Hand Strength Tables

[Student]

A contributor to 2 + 2 presented a table of hand strengths of the 2 hole cards for Hold'em some time ago, which has intrigued me ever since. This table showed hand strength for pairs, suited combinations and unsuited combinations, for all 169 possibilities. It was done for 2 players (heads-up), 3, 4, etc thru 9 competitors.

For example, it showed that hole cards of AA were "worth" 3.10 against 7 opponents. My understanding is that random hands would have been given to each of the 7 opponents, and then the board would also be 5 random cards. The result of a Monte Carlo computation would be 3.1 for AA, I expect. Although I know how to program this problem using computer software, I'm reluctant to do this work, given that somewhere out there exists the solution.

I've tried Poker Stove, and frankly I don't know how to harness this tool for this computation. So if you are one who could employ PokerStove 1.2 to do this, please tell me how to do it!

Alternately, if this table is published somewhere as part of the literature of poker, tell me where please! Finally, if there is free software that does this, I'd be very interested. The version of the table I have has 2 significant places for most hole card combinations (such as 0.89 for 97unsuited, and I'd prefer 3 places of accuracy. Furthermore, I'd like to see how such a table is generated.

This is such a basic foundational table that I suspect everyone owns this table, except me! Certainly every 2+2er should have it...

Dave

[illunious]

link (http://www.gocee.com/poker/HE_Value.htm)

[Twitch1977]

I strongly feel that you are overrating the value of such a table.

The strength of a hand simply changes too much based upon the action before you pre-flop to encapsulate it into one all encompassing table.

For instance, if you're on the button with 65s the strength of that hand can vary greatly. For instance if 6 people have already limped in it's a great hand, but if a tight straightforward player raised UTG and it's folded to you that 65s isn't worth much.

So in short my point is if you want to learn the strenght of starting hands you're better off spending your time learning why certain hands are strong in one situation but weak in other situations. Learn which hands play better short handed, which hands play well into limped pots, etc. I personally don't see any value in trying to create a chart.

But with that said if the link provided by the other contributer isn't the chart you want, drop me a mail thing and I'll help you figure out exactly how to do this in poker stove.

T

[Student]

I'm starting to realize the value of your observation! Situational factors are of tremendous importance. I wrote a detailed answer to the other post to this thread, as I'm most grateful for that table too. But somehow it didn't get posted. I'm sure I forgot to hit the submit button, after I'd edited the note, or something.

I actually am a beginner at poker. But I'm also the inventor of many mathematical constructs, including some useful ones. So my approach to poker will naturally be colored by who I am (math inventor), rather than what is most valid concerning poker.

As it happens I've come up with many conclusions, based on my table of hand strengths, and some of these conclusions are unique enough as to be interesting. I'm sure I'm backing into poker from a totally different direction than most take, and I'm equally sure the direction I've chosen is quite a silly one, if only I could find a properly qualified judge!

Just to show how silly my approach is, realize I've yet to read a single entire book about poker that is useful! I don't want to mention names, but the two I've read are not the usual ones; 'nuf said! Yet I've bought about 30 poker books so far, and I lack only a few important ones. Thankfully, I'm most of the way thru GSiH (Getting Started in Hold'em), and that is one very useful book for one such as me!

This afternoon, after not playing poker on PokerStars (or anywhere else, for that matter) for one month plus one week, I resolved to correct that mistake. Why study, study, and study poker, and not play at all? Eh, why? But that too is a measure of my silliness...

How did I do? I won 43 cents on PokerStars playing 1/2 cents NL HE. I was partly influenced by Miller's GSiH. Funny thing about 1/2 cents NL HE is the minimum starting bankroll is $1.00, which is 50 Large Blinds. So I was in violation of GSiH right from the start, at least relating to the Short Stack Strategy. Forgive me, Ed! I played 9 hands and won 3 of them (the big one was a tie, where I went in on the basis of top pair of KK on the flop, and the other fellow went all in because he flopped a straight with his J9 unsuited. I had KJ unsuited, and only went all in when I flopped the KK. Then Ace came on the river, and his straight improved and I had one. Lucky me!!!

So I flounder along, trying to learn poker at the ripe old age of 67 years. But it has been fun.

Dave

[Pov]

Glad to see you're coming around, Dave. It's a great game. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[kiddj]

I am still waiting for my copy of HEFAP (best 2000 FPP ever spent!), so I have no literature on blind steal/defense. Does the chart linked above have any value in this area?

