm hoping everyone is actually rereading these sections before they make comments. Page 162 has us limping in with K5s late after 4 callers (not that bad)in the same game we just folded AJo. And yes, in a game where players are playing too many hands and going too far with them, SSHE has us raising.

I noticed other differences such as limping JJ in a loose game early, etc.

I think I'm going to default to SSHE recommendations and disregard differences I see in HEPAP.

Honestly, I don't think PF discussion are really impacted a lot whether we're talking about a 3/6 game or a 30/60 game or a 300/600 game. If your players are loose and play poorly postflop...that's what they are.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Cornell rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed your sentence.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cornell rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed your sentence.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is correct istewart. Do you see why? I'll let others elaborate?

PS, do you go there? Alum?

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's funny is I just read that in HEPAP today - Can't remember page # - I thought of people saying that here tonight!

[MisterKing]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm hoping everyone is actually rereading these sections before they make comments. Page 162 has us limping in with K5s late after 4 callers (not that bad)in the same game we just folded AJo. And yes, in a game where players are playing too many hands and going too far with them, SSHE has us raising.

I noticed other differences such as limping JJ in a loose game early, etc.

I think I'm going to default to SSHE recommendations and disregard differences I see in HEPAP.

Honestly, I don't think PF discussion are really impacted a lot whether we're talking about a 3/6 game or a 30/60 game or a 300/600 game. If your players are loose and play poorly postflop...that's what they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put. I read HEPFAP before I read SSH (since SSH wouldn't be published for over a year at the point I picked up HEPFAP), and unfortunately "un-learning" some of the lines and tendencies advocated in there has been hard to do and slowed my development in the low limit games on Party. TOP, of course, was mostly applicable, but for the whole Morton's Theorem snafu where FTOP is untrue.

One part of HEPFAP that I think is still extremely valuable for loose small stakes games is the portion on short-handed play (Pg. 184 and on). SSH doesn't put nearly as much emphasis on this, and of course there is a ton of value to be had in playing blind stealing/defending situations better than the next guy.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's funny is I just read that in HEPAP today - Can't remember page # - I thought of people saying that here tonight!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll be a happy man if I never have to read another "Do you see why?" post on these forums. Do you see why?

[Bascule]

Gary Carson has heavily criticised the loose games section in HEPFAP for many years. I imagine the advice in SSH is much better.

Carson1 (http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=carson+sklansky+loose+HEFAP+group:rec.gam bling.poker&hl=en&lr=&selm=3b9862ea.69076045%40new s.mindspring.com&rnum=8)
Carson2 (http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=carson+sklansky+loose+HEFAP+group:rec.gam bling.poker&hl=en&lr=&selm=3ae8c2ae.303665560%40ne ws.mindspring.com&rnum=5)
Carson3 (http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=20040919183212.03503.0000 1229%40mb-m05.wmconnect.com&rnum=4&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dcarson%2Bsklansky%2Bloose%2BHEFAP%2Bg roup:rec.gambling.poker%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3 D20040919183212.03503.00001229%2540mb-m05.wmconnect.com%26rnum%3D4)

[QTip]

Okay...the last couple of days, I've been reading over HEPAP and it's been confusing me how things seem contradictory. I immediately starting making posts. However, 2+2 grand pooh bahs already anticipated a beginner like me getting carried away with comparisons. This morning I started reading through SSHE again, and I always start from the first words (i.e. not chapter 1)

Here's a quote from the "Using This Book" section in SSHE pages 11 and 12.

"We anticpate that some people will compare the advice in this book to that given in Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players by .. For some situations, we may advise you to don one thing here but another there. This represents neither a retraction of previous advice nor a cntradiction. In Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players, we assume that your opponents play reasonable welll. In this book, we assume that many of your opponents play poorly: specifically, that they play too many hands and go too far with them. The different assumptions can cause you to draw two totally different conclusions in situations that seem almost identical! So if you find two pieces of advice that seem to contradict one another, thing about how your opponents' tendencies might cause the correct play to change."

So...there we have it. I've spoken with a couple of posters about this, and the concensus seems to be that even though the descriptions match one another in these 2 books "a player that plays to many hands and goes too far with them". This doesn't take into account the fact that 20 years ago in medium to high stakes games, these players were able to add some serious hand-reading abilties and great postflop techniques even though they did play too many hands and go too far with them. Today, because of the explosion of the games popularity, we have people that not only play too many hands and go too far with them, they just plain suck.

So...my apologies to everyone (especially the authors) for making a fuss that was already dealt with.

[That guy]

Gotta read more twoplus books because I think the difference in AJo is a good example of something written in 'Getting the Best of It'...

Essentially, AJo is not a very good hand if your opponents aren't going to pay you off on later streets chasing a 2-pair.

AJo is situationally playable at higher levels due to the increased chance that you will make profits by stealing the blinds a fair bit of the time. At loose lower limit games, blind-stealing doesn't happen much --- and with many in the pot, AJo doesn't play all that well unless they are going to pay you off with 2nd best hands. You will be laying implied odds to others if a crowd comes in at a higher limit game as you will be paying off others when beat but often not be getting action when you flop top pair.

High level players aren't going to pay you off chasing a 2-pair often enough to make it profitable. AJo doesn't generally play well when you know a crowd is coming so its a muck from very early position-- unless your opponents aren't very good... then it's worth playing.

[QTip]

Good thoughts...here's another exerpt one paragraph down from the one I just quoted.

"No doubt, some people will compare our recommendations (about starting hands) to those made in other books, and they will try to decide which recommendations are better. We do not recommend that you do this. It is basically a water of time. As long as the strategies are essentially tight and eschew calling raises with offsuit hands, there is simply not that much to choose between one particular set of guidelines and another. Understanding postflop concepts and play is far more essential to maximizing your win rate. Move quickly through the preflop material, and concentrate on what is important."

[That guy]

Let's look at an example...

AJo raises from wherever. It is folded around to the BB who holds T8s...

AJo is a $1.50 favorite over T8s. But the BB is getting that in pot odds to play given they are already in for 1 small bet and the SB isn't in.

So AJo is making a solid profit if the BB folds and less of a profit when the BB calls.

If the BB knew that the raiser had AJo, he would surely call and take that attractive price to see the flop. So given the FTOP, as the holder of AJo -- you want the BB to fold --- unless it is MORE profitable because the BB will try to chase you down with 2nd best hand.

But the BB doesn't know that you have AJo so they will often muck, fearing an overpair some % of the time.

In small stakes games, the BB isn't going to muck that so AJo loses some 'blind-stealing equity' which must be made up for by getting paid off by poor post-flop play (going too far with 2nd best hands).

If the board comes 'A 8 blank - blank', it is an easy hand to get away from for a good player on the later streets but Joe Small Stakes might payoff. Crucial difference in the profitability of AJo.