SSHE Shuts me up (semi-long)

[QTip]

I'm making a new post of this because I want to make sure that everyone reads this (I'm thinking it's going to get buried in my old post)

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.

[crunchy1]

Great Post and Great research!!!!

I hope this helps the 5-10 posts/day where HPFAP advice is defended as being applicable at the Party 2/4.

I'm not saying it's not a great book - It is.
I'm not saying the advice is bad - It isn't.
I'm not saying the advice doesn't sometimes apply - It does.

But overall - it's really outdated. Furthermore, they probably could've done a better job of making the distictions between the two books clearer to the readers.

[KaiShin]

They could rename it Hold 'Em Poker For People Who Play $200/$400 And Up At The Bellagio, but noone would buy it then /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Great post man, very informative.

[private joker]

Someone on this forum once said that Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players should really be called "Hold'Em Poker *Against* Advanced Players."

[QTip]

Right...what was confusing me is the loose play section where the desription of the game was "players playing too many hands and going too far with them", which was the exact description of players in SSHE.

There was more to the story...

[runa]

What I thought was interesting about your original post was finding the line where one concept expressed in HEPFAP applies to a particular situation vs SSH in a different situation. Some of the discussion regarding blind stealing (or not, i.e. limping on the button) was something I had taken for granted and never really thought much about, but your post sparked some interesting thoughts and views on that.

[QTip]

Blind play is something that I really wish SSHE dealt with a lot more...wait...not even more...just at least addressed.

I'd really like to see a part 2 with more quizzes and addressing some of those types of topics.

[MisterKing]

[ QUOTE ]
Blind play is something that I really wish SSHE dealt with a lot more...wait...not even more...just at least addressed.

I'd really like to see a part 2 with more quizzes and addressing some of those types of topics.

[/ QUOTE ]

See my post in your other thread. I think the HEPFAP section on shorthanded play (which really is a treatment of heads-up) is perfectly applicable to SSH-type games. I've made some adjustments to the advice, though, since opponentas are far more likely to call along with any piece of the board or even a bare ace.

Most of your SSH opponents are not thinking at level 2 or above, which is absolutely necessary in blinds situations. They are not thinking about the fact that they're getting 3.5:1 to call vs. a steal in the BB. HEPFAP gives you guidelines on how to bet in such a way that unthinking opponents will give you an AUTOMATIC profit heads-up.

If you really go through your PT data, you'll find that you win and lose a f*ckton of money in blind stealing/defense situations, and playing these right can move your winrate in a meaningful direction. If I had to single out one snippet from HEPFAP on blinds play, it would be the guidelines on what to call or re-raise with when facing a steal bet. These guidelines are probably 100% transferrable to SSH games.

[QTip]

I read it. I agree. Thanks.

I've got to do more research in my blind play in PT and see how badly I'm getting tore a new anus.

[pyroponic]

[ QUOTE ]
If you really go through your PT data, you'll find that you win and lose a f*ckton of money in blind stealing/defense situations, and playing these right can move your winrate in a meaningful direction. If I had to single out one snippet from HEPFAP on blinds play, it would be the guidelines on what to call or re-raise with when facing a steal bet. These guidelines are probably 100% transferrable to SSH games.

[/ QUOTE ]


Excellent post, one of the more useful suggestions i've read here lately. I currently play 7-tables of Party $3/6, and although I own both SSHE and HEFAP i've only read about 65% of SSHE and 5% of HEFAP. What book do you think is more applicable to my game? I'm thinking a mixture of both on top of a lot of experience is the best.

How good is Middle Limit Poker? (I own this book too but have yet to read it)

[Bascule]

Hero has A/images/graemlins/club.gifQ/images/graemlins/spade.gif on the button.

4 donks limp. Hero ???

[Bascule]

No takers... I think this is a clear raise, the advice in the loose games section of HEFAP is to limp.

IMO the advice is bad - surely this is a value raise here, punish those limpers! I find the argument from SSH, that HEFAP refers to thinking opponents, unconvincing (the limpers in the example above are specified as being weak players). 2+2 have published a lot of great advice on poker, but no body of work should be beyond criticism. I suggest that SSH contradicts the loose games section of HEFAP because the latter contained some poor advice.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
No takers... I think this is a clear raise, the advice in the loose games section of HEFAP is to limp.

IMO the advice is bad - surely this is a value raise here, punish those limpers! I find the argument from SSH, that HEFAP refers to thinking opponents, unconvincing (the limpers in the example above are specified as being weak players). 2+2 have published a lot of great advice on poker, but no body of work should be beyond criticism. I suggest that SSH contradicts the loose games section of HEFAP because the latter contained some poor advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, the difference between the two books in this scenario have to do with the definition of "play too many hands" is. To S&M, that might have meant open limping like J9s from EP. But, to us, "play too many hands" means like, 50% of them. Or more!

So yes, in our games this is a clear raise, because your hand wins at showdown far more than its fair share.

BUT, to say that HPFAP is wrong here, is bad, IMO. The concept itself is very very important. They talk about how big offsuit cards do well in smaller pots, because it forces your looser opponents to make more mistakes. Ed does with with on pg 237-238 in SSHE. In it, he says that in this scenario, it is very very bad to not raise with AJs. But, with a hand like KJo, you shouldnt raise, even though it has a slight equity edge.

Basically, you trade postflop equity for preflop equity when you raise. But, when your preflop equity edge isnt THAT big, it is OK to not raise in order to keep the pot small, in order to increase your postflop equity. That is the concept that HPFAP is presenting. It just happens that in different games, the hands that have only a slight postflop edge differ greatly.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
They could rename it Hold 'Em Poker For People Who Play $200/$400 And Up At The Bellagio

[/ QUOTE ]

The book has very little applicability at that limit. Much of the time, the cards are meaningless.

[jason_t]

You may also be interested in reading this article (http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/current/malmuth0405.html) by MM.

[GrandmaStabone]

[ QUOTE ]
You may also be interested in reading this article (http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/current/malmuth0405.html) by MM.

[/ QUOTE ]


That was a fantastic article, thanks for the link. Mason, in his usual way - has clarified perfectly.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
No takers... I think this is a clear raise, the advice in the loose games section of HEFAP is to limp.

IMO the advice is bad - surely this is a value raise here, punish those limpers! I find the argument from SSH, that HEFAP refers to thinking opponents, unconvincing (the limpers in the example above are specified as being weak players). 2+2 have published a lot of great advice on poker, but no body of work should be beyond criticism. I suggest that SSH contradicts the loose games section of HEFAP because the latter contained some poor advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo.

Can we please stop bending over backwards to justify the loose games section of HPFAP? Newsflash: they really WERE talking about bad players. Read the intro. Read what it actually says, not what you want it to say.