The hand listing is assuming random opponents' cards right? So, if you are on the button and are 1st to act, (gotta love Poker Stars), you should be raising with any hand that shows at least 33% against 2 opponents from the chart?

I know other factors need to be considered, but does this seem to be a valid starting point or supplement to "what the book" says?

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Thankfully, I'm most of the way thru GSiH (Getting Started in Hold'em), and that is one very useful book for one such as me!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I just bought it as an impulse buy, mostly for the NLHE content. Just the small stack/large stack discussion, and the simple point about the whole purpose being to get called by inferior hands (which is really obvious when you think about it), are worth the price.

I can see how that book would be right up your alley. Ed is writing for beginners, but there's still a ton of "meat" for 200 pages.

[Student]

Appreciate it very much, and your help along the way!

The plan I had originally, namely to read, then play, then read, etc has a basic flaw. Miller asserts both in SSH and then again in GSiH that experienced players often have terrible flaws built right into their perception of the fundamentals of poker. They came by these bad habits honestly.

I was talking with Joe at Sandia Casino. He'd placed second in the NL HE held at Isletta the Sunday before, an event limited to 51 players (because that's how many chairs they own), and costing $5. He'd won $156, and was quite enthusiastic! I asked what books he'd read, and he said "none." He is proud of the fact that he's picked up all he knows without any books. I'd be the first to acknowledge that his was quite an accomplishment, and it was a tribute to his basic intelligence! But Joe doesn't know that he doesn't know, and he's not going to find out, either. He's mastered playing with the flawed players to be found at this B&M, and has adjusted to the exact set of flaws they have. Joe won't be playing in the World Series of Poker, not because he's not smart enough and not working hard enough, but because he's picked up some very bad habits.

These are habits eliminated only with difficulty, and unfortunately the only rational way to do this is to read. Of course, we are very lucky to have 2+2, and lucky we are constantly refocused back towards the latest in poker understanding, as documented by recent books.

Joe knows that poker is a lifetime process of learning more and more, but he doesn't play on the internet (hence, he lacks a standard of comparison for his true level of playing) and 30 years from now he'll not be much further along the path to poker understanding, unless he does something dramatic in the way of change!

Because of my trajectory, there was far too much emphasis on play. I didn't have the fundamentals of poker established at the theoretic level (done from a nearly 100% diet of reading), so my extensive play was actually leading me down the same path Joe took, a path including some basic misconceptions of poker fundamentals. So I stopped playing for a month + a week, and I concentrated on reading GSiH.

Why does it take me so long to read such a small book? Because I need to UNDERSTAND the fundamentals, and a cursory reading I know to be insufficient for my intended purpose. In math, the Newton-Raptson (sp?) method of homing in on solutions requires that your guess of an answer is on the correct side of a maximum. If it isn't, then one will find an alternate and useless solution, a relative maximum that isn't an absolute one. I could have read GSiH in a day, like others have done. It's actually not all that hard a read! But I must understand and assemble a large puzzle, with many pieces. All the pieces must fit. The resulting model can be simplistic, and I'm sure GSiH isn't the 100% A thru Z total solution, but the model must be a proper starting place upon which one can build. If one hasn't found such a proper starting place with their trajectory, they must take 2 steps back and observe and think. Then they can do what I'm attempting to do.

When I capriciously set out to play yesterday I feared that I'd gone too far to the other side, and that I'd be reluctant to play at all, ever! So I threw caution to the winds, and played. Happily I won, but that was an accident. I have so very much to do to take to heart the lessons of GSiH.

Thankfully, due to the help of another contributor to this thread, I now know how to use Poker Stove to do calculations I hope to do. Being a very conservative engineer, I prefer to test everything. Yet, being 67 years old, I don't have time to build software to do what Poker Stove does, to do what Poker Tracker does etc etc. I know how to do these things, but I must master poker enough to accomplish my ultimate goals, which include playing NL HE tournaments, even some of the big ones!

Thanks again!

Dave

[kiddj]

[ QUOTE ]
So I threw caution to the winds, and played. Happily I won, but that was an accident.

[/ QUOTE ]
This defines my first "real" poker playing experience exactly!!! I thought I was being seated at a low limit hold'em table at the local casino, but it was a one table tournament instead. I gave it a shot, (mainly because I didn't want to look like an idiot), and I won. The only reasons I won were: 1. I could read the board and tell if I had the nut hand, and 2. I got several of these hands.

