So just what are the cons of Lee Jones' book?

[BDP]

Being new to the game, I decided to get a book to help me improve. The book I chose was WLLHE based on the good reviews I read on the web. I enjoyed the book and feel that is definitely improved my game and I still frequently review the text. However, many people on this site say that is has it's flaws, which I'm not disagreeing with at all, but since I'm still fairly new and have only read one book, I cannot find them myself. So I'm asking what are the flaws to the book? And as a side question, when do you recommend I start reading a more advanced book, say, HEFAP? I thought I might wait until I'm doing routinely well at low limit games. Should I read it sooner?

Thanks!

[sin808]

Check out some of the threads listed here, the one regarding charging flush draws specifically. I think that should help point out some of what you're looking for.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=560368&page=2&view=ex panded&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1#560368

[Slacker13]

Reviews and flaws asside IMO WLLHE is a must read for beginners. Just make yourself aware of the flaws and make adjustments when you read it, then once you feel comfortable and have memorized starting hands and basic principles then you should move to HEFAP which is a book that no poker play should go without.

[ScottTheFish]

If you don't feel like reading all the old threads, the general feeling I got form Ed Miller and other respected posters about the book was this:

The book is generally good. The advice is a litle on the loose side preflop, and a little on the weak side postflop. But I think most agree if you follow its advice you will win money in low limit games.

However to move to the next level of beating the bigger games and/or winning MORE in low limit, you need to study the 2+2 books and this forum, IMO.

I started with the Lee Jones book and I would highly recommend it as a first book.

[Ed Miller]

If you don't feel like reading all the old threads, the general feeling I got form Ed Miller and other respected posters about the book was this:

The book is generally good. The advice is a litle on the loose side preflop, and a little on the weak side postflop. But I think most agree if you follow its advice you will win money in low limit games.

No. The preflop advice is pretty much ok. It's not outstanding, but it's good enough. The postflop advice is WAY too weak/passive.

Having said that, it is a book aimed at beginners, and any beginner who reads it should improve his game significantly. So the book does what it is supposed to do (and therefore, by my definition, it is at least a fairly good book).

My main problem is that people start to think in the defensive, monsters under the bed mindset that that book engenders... and they continue to think that way for years and years. If you want to be very successful at low-limits, or if you want to avoid getting slaughtered at mid-limits, you cannot think about the game the way WLLH suggests you do.

So WLLH does a good job of making decent players out of beginners. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it then STUNTS the growth of decent players into experts.

This is my official critique of WLLH. If you want to quote it, feel free to do so.

[muck_nutz]

[ QUOTE ]

My main problem is that people start to think in the defensive, monsters under the bed mindset that that book engenders... and they continue to think that way for years and years. If you want to be very successful at low-limits, or if you want to avoid getting slaughtered at mid-limits, you cannot think about the game the way WLLH suggests you do.

So WLLH does a good job of making decent players out of beginners. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it then STUNTS the growth of decent players into experts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having played some hands with Lee and having Lee stand over my sholder a few times I'm fairly sure this isn't how Lee thinks about the game. I personally didn't get this out of his book. I wonder if the results you see are more an expression of most readers passiveness then of what the book actually says? It'll be interesting to see if you can get across an effective strategy for lower limit games while not stunting further growth.

[BDP]

[ QUOTE ]






My main problem is that people start to think in the defensive, monsters under the bed mindset that that book engenders... and they continue to think that way for years and years. If you want to be very successful at low-limits, or if you want to avoid getting slaughtered at mid-limits, you cannot think about the game the way WLLH suggests you do.



[/ QUOTE ]

Ed,

Could you please explain what you mean by that? Thanks!


I do have one complaint about the book: I think the section on Pot odds is too short and the whole concept needs more explanation. Fortunately, TOP has a entire chapter devoted to it and reading it pretty much cleared up any questions I had.

[ScottTheFish]

[ QUOTE ]
[No. The preflop advice is pretty much ok. It's not outstanding, but it's good enough. The postflop advice is WAY too weak/passive.



[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I guess I lumped your opinions in with some others. Actually if someone Reads Jones and your famous "Why you guys arent crushing..." thread and the replies, they are well on the way. Now get back to work on that book! I raised QTo UTG and won a big pot so i could pay for it /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't feel like reading all the old threads, the general feeling I got form Ed Miller and other respected posters about the book was this:

The book is generally good. The advice is a litle on the loose side preflop, and a little on the weak side postflop. But I think most agree if you follow its advice you will win money in low limit games.

No. The preflop advice is pretty much ok. It's not outstanding, but it's good enough. The postflop advice is WAY too weak/passive.

