What's wrong with the post-flop advice in WLLH?

[Moyer]

I've seen players mention problems in parts of the book dealing with play beyond the flop. Since, I'm currently undergoing a strategy overhaul of my own, I'd appreciate it if someone could point out any major errors or other options I should think about when I'm reading it.

Thank you.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Moyer:

Because of your post, I opened the second edition and here's one quick example from page 110:
[ QUOTE ]
AK (often caled "Big Slick") is one of the most difficult hands to play if it "misses" the flop. You will either make top pair or two overcards with it, so you often find yourself wanting to continue with it, almost regardless of the flop. Do not fall victim to this trap. If you're going to call with two overcards, AK is the hand to do it, but choose your places carefully. Look for situations where you're virtually certain that hitting your pair will be good, ...

[/ QUOTE ]

In HPFAP on page 60 we write:

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, if small cards flop, be more inclined to call with KQ than with AK. This is because many more people play hands like Ax than Kx.


Here’s an example. Before the flop two players limp in, you raise, and one of the blinds calls. The flop is T/images/graemlins/club.gif7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif4/images/graemlins/heart.gif. You should be more inclined to call with K/images/graemlins/spade.gifQ/images/graemlins/club.gif than with A/images/graemlins/spade.gifK/images/graemlins/club.gif.

Now if you get lucky and catch your pair, you are less likely to be against two pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Best wishes,
Mason

[La Brujita]

I think two other examples are

1. it tells you to play a set you flop superfast which is often incorrect

2. the fit or fold concept is good as a general concept, but if many players are in a pot it is often correct to chase because of pot odds

[BottlesOf]

WLLH says if you don't flop top pair decent kicker, or a good draw, fold and be done with it. This is decent "safe" advice for a beginner, but once your post flop skills sharpen, you are giving up too much byu doing this.

In HPFAP Sklansky and Malmuth write how flopping low pair with overcard kicker can be a good semi-bluffing opportunity.

[Taxman]

While I don't completely disagree with you, semi bluffing in most low limit games is generally futile so I do think that barring correct pot odds to chase (to a hand that WILL win), sticking around with bottom pair and any kicker is a good way to lose money when nobody will fold to your bet/raise. I haven't read WLLH for a while but I also seem to recall Jones recommending sticking around with weaker draws and lower kickers at least when you have backdoor potential. I think he does get some other things wrong, but I don't think he's quite as strict with his advice as you seem to indicate.

[BottlesOf]

when nobody will fold to your bet/raise

Then it's not a semi-bluff.

haven't read WLLH for a while but I also seem to recall Jones recommending sticking around with weaker draws and lower kickers at least when you have backdoor potential. I think he does get some other things wrong, but I don't think he's quite as strict with his advice as you seem to indicate.

You are absolutely correct, I didn't intend to portray Jones as an absolutist in this sense, just to show that h advocates a simpler approach than Sklansky & Malmuth, which can hurt a good player's win rate, but probably saves poorer players some costly pots.

[blackaces13]

Talk about knit-picking. If that's the most egregious example you can site then all WLLH readers should sleep well tonight.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
This is decent "safe" advice for a beginner, but once your post flop skills sharpen, you are giving up too much byu doing this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Bottles:

I strongly disagree. In low limit games which frequently feature players that play too many hands and go to far with them automatically folding many of these hands on the flop for one bet is a serious mistake.

In games which feature better players, usually at higher limits, then maybe it is "safe" advice for a beginner. Hold 'em is just too complex for this to even be close to being correct.

On page 165 of HPFAP we say:

[ QUOTE ]
Continuing with the concepts of the previous chapter, if someone bets into a multiway pot on the flop and there was a preflop raise you would usually be getting approximately 12-to-1 to call. If there was no preflop raise you would only be getting about 7-to-1. That means that it is often correct strategy to call with bottom pair if there was a raise, but not if there was not a raise. Bad players, however, will make this call no matter what the size of the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Sorry. I just opened the book and that was the first thing I looked at. I'm sure as this thread continues you'll get to see many other examples.

MM

[blackaces13]

If you go to a casino and play in a 2/4 or 3/6 game where at least 7 players are seeing every flop and hardly anyone raises, and you look for "semi-bluffing" opportunities, you will consistently throw money away and never win as much as you should. Its a good example of playing too fancy for the game you're playing. A lot of advanced concepts simply don't apply in these games and the "good" players who don't realize that will suffer.

[BottlesOf]

I think we might be talking past each other. I agree that in many LL games which play extremely loose, semi-bluffing the same way you would in a tighter game does not apply.

However, if you are playing in a micro-limit table against seven players, and bet one of these hands, I don't even consider it a semi-bluff, since it is nearly impossible to win the pot there. This is either an issue of semantics, or I'm misunderstanding the definition of the semi-bluff.

What I intended to say in my previous post was that, if you are new to the game, and don't really know how to recognize when you may be drawing extremely thin or entirely dead, Jones's advice gives you some limited direction.

However, your post says what I'm trying to say much better, and is correctly more critical of Jones's argument.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bottles:

I'm not talking about semi-bluffing at all. I'm talking about calling on the flop in large multiway pots with weak hands that have a little bit of value.

best wishes,

mason

[Ed Miller]

There are a ton of things wrong with WLLH. Here is one example of poor advice.

2nd Edition, p. 83
[ QUOTE ]
[Y]ou have raised with Q /images/graemlins/club.gifQ /images/graemlins/diamond.gif and the flop comes T /images/graemlins/heart.gif8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif...

In the above situation, it's worthwhile for you to bet on the flop, hoping to win the pot right there. However, if you get called, you have to slow down. You could be up against somebody with a ten, which is fine, but you also may have run into an eight. You should now check on the turn, but be prepared to call a bet on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, I'm not going to copy it all here, but his whole analysis of this situation is terrible.

