SSHE applicable to my games?

Live B&M games at 3/6 or 5/10. Most games are Tight-Passive. Rarely many people seeing the flop. No wild stuff. No aggression whatsoever.

Would SSHE still fit well into those types of games? These guys know how to play pretty well and will not call you down with bottom pair or any other questionable hand.

SSHE still worth while?

I have already read GSIH and WLLH

[chson]

No. Middle Limit Hold'em is a better book for Tight+Passive games.

[amulet]

it is a terric book. yes it will help your game.

i find a lot of the posted question on books strange. i read all decent poker books, and if they are good i reread them. if you get just 1 or 2 things out of a book, it is worth it. if it makes you think it is worth it. in this case you are discussing a truly superior book - read it.

[steamboatin]

My rule of thumb is; six or more players seeing the flop =SSH. Less than six players to the flop=HPFAP or middle limit holdem.

The limits don't matter, its the game texture. Losse games SH, tight games HPFAP or middle limit holdem.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
No. Middle Limit Hold'em is a better book for Tight+Passive games.

[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG....

SHHE is ideal for passive games of any type. If you read the book carefully (it escaped me the first time I read it as well) there are examples across the board from 2-3 players to the flop with a LAG, to 7 players limping in. As long as the majority of opponents are passive, there are recommendations that can be applied towards your game.

PS: If Clarkmeister says his regular middle limit games at the Mirage at perfect SSHE material, then your smaller 5/10 games must be as well don't you think?

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[chson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. Middle Limit Hold'em is a better book for Tight+Passive games.

[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG....

SHHE is ideal for passive games of any type. If you read the book carefully (it escaped me the first time I read it as well) there are examples across the board from 2-3 players to the flop with a LAG, to 7 players limping in. As long as the majority of opponents are passive, there are recommendations that can be applied towards your game.

PS: If Clarkmeister says his regular middle limit games at the Mirage at perfect SSHE material, then your smaller 5/10 games must be as well don't you think?

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

SSHE tactics rely primarily on large pots which do not occur very often in tight and passive games. The emphasis on value betting marginal hands and folding in small pots would result in you becoming a break-even player at best. Your opponents at these games are no longer "unsophisticated" so many other SSHE concepts need to be thrown out the window.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
SSHE tactics rely primarily on large pots which do not occur very often in tight and passive games. The emphasis on value betting marginal hands and folding in small pots would result in you becoming a break-even player at best. Your opponents at these games are no longer "unsophisticated" so many other SSHE concepts need to be thrown out the window.

[/ QUOTE ]

SSHE is a compilation of existing concepts from other 2+2 books brilliantly executed by Ed Miller, applied to low limits games which are generally loose with players that play poorly post flop. SSHE is just better written and compiled, making the concepts easier to grasp than the essay like format of HPFAP.

There are many examples in SSHE that use small pots, it teaches the player to know when to push small edges when he or she has the odds to do so, or play more conservatively because the pot size, position, opponent, etc may not be ideal vs the odds the pot is laying the hero.

Where you are blatantly wrong however is in value betting marginal hands. The games may be tighter, but that doesn't mean the opponents are more sophisticated. SSHE teaches the reader when it is safe to value bet the river, and when it is best to check, with consideration of the type of player the hero's opponent is as well as the possible hands the opponent may hold. I can honestly say I have never read a better river chapter than SSHE, it covers it all soup to nuts (ok, King Yao's river chapter is quite good as well, but SSHE was out first /images/graemlins/smile.gif

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[BarronVangorToth]

SSH is perfect up through at least the $20-$40 level in any live casino. SOME $20-$40 games you will need a lot of Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players as well.

I have not seen a casino in America that has a $3-$6 through $10-$20 game where you can't use SSH as your guide.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

I'd try to find a game that's a bit looser. I find tight-passive games so booooring- and a bit less profitable than loose-passive games.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
My rule of thumb is; six or more players seeing the flop =SSH. Less than six players to the flop=HPFAP or middle limit holdem.

[/ QUOTE ]

That rule of thumb sucks.

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My rule of thumb is; six or more players seeing the flop =SSH. Less than six players to the flop=HPFAP or middle limit holdem.

[/ QUOTE ]

That rule of thumb sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. That reeks. It should be more like:

Almost everygame to about 15/30 down is SSHE material. In general.

SSHE = fight against the masses.

HPFAP, Mid-High forum, mixed with Middle Limit (but without the 380 reccomended folds) = individual duels against tough opponents...and starting to mix in w/ SSHE mass material once u get to higher limits

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
SSHE is a compilation of existing concepts from other 2+2 books brilliantly executed by Ed Miller, applied to low limits games which are generally loose with players that play poorly post flop. SSHE is just better written and compiled, making the concepts easier to grasp than the essay like format of HPFAP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had the same impression. If you understood the basic concepts of SSHE you should be able to make the adjustments.

[Supern]

Reading SSHE, HPFAP and MLHE is a must for every limit player.

Some say HPFAP doesn't apply at all at low limits.
Well, they are wrong.

For an example the "Inducing Bluffs" chapter is pure gold against tricky aggresive players.

Saying that HPFAP is not at all applicable to low-limit hold'em is like saying the bible isn't applicable to Christianity. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
Saying that HPFAP is not at all applicable to low-limit hold'em is like saying the bible isn't applicable to Christianity. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

1) not all of HPFAF is applicable to low limit hold'em games, there are many situation specific examples that must be weeded out.