Having said that, it is a book aimed at beginners, and any beginner who reads it should improve his game significantly. So the book does what it is supposed to do (and therefore, by my definition, it is at least a fairly good book).

My main problem is that people start to think in the defensive, monsters under the bed mindset that that book engenders... and they continue to think that way for years and years. If you want to be very successful at low-limits, or if you want to avoid getting slaughtered at mid-limits, you cannot think about the game the way WLLH suggests you do.

So WLLH does a good job of making decent players out of beginners. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it then STUNTS the growth of decent players into experts.

This is my official critique of WLLH. If you want to quote it, feel free to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ed, this is an excellent post. I agree with this 100%. I wish Lee would post b/c I am pretty sure the audience for this book is not good players wanting to become experts. It is for beginners who need to be introduced to the game with a base knowledge and for novices looking to get some elementary education.

While I would agree that the book COULD stunt the growth of decent players into expert players, I don't think that's the point of his book. His book is to try to teach beginners and novices some basic conepts to help them achieve decent player status and I would be willing to bet that he would encourage players to further their education with other books including TOP and HPFAP and that is the next step in the process for a player's ladder to go from decent to expert. Of course, playing hands and poker in general during this process is a must, I'm just solely talking about the literary education.

Until I read your book and I'm very confident it could either replace or stand side by side with Jones' book, this book is the one that I would recommend to any new player wishing to learn the game and step into the low-limit games.

[Ed Miller]

While I would agree that the book COULD stunt the growth of decent players into expert players, I don't think that's the point of his book.

I don't think that's the point either. I certainly don't think that Lee set out and said, "Let's write a book that's going to doom people to play weak-tight poker for eternity." After monitoring the Small Stakes Forum here for several years now, I have come to the conclusion that many players DO get trapped in an unprofitable weak-tight mindset, and quite frankly, I think books like WLLH really have to shoulder a significant amount of the blame. The weak-tight, monsters under the bed stuff really pervades the book (I will give examples in another post so you guys know SPECIFICALLY what's wrong). People learn to play "by the book," but the book is just plain wrong in a lot of spots. That hinders their growth as players.

Until I read your book and I'm very confident it could either replace or stand side by side with Jones' book, this book is the one that I would recommend to any new player wishing to learn the game and step into the low-limit games.

My book is really not intended to compete with or replace WLLH. It is not targetted at the same audience. My book is NOT intended for beginners. Quite frankly, it's intended to fix the mistakes that the WLLH people make. So it's targetted at someone who has read WLLH (or a similar book) and who plays with this weak-tight mindset. It is designed to open up your game and have you really blasting these small games.

Having said that, I think a beginner could read only my book and succeed. But it isn't tailored for beginners. Unfortunately, there is no beginners book that I can really recommend. I too think that WLLH fills an important niche... the FIRST book you read about hold 'em. But WLLH simply gets too many things wrong (not simplified for beginners... just plain wrong) for me to recommend it. I don't really have a replacement to recommend instead, but I just can't endorse a book full of errors. I hope my position on this is clear.

Maybe I'll write a book intended for beginners next. I'm still thinking about what I want to do next.

[Stew]

Wow, I'm even looking more forward to your book than I already was (being that I'm primarily a low limit player with a lot of experience).

I can certainly see why you don't want to recommend the Jones book from your comments, so I'm just curious if I were to recommend a book to someone who has never played Hold 'Em before or who has only the most minimal of experience, what would you recommend? I actually ask this question as I do have somone with this situation in mind. I gave them the Jones book, Sklansky's Hold 'Em Poker and Krieger's More Hold 'Em Excellence (I don't really like this book, but I don't find it to be terribly flawed either) and to read them in that order.

[Ed Miller]

I actually ask this question as I do have somone with this situation in mind. I gave them the Jones book, Sklansky's Hold 'Em Poker and Krieger's More Hold 'Em Excellence (I don't really like this book, but I don't find it to be terribly flawed either) and to read them in that order.

Unfortunately, I really don't have a strong recommendation. There is no book currently available that grabs me. Sklansky's little hold 'em book is not really a "beginners" book in the way that Jones and Krieger are. It is also written for a game played 25 years ago, and a lot of the information is no longer true. It's a solid book, and well worth the price to buy it, but it doesn't quite fit the niche I think we are talking about.

I wish there were a good book in this niche that I could recommend. There isn't. As I said, maybe I'll write one. It seems silly to me... this book really wouldn't be that hard to write correctly.

[Ed Miller]

I'm only skimming over the postflop chapters looking for weak-tight, monsters under the bed advice. There are other errors in this book, so do not assume that if I do not mention something, that there isn't a problem.