So that's how I got hooked and realized that I didn't really know what I was doing at the same time. It's all been uphill from there, give or take a few 100BB slides. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Student]

Good for you! It builds character, doesn't it?

Dave

[Student]

As I understand it the linkage to a table (above in the thread) offers equity one has in a hand (pot equity). Pot equity is more useful in limit HE, a subject I have no practical experience in. The book GSiH is devoted to limit HE for the first 60% of it, and then it moves over to no limit HE, tournaments, and also SNG single-table tournaments for NL HE.

Of course, I'm still looking for the answer to my first question. For hole cards of AA, what does a hand strength of 3.10 mean? I should think it means 3.10 is the average expectancy value of AA, given one had bet at the 1.00 level. How this relates to the equity table published in this thread remains a mystery to me, and because of my junior status as a mere beginner, I hesitate to attempt to reason towards a conclusion concerning this important matter. Help......

Dave

PS: On Poker Stars the button plays last, just like with other sites. I don't know much, but I think I know that...

[kiddj]

The 3.1 may have been some sort of scale derived from the strength or equity, (like on a scale of 1 to 4, 4 being the best), but I could be way off. I prefer the equity % numbers, because I'm a limit player.

A clarification to your "P.S.": The general consensus is that at Poker Stars the play is super tight, so seeing everyone fold to the button is fairly common even in lower limits. Other sites have a much looser reputation. I like to encourage this "tight" image here because it keeps the local sharks out of my favorite pond. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Student]

Poker Stars has earned the reputation of having the toughest players. And tough players beget more tough players. Yesterday I played one hand where 7 had limped in (of 8 opponents). It was a 1/2 cents NL HE ring game. I had a good hand, but the pot was too small to jump all-in. I thought, as loose as these guys were, a 30 cents bet was appropriate. Everyone of them folded, and I realized then the 30 cents raise (15 Big Blinds), was too much. But I did win all those first-round Big Blind amounts.

Let's all just keep learning! Isn't it fun?

Dave

[Student]

A belated THANKS, for the nice hand strength table! It seems to be a hand equity chart, similar to what is possible using Poker Stove, but all the work has been done. And truly this was a monumental effort to create! Do you have suggestions for how this table might be converted into an expectancy value table? I'm guessing that AA at hand strength of 3.10 is an expectancy value, namely if one invests $1 in AA hole cards, on average one gets back $3.10. Thoughts?

Dave

[kiddj]

I checked my pokertracker stats last night and found that my BB/100 for AA was about 3.4 (or something like that). This could be just a coincidence though.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I checked my pokertracker stats last night and found that my BB/100 for AA was about 3.4 (or something like that). This could be just a coincidence though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you know that pocket aces never win?!? I had several people at Foxwoods tell me that, and they must be right because I remember several times that I've been drawn out on.

[kiddj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I checked my pokertracker stats last night and found that my BB/100 for AA was about 3.4 (or something like that). This could be just a coincidence though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you know that pocket aces never win?!? I had several people at Foxwoods tell me that, and they must be right because I remember several times that I've been drawn out on.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol... I hear that EVERY time i go to the B&M. It makes me laugh because PT is telling me I win with AA about 78% of the time. This is probably a little high, but quite a few of these have been when everyone folds, which makes me infinitely happier than being outdrawn! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Student]

Hand strengths can't be a function of playing technique, but BBs/100 certainly are. Thus I agree with you that your BBs/100 stat was a coincidence!

Dave

[Student]

Well, of course, anything is bigger than a ONE, so that makes Aces pretty darned inferior...

Dave

[Student]

Your luck factor must have been pretty high, to have your pair of Ones (Aces) win so much!

Dave

[PuckNPoker]

Here is the EV table for each hand from pokerroom.com:
https://www.pokerroom.com/games/evstats/positionStats.php?players=10

[Student]

This is a very interesting chart you've brought forward, and Thanks!

It shows what certain hole cards are "worth," from an expectancy value point of view, depending on position. One can change the number at the end of the linkage you supplied, and display the effects of position on certain hole cards based on tables with 9, 8, ..., 2 players at the table.