[blackaces13]

What exactly is wrong with this approach?

[bernie]

in higher games, where players would be playing better cards, i agree. however, there is a section in HPFAP about a paired flop with higher cards that recommends playing this way. same principle but tailored more to games where many players are seeing the flop with anything.

in LL, waiting for the turn with trips/sets is rampant.

notice, it's not saying to fold. THAT would be bad.

this isnt saying never to bet the turn, but for beginners getting used to the game, it's not bad advice. this isnt a bankroll costing mistake here. getting real in depth for this situation may go well beyond what a beginner's level of comprehension is at. usually, they're just getting the starting hands down and learning not to chase hands with long odds. that alone is a huge hurdle for most. in fact, you can beat most LL games following this advice on these situations if other parts of your game are strong. you just may not beat them for as much as you will if you tailor it to the situation that presents itself. (meaning players involved)

WLLH is a great starting book. it wont make one a big winner, but it will stop the bleeding of chips and hopefully lead to more advanced, in depth books while helping come close to breaking even in most loose games(cardroom) and beating the home game.

personally, id recommend a couple different starter books as they themselves can be styled after certain areas(geographical) of play among many other reasons.

sorry, but there is no 1 book/ABC approach to winning the game. it's a blend. the more one reads the better/deeper the understanding of the game, level and concepts that opponents are using and how to use it against said opponents eventually.

you have to remember what it was like just starting out. it's a step by step process. everything is overwhelming. even in WLLH a beginner isnt going to comprehend everything on the first read. but i think it's a great jumping off point before going on to the advanced books. hell, i didnt hardly bluff or c/r at all when i first was learning and was just about break-even or a little above. but once i added that aspect, once my other basics of the game were down, it really added to my profits. in given time, a beginner can expand their game.

b

[Ed Miller]

What exactly is wrong with this approach?

If you are against one or two opponents and the pot is small, that approach might be fine.. especially if the turn is an ace or king. But that board is far too dangerous to give the advice, "you should give a free card," (my words, not his) without qualification. You are potentially giving free cards to gutshots, overcards, or heart draws. If the pot is big, or you have many opponents, then that may be a significant error.

Jones (correctly) discusses how bad it can be to give a free card. But then in his examples, he has you giving free card after free card on the turn when you aren't sure you are ahead. Ace/no kicker... this example... several others too. He doesn't say, "if the pot is small or you have only one or two opponents, you might want to check the turn to induce a bluff and avoid a check-raise." He doesn't say, "if you have outs, you should be more inclined to check if you think it is likely you will be check-raised." He says, "you should check and call a river bet." That's the difference between WLLH and 2+2 books.

Frankly, if he's not going to explain himself and address the nuances of the situation, he should tell you to bet the turn instead of check. I think that is correct more often... and it is certainly a smaller error when it is an error.

BTW, this whole section is very bad. Later on, he says that if you have A /images/graemlins/diamond.gifJ /images/graemlins/club.gif and the board is J /images/graemlins/spade.gif6 /images/graemlins/heart.gif6 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif, your hand is weaker than the queens hand. This is absurd... in this new hand, the pair is lower, and there is no straight or flush draw.

Also, he says,

2nd edition, p. 84
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, if the board is paired over your pocket pair, you can fold at the first opportunity. In this case, you might not win even if you catch your miracle card.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not even going to bother explaining why this advice is horrible.

[Clarkmeister]

"this is absurd"

I love when you type this. I can totally hear you saying it in that chowderhead accent of yours. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Ed Miller]

I have no doubt that if a horribly losing player reads and studies WLLH, he will significantly improve. In fact, just the advice, "play much tighter," will put the finger in the proverbial dam.

My problem with WLLH is that the advice is plain bad in many places. You are correct... sometimes it is right to check in that spot. But it is also sometimes right to bet.. and he doesn't even begin to address this issue. Furthermore, this is a chronic issue with the book. He suggests you check turn card after turn card.

Checking turn after turn with the probable best hand is not winning low-limit (or mid-limit, or high-limit, or micro-limit) poker. He should have called his book, "Not Losing Too Much Low-Limit Hold 'Em."

[Ed Miller]

I love when you type this. I can totally hear you saying it in that chowderhead accent of yours.

You read this forum? Go troll Other Topics. I hear they are having a smashing debate about whether Bob Sapp could take Howard Dean.

[Clarkmeister]

I can't ball-bust you if I don't read forums like these. Someone's got to keep you honest. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Zele]

[ QUOTE ]
1. it tells you to play a set you flop superfast which is often incorrect

[/ QUOTE ]
I would say occasionally incorrect, particularly the way most HE games look these days.

[Sarge85]

[ QUOTE ]
I think two other examples are

1. it tells you to play a set you flop superfast which is often incorrect

[/ QUOTE ]

Rare is the circumstance I wouldn't fast play a set.

[fluff]

Another concept in WLLHE that is of dubious nature is "Charging the flush draws". Majorkong has kindly explained why here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=459928&page=&view=&sb =5&o=&vc=1

[blackaces13]

I think the whole "charging the flush draws" thing is just Jones' way of making the general concept behind playing hand like tptk on the flop easy to understand for new players. Jones knows that with multiple opponents who call too much you are BOTH getting the right price to bet and the only players being punished are the weaker draws and lower pairs etc. Also, a careful reader will see that he explains this on p.87. He says that these weaker hands are "subsidizing both of you". Just because some readers apply erroneous thinking to what he says doesn't make him wrong. Remember, THIS BOOK IS FOR BEGINNERS.