I have the 2nd Edition, and am not going to quote, just paraphrase. If anyone cares to follow along, you should probably get your copy out and read the actual passages that I'm referring to. I do not plan to misrepresent the advice in any way, but whenever you paraphrase, you risk changing the meaning slightly. Always check the original source before you form an opinion.

1. Page 67: You have pocket kings in a 3-way pot. The flop comes ace-high. He recommends that you bet on the flop (typically good advice). But then he says that if someone calls, the caller probably has at least an ace or better. In low-limit games, that simply isn't true. Yes, someone will sometimes have an ace, but often they will call with any pair or any draw. You can't assume someone has an ace simply because it exists on the flop and he called your bet. This is really a point of critical importance for low-limit games.

2. Page 74-6: You have A /images/graemlins/heart.gif6 /images/graemlins/heart.gif seven ways for one bet in the cutoff. The flop is A /images/graemlins/spade.gifT /images/graemlins/diamond.gif5 /images/graemlins/club.gif. He advises that if the player directly on your right bets, you should raise the flop (this is fine). But then if everyone else folds and the bettor calls your raise, he tells you to check behind on the turn. In low-limit games, you need to bet this hand again for value. If you are going to check, do so on the river, not the turn.

But then he says that if the flop bettor is a habitual bluffer, that you should JUST CALL on the flop instead of raise. I think he has confused advice for HEADS-UP play with advice for SEVEN-HANDED play.

Much worse, however, is his advice in the next paragraph. Same hand, but now everyone checks to you on the flop. He tells you to bet the flop (good). But if anyone calls you, he tells you to "check all the way" from there. This advice is simply terrible. I shouldn't have to explain why it's bad. Hopefully it's obvious to everyone who reads this board.

Then he says that if you are in early position, that you should simply check and fold. If you check the flop and it's checked around, you should bet the turn. Then if anyone calls, you should check and call again on the river. Dude, this is just terrible advice. I'm sorry. In fact, this advice is PARTICULARLY bad in a low-limit game. It would actually be BETTER (though not good) in a mid-limit game.

He then tells you to dump ace-rag hands as soon as they miss their flush draw. His analysis of this situation, an important and common one, is absolutely horrendous. He has you playing WAY too passively in this situation.

Page 83: You have Q /images/graemlins/club.gifQ /images/graemlins/diamond.gif and the flop is T /images/graemlins/heart.gif8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif. He tells you to bet the flop (again correctly), but if you are called, you should fear an eight and check the turn. This is pretty much just plain wrong. If he was going to give this advice, he should at least have made the example A /images/graemlins/club.gifA /images/graemlins/diamond.gif on a J /images/graemlins/diamond.gifJ /images/graemlins/heart.gif4 /images/graemlins/spade.gif. At least then checking the turn isn't as bad.

He then tells you that betting the turn and river is a "lose-lose" situation, as no worse hand could possibly call you down for fear that you have an eight.

Then he says that if the board is paired over your pocket pair, you should fold at the first opportunity.

He then provides another example where he has A /images/graemlins/diamond.gifJ /images/graemlins/club.gif on a J /images/graemlins/spade.gif6 /images/graemlins/heart.gif6 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif flop, that he suggests you play the same way (i.e., bet the flop and then check the turn if someone calls).

Page 89: This is not a weak-tight MUTB error, but it stuck out at me. He tells you to play red aces "fast" on a 9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif7 /images/graemlins/spade.gif flop, but drop them if you get a lot of action. The way you should play red aces on that board in no way resembles fast.

Hand 94: "Suppose you have A /images/graemlins/spade.gifJ /images/graemlins/spade.gif on the button and there were three calls in front of you pre-flop. You call, as do both blinds..." HUGE ERROR.

Hand 128: You have A /images/graemlins/heart.gif4 /images/graemlins/heart.gif and the board is A /images/graemlins/club.gifT /images/graemlins/diamond.gifJ /images/graemlins/diamond.gif6 /images/graemlins/club.gif3 /images/graemlins/spade.gif. You have bet the flop and turn, and an opponent has called. He tells you to check the river because your opponent either has a busted flush draw or a stronger ace. Obviously, this simply ISN'T TRUE in a low-limit game. People call with ALL SORTS OF STUFF. After all, isn't that the whole point?

These are a few examples of significantly weak-tight advice from WLLH. The main mistake he makes is that he tells you to assume that people who CALL FLOP BETS must have strong hands like top pair or an overpair beaten. People in low-limit games call flop bets with like every hand imaginable. If you assume that your opponents have you beaten every time they call on the flop, you have no hope.