2) The bible is not applicable to Christianity, because it was rewritten to fit the corrupt needs of the church many years ago. For more info read Sklansky's excellent yet often hated threads in Science, Math, and Philosophy. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Supern]

I like your answer. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Which chapters/concepts isn't applicable to low-limit poker
in HPFAP?

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The bible is not applicable to Christianity, because it was rewritten to fit the corrupt needs of the church many years ago. For more info read Sklansky's excellent yet often hated threads in Science, Math, and Philosophy. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a ridiculous statement with no basis in fact. "See Sklansky on Scripture" is hardly a compelling argument. I suppose Sklansky is an authority in the field of textual criticism as well as poker theory. Give me a break!

[Ed Miller]

While I humbly disagree with anyone who suggests that SSH is inappropriate preparation for paying in tight-passive games, I had a little something to add as well. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

When your opponents are particularly passive, whether tight or loose, your strategy should be to bet more. Getting raised is the downside to betting... it's your punishment for playing fast. If they won't raise, you can get out of line a lot.

If I had to sum up correct strategy for tight-passive games in one sentence, it would be, "When they check to you, bet." Now I'm talking about tight-passive games like you'd play with the local retirees. I'm not talking about games where people play a "trapping" style by checking good hands a lot to induce bets. I'm talking about games where people check almost automatically, and if you bet, they look at their cards and decide whether their hand is good enough to call with.

When they check to you, bet.

Why does this work? Because they fold too much. They look at bottom pair and fold it. They look at middle pair and fold it. They look at top pair, decide their kicker isn't good enough, and fold it.

Another thing to do is raise more preflop. Don't think A4s is a "raising hand"? It sure is if your opponents are going to fold middle pair on the flop. Bigger pots mean bigger mistakes for bad folds. Make those pots big by raising a lot.

At the Mirage I've played in games so tight and so passive that I could play almost half my hands (not a typo), raising maybe half of those preflop, and be almost guaranteed a winning session. You bet, they fold. Next hand. You bet, they fold. How can you lose?

DISCLAIMER: This is a very specific adjustment to a very specific game type. Do not use against smart players. And if you think someone is starting to "look you up," adjust. Don't try to blow them off hands anymore. But do start to value bet your weak hands... they will get frustrated when you fold them off hand after hand. But they will get even more frustrated when they decide they are going to stand up to you and start calling down with ace-high only to be beaten by a value-bet pocket pair of fours.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The bible is not applicable to Christianity, because it was rewritten to fit the corrupt needs of the church many years ago. For more info read Sklansky's excellent yet often hated threads in Science, Math, and Philosophy. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a ridiculous statement with no basis in fact. "See Sklansky on Scripture" is hardly a compelling argument. I suppose Sklansky is an authority in the field of textual criticism as well as poker theory. Give me a break!

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, but there is no denying he is an expert on logical analysis and thought process. Try using some logic, you might break free of the shackles of society. It will also help you to become a better poker player /images/graemlins/smile.gif

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
do start to value bet your weak hands... they will get frustrated when you fold them off hand after hand. But they will get even more frustrated when they decide they are going to stand up to you and start calling down with ace-high only to be beaten by a value-bet pocket pair of fours.

[/ QUOTE ] - Ed Miller

sounds like the perfect answer to chson's incorrect statement:

[ QUOTE ]
"SSHE tactics rely primarily on large pots which do not occur very often in tight and passive games. The emphasis on value betting marginal hands and folding in small pots would result in you becoming a break-even player at best."

[/ QUOTE ] - chson

Always good to have you around Ed... hope to hang in Vegas at the end of the month.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]

2) The bible is not applicable to Christianity, because it was rewritten to fit the corrupt needs of the church many years ago. For more info read Sklansky's excellent yet often hated threads in Science, Math, and Philosophy. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome, I need to find this thread.

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
While I humbly disagree with anyone who suggests that SSH is inappropriate preparation for paying in tight-passive games, I had a little something to add as well. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

When your opponents are particularly passive, whether tight or loose, your strategy should be to bet more. Getting raised is the downside to betting... it's your punishment for playing fast. If they won't raise, you can get out of line a lot.

If I had to sum up correct strategy for tight-passive games in one sentence, it would be, "When they check to you, bet." Now I'm talking about tight-passive games like you'd play with the local retirees. I'm not talking about games where people play a "trapping" style by checking good hands a lot to induce bets. I'm talking about games where people check almost automatically, and if you bet, they look at their cards and decide whether their hand is good enough to call with.

When they check to you, bet.

Why does this work? Because they fold too much. They look at bottom pair and fold it. They look at middle pair and fold it. They look at top pair, decide their kicker isn't good enough, and fold it.

Another thing to do is raise more preflop. Don't think A4s is a "raising hand"? It sure is if your opponents are going to fold middle pair on the flop. Bigger pots mean bigger mistakes for bad folds. Make those pots big by raising a lot.

At the Mirage I've played in games so tight and so passive that I could play almost half my hands (not a typo), raising maybe half of those preflop, and be almost guaranteed a winning session. You bet, they fold. Next hand. You bet, they fold. How can you lose?

DISCLAIMER: This is a very specific adjustment to a very specific game type. Do not use against smart players. And if you think someone is starting to "look you up," adjust. Don't try to blow them off hands anymore. But do start to value bet your weak hands... they will get frustrated when you fold them off hand after hand. But they will get even more frustrated when they decide they are going to stand up to you and start calling down with ace-high only to be beaten by a value-bet pocket pair of fours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome answer... makes me sad I left the limit game a couple months ago. I might have to play some when I hittup the B&M next week.