What is especially useful relates to hole cards that are usually not recommended for play in early position (such as 87suited), and can be recommended in certain opening hand tables in late position. This table from Poker Room shows mathematical basis for that kind of recommendation.

I'd appreciate any comments you have about the tables you've added to this thread! Eh? TIA!!!

Dave

[Pov]

Use this link (http://www.pokerroom.com/main/page/games/evstats/expValue) and you will have some additional options and won't have to manually change the number in the URL.

Also, note that these are NOT theoretical values, these are actual number accumulated by PokerRoom for their real money players over the last 994 million hands or something like that. /images/graemlins/smile.gif What's interesting about that is obviously some of the players are very good and some of the players are very bad and there is no real way (from the tools they provide) to separate out what affect that has on the numbers. But you can certainly see some interesting things.

[Student]

Thanks for this more generalized version!

Yes, I did see some of the effects on the table of drawing from a limited sampling.

The more important consideration is the one you mentioned: when results are based on a decision process, especially one where thousands of contributors each have their own view of how to play poker, it would require an adjustment to adapt the table to oneself, or else to come up with even what the average player might expect. That's because results might be expected to be skewed towards the profile of players obtained at Poker Room, rather than the poker world at large.

Even at that some important deductions are worthwhile. However, as primitive as my poker game is, with so very much to learn, by necessity my immediate priorities must orient towards at least deciding on exactly how to implement the Short Stack Strategy, so I can start playing poker again. But I appreciate this linkage as one of the pieces of the puzzle, one I expect to place properly soon enough. By the way, I'd already included the linkage to the 10-player case in my "Favorites," but the improved linkage is certainly an improvement! Thanks again!

Dave

[Twitch1977]

Since there are far more bad players then there are good I think that seriously brings question to some of the numbers in that chart and I would not use it for anything more then a rough idea of how things play.

If you were able to somehow extract just the 'good' players EV's for hands I think the chart would look quite different in some parts. Especially in the play of speculative hands.

T

[Student]

It would be presumptious of me to say I actually understand the full implications of what you've said, but thanks for saying it nonetheless!

When I compared Ed Miller's opening hand table for playing limit hold'em tightly to my own, I found it remarkable that he gave such credit to pairs of wheel cards. So his opening hand set differed from mine. This told me that he was considering something other than hand strengths, in defining his set of opening hands. I believe you were saying a set of opening hands can't be based entirely on just hand strength.

I THINK I know why Miller includes all the pairs, even 22, in his opening hands set. If one has a pair in the hole, one can slow-play it even to the river, waiting to complete a set such as 222. As long as you're getting free cards anyway, what's the harm? Then, when one has a "set," there is an excellent probability that this will be the winning hand, and it will be a sleeper! Thus it's likely, even though you don't start throwing the chips into the pot in a big way until the river, that the pot will be very rewarding. Rewarding enough that it's justified to put 66 ahead of 87suited, just because of "set" possibilities of hole pairs.

Similarly, other opening hands, ones that a particular player has excellent facility with, and consequently trust with, can be placed into his personal set of opening hands. That's situational, and he's earned the power concerning this strange opening hand!

Of course all of this comes about because hand strength is computed in the absence of any player decisions. This isn't the way the real world of poker is done! Good play can propel even poor hands into winning success. So if a player has unusually good success with cards no one else has success with, why deny membership of these cards in his opening hands set? Doyle's T2 is an example of a special hand, albeit only when played by a special hand (Doyle)!

Dave

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I THINK I know why Miller includes all the pairs, even 22, in his opening hands set. If one has a pair in the hole, one can slow-play it even to the river, waiting to complete a set such as 222. As long as you're getting free cards anyway, what's the harm? Then, when one has a "set," there is an excellent probability that this will be the winning hand, and it will be a sleeper! Thus it's likely, even though you don't start throwing the chips into the pot in a big way until the river, that the pot will be very rewarding. Rewarding enough that it's justified to put 66 ahead of 87suited, just because of "set" possibilities of hole pairs.


[/ QUOTE ]

Generally speaking, you're correct. Just to pick nits, please keep in mind that you need 22:1 odds each to see the turn and river. Of course the scenario that you give where it's checked to you is fine; you're getting infinite odds. But please don't get in the habit of calling flop bets with tiny pairs!

And also, "slowplay" doesn't apply when you've got a remote draw and it's checked through; a slowplay would be when you hit your set on the flop and check or call (which might be appropriate, particularly if it's top set and the flop isn't very coordinated).