I understand that WLLH is directed to beginners, so the advice is conservative and simple. But that doesn't mean paranoid and totally wrong. For instance, if I were to give some "beginner level" advice for low-limit games, I'd start with this:

If your opponents have done nothing but check and call so far, assume that they have weak hands and act accordingly. If you have a good hand like top pair or an overpair, that usually means that you should continue betting until you are raised.

I want to make it clear that I have nothing against Lee Jones, and I respect the effort he has put into his book. At the same time, you should understand SPECIFICALLY the stuff I'm talking about when I characterize his advice as weak-tight and monsters under the bed. I consistently get people telling me, "I just don't see what you are talking about." Well, now hopefully you see.

[UTGunner]

Another excellent post. I wish I had this 2 months ago. I have slowly come to see how weak-tight a lot of this book is on my own, and it is great to see my learning progression has been right on target. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I suppose I appreciate it more because I had to learn it the hard way.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that WLLH is directed to beginners, so the advice is conservative and simple

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is exactly what beginners need. All your points are strong and well taken. But to be honest beyond the grasp of many beginners. I know they woulda been for me way back when I was trying to learn. Weak tight is a good strategy until you get thousands of hands of experience. With the advent of online poker all that fast experience is easier to come by now.

5 years ago when I decided to learn hold'em I studied WLLH and played thousands and thousands of hands on TTH. Weak tight was definitely my style and it made me a winner on my subsequent LV trips and inital forays into prehistoric online poker (Planet back before Paradise even opened).

The more I read, study and play the more of that initial weak-tight game I discard. But I still think it's a great way to start. And it is a winning strategy still in most low limit games. But I agree you have to advance beyond that style and that thinking. But not as a raw beginner.

I can't wait for your book as I have learned much from your posts over the past few years.

[Randy Burgess]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand that WLLH is directed to beginners, so the advice is conservative and simple

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is exactly what beginners need. All your points are strong and well taken. But to be honest beyond the grasp of many beginners.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Ed's point isn't that the advice in the spots he mentioned is just weak-tight, but that it's flat-out wrong for today's low-limit games. Correcting such mistakes in the text wouldn't inspire beginners to become loose-aggressive beserkos; they'd simply make fewer mistakes.

I agree with the examples Ed brings up, and there are probably plenty more. And I agree also there isn't a single beginners' book that covers hold'em as adequately as Roy West covers stud for beginners.

However, I still recommend Lee's book as a place to start, since hold'em beginners who choose to learn by reading do have to start *somewhere*. I usually recommend reading the first Sklansky book at the same time. I think HPFAP is way over the heads of most beginners. A contrary point of view has been expressed by Joe Tall, who feels that if he'd read Lee Jones, Lou Krieger, or any similar book, he'd have crippled his game from the get-go.

The interesting thing to me is how much Lee Jones accomplished given the state of the literature at the time he wrote his first edition. He took a crack at a very difficult subject and did a pretty good job. In my opinion the things that are lacking in his book are all contextual in nature - he doesn't get much into reading players (a critical skill even at low limits), adjusting to different game textures (ditto), or short-handed or head-up pots as opposed to family pots (ditto ditto ditto).

But at the time Lee wrote his first edition, there was much less information floating about and hold'em hadn't yet exploded in popularity to the degree it did a few years later - so there was simply much less context to begin with. In a way, Ed Miller can write his book partly because Lee Jones and other writers have helped provide exactly that context.

[BugsBunny]

Have you read Matthew Hilgers book - "Internet Texas Hold'em: Winning Strategies from an Internet Pro"? If not I suggest you take a look at it. That's the book that I would recommend in place of WLLH. It's easy enough for beginners, explains some important concepts, is *not* weak-tight in it's advice postflop, looks at things like pot size and number of players in the pot as considerations when playing hands. Also lot's of hand-examples.

I feel the foundation a player would get by reading Hilger's book would be much more solid. It is, however, a slightly harder read than WLLH. TANSTFL.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
But at the time Lee wrote his first edition, there was much less information floating about and hold'em hadn't yet exploded in popularity to the degree it did a few years later - so there was simply much less context to begin with. In a way, Ed Miller can write his book partly because Lee Jones and other writers have helped provide exactly that context.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this statement isn't garbage? I can't read a full paragraph from the first edition of the strategy section of WLLH without seeing something wrong. Here's an example from page 37.

Summary -- Early Position

Raise: AA, KK, AKs. Raise with AK, QQ-JJ if it will limit the field. Always reraise with AA and KK. Re-raise with the others in this group if it will limit the pot to you and the original raiser.

Call: QQ-TT, AKs-JTs, AQs-QTs, AJs-KTs, AK-KQ, and AQ. (If the game is loos passive, add 99-66, 98s-87s, QJ-98).

Fold: Everything else.
Remember: You must play very tightly before the flop in early position.

Now this advice was targeted for a game where your opponents are not only playing way too many hands, but also going way to far with them. That is they are just playing awful.

A couple of corrections to this is that you should be playing all pairs, and should be raising with many of the hands that Jones said to call with.

I'll let others elaborate more if they want to.

By the way, this same chart appears in his second edition except it is now much different. But he still needs to play more pairs in most of these games.

One final note. Ed Miller isn't writing his book because Lee Jones or anyone else wrote theirs. Unlike most other authors who seem to need this sort of "permission," Ed is one of the few people out there who understands things well enough that he was able to procede on his own.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

I want to follow up on this a little more. The opening strategy that Jones gives in his first edition will probbly win a little. It's just that a much better opening strategy was available.

On the other hand,if you were new to hold 'em and played way too loose, you would be better off to switch to the original Jones strategy even though it was highly flawed.

Best wishes,
Mason

[midas]

Ed regarding your pocket KKs advice - I'm a B&M 4-8 player and got recently got wacked with pocket KKs.

I'm in the SB with KKs. Two callers previous to my action - I raise, BB calls(decent player). Flop A rag rag. I check, everyone checks around. Turn rag. I bet, BB calls - the rest fold. River K (my dream card) - I bet, BB raises, I reraise, BB reraises (What the F?) I call. BB shows pocket AAs and scoops. Slow played to perfection.

As a low limit player, you get all player types in your games - some skilled and some unskilled. Using generic hand analysis from books rarely works - there are just too many variables. Sometimes you win with tight aggressive play and sometimes you get smoked by a good player or sucked out by a bad one. It's just the nature of low-limit play.

[Stefan Prodan]

Mr. Malmuth -

I think you've hit on exactly what the people defending Jones's book are saying. It's basically stop people new to the game from losing horribly, and it does well at that, I think. In fact, I believe you said in one of your books (was it Poker Essays 1? I don't remember) that in a very weak game, a weak-tight player will get some of the money, and that this is not a bad way to start to play. I agree with this, but I also see Ed's points about things that are blatantly flawed, and look forward to his book with drooling anticipation.

When I first started playing poker about five months ago, I bought Hold 'Em Poker and WLLH in the same day. I read both, but WLLH definitely helped my game more at the beginning. I was a textbook calling station when I first started, and it broke me out of that in a hurry, to where I may not have been by any means a good player afterwards, but I was a cut above a lot of the .5/1 players on Party. I picked up HPFAP after about a month of playing .5/1, and I think while that helped a great deal, it also got me playing aggressively in situations that didn't warrant it, and learning when to check my aggression was probably the hardest thing about getting used to playing a winning game, which I hope I'm on my way to doing. Anyway, the reason I'm saying all this is that there doesn't really seem to be a good beginner book out there, as many people in this thread have admitted, and it seems much better than nothing.

I think the thing I liked most about Jones's book was the way it was structured by situation. I felt that after reading HPFAP, I was armed with a whole lot of ideas, but that it didn't really address enough examples of common situations that would come up, such as a high pocket pair with one overcard on the flop. Yes, these things were all buried in there, but they were all in the examples under their respective chapters, and they couldn't really be located at whim very easily. Of course I realize that perhaps these kinds of things depend heavily on your opponents and that once you know your opponents, the play is obvious, but I think the discussion of each situation of "When you flop ____" was very helpful.

Of course, I'm not trying to suggest that HPFAP should have been structed more towards beginners--I would be stupid to say that a book that has "For Advanced Players" in the name needs to address more questions of the new player, but I think that, perhaps, if Mr. Sklansky were to ever revise "Hold 'Em Poker", some topics such as these would be welcome. I guess all I'm saying is that everyone's blasting this book for giving people bad advice, but I think it has its own merits for being accessible and for helping to very quickly get people to back off of their calling station habits. As long as people are willing to go on and read more advanced texts after absorbing what this one has to offer, I think it's not a bad introductory read. I would love to hear arguments to the contrary, though, since I'm here to learn and will definitely listen.

[Homer]

I'm in the SB with KKs. Two callers previous to my action - I raise, BB calls(decent player). Flop A rag rag. I check, everyone checks around. Turn rag. I bet, BB calls - the rest fold. River K (my dream card) - I bet, BB raises, I reraise, BB reraises (What the F?) I call. BB shows pocket AAs and scoops. Slow played to perfection.