As luck would have it I'm working on the small pairs article: http://poker.wikicities.com/index.php?title=LHE:Preflop:Small_pair . (Yeah, it looks like I set this up, but I didn't, I swear!) As always critiques and edits are most welcome.

[bholdr]

Student, let me just say that I can't wait to watch your development as a player- your mathmaticaly intense approach should yeild some intresting results.

you may want to purchase a copy of the wilson 'turbo texas hold 'em' software if you haven't already- it is capable of running the kinds of simulations that you seem to be after, and has been regarded as the best computer ring game hold 'em simulator for a while.

[ QUOTE ]
But I'm also the inventor of many mathematical constructs, including some useful ones.

[/ QUOTE ]
you're a mathmatician, but you talk like an engineer! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

GL in your endevours- you may also want to take a look at stud games- there is far less good data and info available for stud, but it's a more mathematicly oriented game than hold 'em (especially stud/8), though it's also far more complicated.

[Student]

As you know, I'm doing whatever play I do at a NL HE 1/2 cents table. Some time ago I wrote describing how I measure looseness of a table, based on average percentage of players who participate in a pot, a statistic PokerStars publishes. I don't play at a table unless it seems to be loose.

It happens I won't be at the 1/2 cents table long, since the SSS (Short Stack Strategy) of Ed Miller would define a stack to be short if it was 25 or less BBs. Unfortunately the minimum opening bankroll of this PokerStars table is $1.00 (50 BBs). But I expect somewhat similar table looseness at the PokerStars 5/10 cents table, where one can get in for 20 BBs.

So I'm sitting in early position, and my hole cards are 22. I bet 1 BB. I have an actual hand, not a speculative one, such as 78suited. Hence I have pot equity. My hand is truly above average, though not by much. Now, what's done is done, and I hope I'll still be in to see the flop. A raise to 5 BBs happens on the button, and I fold. Fine, I've just gone and blown 1 BB. Miller says I can go broke throwing away 1 BB at a time, and I agree. I had my hand, it had real value and I was protecting it (in a manner of speaking), and now I've kissed off on my hand.

Let's say, instead a raise happens to the level of 2 BBs, and betting comes around to me. There are 7 limpers in there, and one raise, so I swoop on up to 2 BBs with my 22. There are 10 BBs in the pot now, and my (soon to be) set of 222 is beginning to shape up to be a real nice pot! I'm in for the pot, and by the time the preflop round of betting ends there are 5 folks left in the pot, typical of this very loose table. Another Miller rule is "Save pots, not bets!", or something similar. It means big pots are worth reaching for, even if you have to make rediculous bets to reach for them.

I fail to get a 2 on the flop, and instead see a rainbow of AKT. With 4 opponents, I'm sure beat, but let's see what happens. One guy goes to 3 BBs total, and everybody stays in, including me. I have pot equity, and I get to see the turn cheap. The turn is 8, and no one bets. I'm not so sure I'm beat now, and I check.

The river is 2, and I complete my set. I bet all-in, and find only one person calling me. Sure enough, my 222 beats AA, and I take down a really big pot.

Make no mistake, this isn't SSS; not even close! It happens I had 3 BBs in there after the turn, and it's a drawing hand for me now (though with only 2 outs)!

My variation disguises my basic SSS, and I like that! Furthermore, it changes my stats, so I look more like a loose player than what I really am (JMHO - isn't rationalization wonderful!).

That's what I expect, using pairs of wheel cards to justify working the SSS. I realize it's an extension of the idea, but I seem to recall Miller expects one should expect to move from kind of breaking even with SSS in low-stake games in a month, and then with work and study and 3 more months, to be making decent money. I suspect the direction I'm entertaining (and realize I haven't even incorporated SSS into my play yet) is what Miller expects a person to do with SSS.

Dave

PS: Pot odds, or implied odds, aren't important to NL HE, even though actually very important to limit HE. Then, since I limit to NL HE (my personal form of limited unlimited Texas Hold'em, eh?), I get to jump my bet up to all-in, once I complete my 222 set. Limited HE and NL HE are as unlike as night in day, in some important respects!

PPS: I wish you all the finest, concerning your proposed article relating to pairs! Since I'm a beginner, I doubt if what I've said above will help you in any way, but I give you permission to use what I've said, even if you choose to establish it as a horrible example!