Bet the flop.

-- Homer

[Stefan Prodan]

I assume the slowplayer would have just called him down on the flop, so how would that have given him any new information?

[Ed Miller]

I assume the slowplayer would have just called him down on the flop, so how would that have given him any new information?

It wouldn't have. But that has little to do with whether betting the flop is correct or not.

[BDP]

Ed, Thanks for your contribution to this thread! I have some questions though:



Much worse, however, is his advice in the next paragraph. Same hand, but now everyone checks to you on the flop. He tells you to bet the flop (good). But if anyone calls you, he tells you to "check all the way" from there. This advice is simply terrible. I shouldn't have to explain why it's bad. Hopefully it's obvious to everyone who reads this board

I haven't been reading this board for that long so help me out here. Is this bad b/c you should still bet the turn(and river) since you have top pair?


Then he says that if you are in early position, that you should simply check and fold. If you check the flop and it's checked around, you should bet the turn. Then if anyone calls, you should check and call again on the river. Dude, this is just terrible advice. I'm sorry. In fact, this advice is PARTICULARLY bad in a low-limit game. It would actually be BETTER (though not good) in a mid-limit game

Again,Is this bad advice b/c you should be betting since you have top pair?

Page 89: This is not a weak-tight MUTB error, but it stuck out at me. He tells you to play red aces "fast" on a 9 8 7 flop, but drop them if you get a lot of action. The way you should play red aces on that board in no way resembles fast.

Just pointing out an error on your part. The text says "red 9s" and not "red Aces" thus justifying the fast play(unless you still don't fast play the set b/c of the flush draw on the board)


Thanks for your help!

[midas]

I know I'm new to this game - but why would I bet the flop with three callers? What am I trying to represent AK/AQ? What if I get raised by the BB? What if everyone calls? What next - fold to the raiser or if everyone calls - check and fold the turn?

More often than not in LL games weak players will call with any Ace preflop and even call preflop raises. Usually a check on the flop will bring out anyone with an Ace. Sometime you just get beat.

[Ed Miller]

I haven't been reading this board for that long so help me out here. Is this bad b/c you should still bet the turn(and river) since you have top pair?

Essentially yes. If you bet the flop into six opponents, someone will usually call. Like 90% of the time or more. That person will sometimes have a bigger ace, but more often he'll have a worse hand like bottom or middle pair, a draw, or something even hairier. You need to bet again because there is money in the pot, and you cannot give a free card to someone drawing against you.

The bottom line is, do not assume someone has a good hand when he checks and calls! Most people check and call when they have a WEAK hand.

Again,Is this bad advice b/c you should be betting since you have top pair?

Again, essentially yes. But the river advice (to check and call instead of betting) is bad for a particular reason. When you are FIRST TO ACT on the river, and you have a marginal hand, it is usually better to bet rather than check and call. Think about it this way:

What happens if your opponent has an ace better than your ace (at this point, a totally irrational fear since this player has checked the flop and merely called your turn bet)? Well, he will probably bet the river if you check (though maybe he's so timid that he'll check that as well, but most people would bet). So if you call, you lose a bet to him anyway.

With any hand worse than yours, he will probably just check it down and hope to win. So you still lose a bet when you are behind (because your opponent value bets), but you don't win any bets when you are ahead. Compare that to the strategy of betting. If your opponent has a better ace, he will likely call, not raise (after all, he hasn't raised so far). If he has a worse hand, he will likewise call. So you still lose the one bet when you are behind, but you gain all the extra bets when you are ahead.

So the advice to check and call the river is truly dreadful.

Just pointing out an error on your part. The text says "red 9s" and not "red Aces" thus justifying the fast play(unless you still don't fast play the set b/c of the flush draw on the board)

I wouldn't make an error like that one... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

p.89, middle of the page:
[ QUOTE ]
Note that with a pair of red aces, you would play this hand very fast on the flop, but you'd be prepared to drop them if a lot of players were betting and raising.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sentence is totally absurd. There exists no alternate universe where this even resembles rational hold 'em strategy.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
Page 89: This is not a weak-tight MUTB error, but it stuck out at me. He tells you to play red aces "fast" on a 9s 8s 7s flop, but drop them if you get a lot of action. The way you should play red aces on that board in no way resembles fast.


[/ QUOTE ]

I read the responses to this post and didn't catch any specific questions or explanations of this part about the red aces. This doesn't happen very often so I'm not too worried about it but I think I'd probably assume I still had the best hand and bet/raise the flop. Then if a scare card came and the action was heavy on the turn I'd be inclined to drop.

Maybe I'm playing this incorrectly but I don't see where this is just horrible as you seem to imply. I would call the way I'd play it "fast" while considering folding in the face of a lot of action/a scare card.

So, do I have to wait for the book before I learn how I'm supposed to play these red aces? If so then so be it, I don't think it should affect my bottomline too much between now and then.

[Ed Miller]

So, do I have to wait for the book before I learn how I'm supposed to play these red aces? If so then so be it, I don't think it should affect my bottomline too much between now and then.

I don't use that example specifically, but you should be able to figure it out based on stuff I do talk about.

And no, you won't get A /images/graemlins/heart.gifA /images/graemlins/diamond.gif versus 9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif7 /images/graemlins/spade.gif very often, but the general principle at work here appears again and again (and not understanding it WILL affect your bottom line significantly). But my book does cover that general principle in detail.

And yes, there are many possible scenarios, but I'd say that RAISING with this hand on the flop is usually a mistake.

[AA suited]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm only skimming over the postflop chapters looking for weak-tight...

1. Page 67: You have pocket kings in a 3-way pot. The flop comes ace-high. He recommends that you bet on the flop (typically good advice). But then he says that if someone calls, the caller probably has at least an ace or better. In low-limit games, that simply isn't true. Yes, someone will sometimes have an ace, but often they will call with any pair or any draw. You can't assume someone has an ace simply because it exists on the flop and he called your bet. This is really a point of critical importance for low-limit games.

2. Page 74-6: You have A /images/graemlins/heart.gif6 /images/graemlins/heart.gif seven ways for one bet in the cutoff. The flop is A /images/graemlins/spade.gifT /images/graemlins/diamond.gif5 /images/graemlins/club.gif. He advises that if the player directly on your right bets, you should raise the flop (this is fine). But then if everyone else folds and the bettor calls your raise, he tells you to check behind on the turn. In low-limit games, you need to bet this hand again for value. If you are going to check, do so on the river, not the turn.

But then he says that if the flop bettor is a habitual bluffer, that you should JUST CALL on the flop instead of raise. I think he has confused advice for HEADS-UP play with advice for SEVEN-HANDED play.

Much worse, however, is his advice in the next paragraph. Same hand, but now everyone checks to you on the flop. He tells you to bet the flop (good). But if anyone calls you, he tells you to "check all the way" from there. This advice is simply terrible. I shouldn't have to explain why it's bad. Hopefully it's obvious to everyone who reads this board.

Then he says that if you are in early position, that you should simply check and fold. If you check the flop and it's checked around, you should bet the turn. Then if anyone calls, you should check and call again on the river. Dude, this is just terrible advice. I'm sorry. In fact, this advice is PARTICULARLY bad in a low-limit game. It would actually be BETTER (though not good) in a mid-limit game.

He then tells you to dump ace-rag hands as soon as they miss their flush draw. His analysis of this situation, an important and common one, is absolutely horrendous. He has you playing WAY too passively in this situation.

3) Page 83: You have Q /images/graemlins/club.gifQ /images/graemlins/diamond.gif and the flop is T /images/graemlins/heart.gif8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif. He tells you to bet the flop (again correctly), but if you are called, you should fear an eight and check the turn. This is pretty much just plain wrong. If he was going to give this advice, he should at least have made the example A /images/graemlins/club.gifA /images/graemlins/diamond.gif on a J /images/graemlins/diamond.gifJ /images/graemlins/heart.gif4 /images/graemlins/spade.gif. At least then checking the turn isn't as bad.

He then tells you that betting the turn and river is a "lose-lose" situation, as no worse hand could possibly call you down for fear that you have an eight.

Then he says that if the board is paired over your pocket pair, you should fold at the first opportunity.

He then provides another example where he has A /images/graemlins/diamond.gifJ /images/graemlins/club.gif on a J /images/graemlins/spade.gif6 /images/graemlins/heart.gif6 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif flop, that he suggests you play the same way (i.e., bet the flop and then check the turn if someone calls).

4) Page 89: This is not a weak-tight MUTB error, but it stuck out at me. He tells you to play red aces "fast" on a 9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif7 /images/graemlins/spade.gif flop, but drop them if you get a lot of action. The way you should play red aces on that board in no way resembles fast.

5) Hand 94: "Suppose you have A /images/graemlins/spade.gifJ /images/graemlins/spade.gif on the button and there were three calls in front of you pre-flop. You call, as do both blinds..." HUGE ERROR.