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
It means big pots are worth reaching for, even if you have to make ridiculous bets to reach for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yes, to a point. First of all keep in mind that Miller really emphasizes that point about pot size in the limit chapter of GSIHE*. In limit you often find yourself making a "crying call" on the river getting 15:1 odds or some such, because you believe there's maybe a 10% chance your opponent doesn't have the hand she's representing. So yes, in that case you do want to make some fairly "ridiculous" looking calls.

No limit is much different because first of all, anyone who bets 1/15 of the pot on the river is just playing bizarre poker. Secondly, trying to apply this concept to loose flop calls is dubious because there are still two more rounds of betting left, so you're going to have to call three bets to get to a showdown. And of course, in NLHE the bets could be very expensive, certainly not enough to give you odds like 15:1.

One thing you've clearly got down pat is the implied odds. Yes, when think about sets, you want to be thinking about implied odds because your assumption is that your opponent will be unlikely to put you on that hand. However, keep in mind what Miller says in his small stack/large stack introduction. Implied odds are not very important in small-stack NLHE because the amount you can win is limited by your stack anyway. You can't win 100 BBlind if you hit your set, so you don't have astronomical implied odds. You don't even have implied odds to call 3 BBl with a chance to win 22 on a 22:1 longshot.

I can't tell if the following is a typo or if you actually have these concepts reversed:

[ QUOTE ]
PS: Pot odds, or implied odds, aren't important to NL HE, even though actually very important to limit HE. Then, since I limit to NL HE (my personal form of limited unlimited Texas Hold'em, eh?), I get to jump my bet up to all-in, once I complete my 222 set.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're very much describing implied odds, and they are certainly important to large stack NLHE. They're much less important, although still worth considering, in LHE or in SSNLHE.

As a general rule, you probably shouldn't play small pairs in NLHE unless you're in good position or the game is VERY passive. I've done it too much as I'm learning NL, and Ed's book is a good reminder that I need to play small stacks and sit waiting for great hands rather than try for a huge payday with baby pairs.

[ QUOTE ]
PPS: I wish you all the finest, concerning your proposed article relating to pairs! Since I'm a beginner, I doubt if what I've said above will help you in any way, but I give you permission to use what I've said, even if you choose to establish it as a horrible example!

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. The one there right now is for limit (I forgot you're a NL player) but feel free to add a NLHE one, or I can copy your writing up there, as you wish.

*I just acquired it this past week, actually.

[Student]

My posting, to which you responded, is an example of my "thinking outside the box." Sometimes brilliance can be the result of this process, and sometimes nonsense. That I actually posted it surprised even me! After I did it, I got to wondering, and came up with the conclusion that at least some of it was nonsense, but I wasn't actually sure which. Such is life for the poker beginner...

I've been reading GSiH for about a month. I read a section, then go back and read it again, while highlighting with a felt marker. I call this step "preparing a study guide," and it's done so I can review GSiH more quickly in the future. Miller says a reasonably intelligent person might be at breakeven a month after reading his book (in my case reading, rereading etc etc), and this for low-stakes B&M play. Of course, I play at sub-micro levels, just about as low as one can get. That's because I want my education costs to limit mostly to buying books, lots of them. So far I've spent close to $400 on poker books, and about $8.50 for playing losses.

I plan on getting thru GSiH, sort of, and then playing SSS (Short Stack Strategy). Originally I thought a cycle of reading, playing, reading, playing etc made good sense. What I didn't realize is that, without an actual understanding of poker fundamentals to start with, my cycle encouraged me to learn by playing bad fundamentals, bad habits. Now I hope to go back to this cycle of reading and playing, using GSiH until I've got the pieces to the puzzle supplied by GSiH well in hand. Until then I hesitate to comment on your comments about my old-of-the-box nonsense.

Nevertheless, I don't mind if you quote from what I'd written in your article, with or without attribution, and the good things and the horrible things! Have fun; I always do...

Dave

PS: Your post recognizes that I'm in process of struggling to incorporate appropriately tenets Miller sets forth in GSiH. It should be obvious I'm having my difficulties, even though GSiH is viewed as an entry-level book on hold'em. I knew poker would be a challenge, and it sure is!