6) Hand 128: You have A /images/graemlins/heart.gif4 /images/graemlins/heart.gif and the board is A /images/graemlins/club.gifT /images/graemlins/diamond.gifJ /images/graemlins/diamond.gif6 /images/graemlins/club.gif3 /images/graemlins/spade.gif. You have bet the flop and turn, and an opponent has called. He tells you to check the river because your opponent either has a busted flush draw or a stronger ace. Obviously, this simply ISN'T TRUE in a low-limit game. People call with ALL SORTS OF STUFF. After all, isn't that the whole point?

These are a few examples of significantly weak-tight advice from WLLH.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ed, what would YOU recommend in each of these situations?

[Ed Miller]

Ed, what would YOU recommend in each of these situations?

I don't have the time to go through each example. Generally, where Jones tells you to check on fourth street, you should usually bet instead. Where Jones tells you to assume that someone has you beaten when they called your flop bet, you should assume that you have the best hand instead.

In the red aces on the 987 of spades flop, you should sometimes fold on the flop, and when you don't fold, you should almost never put in a raise or a 3-bet.

[AA suited]

[ QUOTE ]
Ed, what would YOU recommend in each of these situations?

I don't have the time to go through each example. Generally, where Jones tells you to check on fourth street, you should usually bet instead. Where Jones tells you to assume that someone has you beaten when they called your flop bet, you should assume that you have the best hand instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

so keep betting until they raise? then calculate pot odds to see if it's worth calling?

Let take Lee's example of you having KK in a 3 way pot, with an Ace flopping. you should keep betting if they keep calling?

but what if one of them is calling because he has an Ace with low kicker? Are you saying that him having an Ace and not show signs of strength is the exception rather than the rule in low limit?

[Ed Miller]

but what if one of them is calling because he has an Ace with low kicker? Are you saying that him having an Ace and not show signs of strength is the exception rather than the rule in low limit?

No. But say your opponent will play any two cards. He will call a flop bet with any flopped pair, and any reasonable draw.

Which is more likely, he has an ace and is leading, or he flopped a smaller pair or a draw and is behind? This is not a judgement call, there is a strict mathematical answer to this question... and it is that your opponent is significantly more likely to be behind than have an ace.

Now, you might say, "They play loose, but they don't play any two cards." Fine. But the point is, the looser your opponents play, the more likely you are to be ahead when they call your flop bet EVEN IF THEY WOULD ALWAYS PLAY AN ACE THAT WAY.

Does that make sense?

[AA suited]

ah..you mean that them calling and having the Ace is the exception rather than the rule in low limit?

[Ed Miller]

ah..you mean that them calling and having the Ace is the exception rather than the rule in low limit?

Essentially. Given the wide range of hands these players will call with, you cannot assume that they have an ace because they called. Yes, they will sometimes... even often... have an ace. But if you assume that they basically ALWAYS have an ace, it will get you in serious trouble, especially when the pot is big.

[Blarg]

Not that I know jack but I like that thinking. It doesn't result in giving free cards that can beat you, and may result in your getting more money into a pot you're ahead in.

And also, if you're with someone representing an ace in a hand but you're not sure, you may well think it wise to call and not throw away a winning hand. Maybe the pot even makes it worth doing all by itself regardless what you think of his hand.

So, maybe if you check your kings because you're afraid of aces, he'll take over the betting to try to represent aces and get you out.

Now you're calling all the way, you only have one way to win...by having the best cards at the showdown. Yet if you had not stopped betting, but had bet all the way down, you would have another way to win -- by making your opponent fold before the hand reached the end. And by forcing out someone with a weaker hand but a scary kicker earlier than the river, you would have cut down your chances of losing the whole pot, too, when he drew out on you.

Generally, I like the idea that betting gives you more ways to win than calling; and if it's a situation in which you're going to be there to the end anyway, you might as well be the one forcing the OTHER guy to decide whether to call, and putting yourself in the position of reaping the benefit if he doesn't.

Hope I didn't express that badly -- I'm very tired today.

[Beach-Whale]

I agree with you 100% Bugs. Matthew Hilger's book would be the book that I'd recommend to a beginner too. But I don't think that it is all that well known or read yet. Ed's probably not read it (since he hasn't replied).

[rjc199]

Ed,

Can you explain the thinking on some of these?:

#2: Why do you want to raise in this position with A6? I know folding is not the right option because you have top pair. Calling would simply result in the whole field calling as well. So raising would be for two reasons: a) because you might have the best hand, and b) because you want to drive out wild draws and make fools with 2nd and 3rd pair pay????

Also in point #2: What are you to do with Axs hands when they miss their flush draws? This happens to me alot because I plays Axs in any position in these loose-passive games. Obviously if an Ace falls you play like you have top pair, but what if it is a rags flop?