PPS: I haven't started reading the large stacks part of GSiH. I must move at my own pace, of course, snail-like though it may be. When I bet just 1 BB on the turn, my guess is it would be obvious I have pocket small pairs, and want a cheap "free" card. It's not obvious that with a small stack one can't win a 100 BBs pot, due to multiple players remaining in the pot. I'd independently concluded I'd not play small pairs in early position in NL HE, but I haven't worked on the SSS opening hands set to see if I'd add or subtract hands from it.

[OrianasDaad]

[ QUOTE ]
Pot odds, or implied odds, aren't important to NL HE...

[/ QUOTE ]

DEAD WRONG. You don't understand how gamblers make money. Gamblers make money by comparing the amount they can win against what they have to wager, and compare those odds to their odds of winning. This is the first and foremost way to make money at poker, and the way any beginner should be looking at the game.

I'm going to have to get GSIH now.

Ed, please respond to this thread if you see it.

[Student]

Thanks for helping me to discover poker salvation! This post of mine was a minor thing hidden away within the whole thread, and I'd admitted after writing it that I recognized myself that it wasn't my best work. After all, I still am a rank beginner at poker, and I achieve my best growth when someone takes my rash comments and corrects me properly!

Thanks for the help!

Dave

[OrianasDaad]

Hey. No problem. We are all students. I'm learning NL (tournament play) myself, and will probably pick up GSIH myself in a few weeks. Right now I'm slogging happily through the Harrington volumes.

[Student]

It's really neat that 2+2 Publishing has attracted Ed to their team! Poker is so complex that interpretation and ever more coherent and encompassing theories will be an ongoing cause for new poker books to be produced. Those who can explain things in simple terms will be attracted to assist in this project, and Ed is one of the best, along with Robertie and Schoonmaker. Poker itself is a vast marketplace for books, being about a third of a billion players worldwide, and we haven't seen nothin' yet!

Since you've mentioned stack size as a principal contribution of GSiH, here's another theory along the same lines. Small stack size is arbitrarily defined as being 25 BBs, or less. The 25 figure is pulled out of the air, and it could as easily have been 20, 30 or some other number like 23.47.

When the PokerStars player examines a prospective table he is shown present size of each player's stack. In the past I've hunted for 1/2 cents tables where only one or two players had $2 or more in their stack. I had my reasons. I also played unprofitable poker. Things will be different in the future. But I digress.

Let's say I had 20 1/2 cents tables to choose from, on PokerStars. I'm trapped by their policy, in as much as they don't permit me to join a game with less than $1.00, and certainly there is an argument to be made that the smallest entry level bankroll permitted is also size of the small stack. It's but a small departure from this statement to encompass $1.25 as being the upper limit of what constitutes a small stack.

After all, a basic premise of SSS is that one is going to go all-in, as a necessary part of the strategy. So risking the whole stack is an essential component. This same idea doesn't pertain to everyone playing $3/6 at a B&M table! Those playing SSS will regard all-in as a vital consideration in their strategy. But everyone playing 1/2 cents poker regards all-in as a vital option, and that certainly includes the vast majority of players who aren't playing SSS! There is so little to lose, when playing 1/2 cents, even compared to playing $1/2. After all, GSiH says one needs a small stack to play SSS, and if one must lose half their entry level stack before one is even permitted to play SSS, that makes SSS no solution at all, JMHO! Note that entry level on PokerStars is 50 BBs ($1), and small stack at 25 BBs is 50 cents.

But if one defines a small stack in terms of stack sizes that characterize a particular game, be it NL HE 1/2 cents, 10/25 cents, 1/2 dollars, or even 10/20 dollars, then one has a larger theory regarding stack size, a theory that better fits the circumstances than an arbitary choice of 25 BBs for small stack size.

This comment is likely to be invisible, since I'm going back into the thread, in an attempt to answer just about every post in a thread that I put onto 2+2. 2+2 doesn't actually require that one do such a thing, but I think it's courteous behavior and I prefer to be that way.

It happens that I've published a bunch of words on 2+2, probably as many as some who have posted thousands of posts to 2+2. A review of all my posts is easy on 2+2 (start by clicking on "Student"), and it would show how this beginner in particular is growing. It might make interesting reading, for one who is now brand-new to poker, or even to someone who doesn't mind reading about crazy brand-new out-of-the-box poker thinking. It might be thought of as like the poor man's version of Malamuth, "Poker Essays," I, II and III! But without all that brainpower...

Dave

PS: I love GSiH!!!