I think Ed Miller has it right.
 

I think that for the most part, Ed got it exactly right. I think most of the play that he advocates in his book, is the same stuff that gets advocated here on a daily basis. A lot of his aggressive play, I think actually reduces your variance, by reducing the number of players that you are playing against.

I mean, look even at the discussion boards....the forum is full of people trying the concepts, and looking for justification why they bombed so bad...


You should know by now, that everything doesn't work perfectly every time. I think that a lot of the plays that get posted, are those cases, and people are trying to figure out why they don't win every hand that they play the 'expert way'.

It also takes some experimentation to learn how and when to apply those plays. If you look at a golf magazine, and see an article about how Phil Mickelson hits his flop shot, and you go out to the course and try it, it will take a lot of balls thinned over the green or chunked into the bunker before you really can use the shot. Similarly, figuring out when you want to play middle pair aggressively, or chase with a bunch of extra outs, probably isn't going to be done right the first time you try it.

Good luck,
play well,

Bob T.

Re: I think Ed Miller has it wrong...
 

Most of us have been playing in a manner advocated by SSH for an while now. SSH is really like a formalization of the play that Clarkmeister, Dynasty, Ed Miller, Joe Tall, etc. etc. have been pushing for a while, and it's the style that most of us in SS have been emulating for a while.

So maybe it's increased my variance, maybe not. In most ways, it's how I've been playing already.

Re: I think Ed Miller has it wrong...
 

SSH is tailor made for the wild CA style games I played in the Bay Area last week.

Re: I think Ed Miller has it wrong...
 

[ QUOTE ]
SSH is tailor made for the wild CA style games I played in the Bay Area last week.

[/ QUOTE ]

nope vegas only [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] (j/k)

Re: I think Ed Miller has it wrong...
 

Ed is dead on. Why? Because the book is not a cookie cutter book. He tells about adjustments for different types of opponents instead of just throwing out a blanket approach. Many may miss these notations instead looking for something they don't have to really think about as they're playing 8 tables online. I was pleasantly suprised at how much player specific exceptions were in there. You can't just use read this book then blindly start throwing chips around. He explains, very clearly, why you do it in certain situations.

b

Re: I think Ed Miller has it wrong...
 

Yeah, I think the book is great. It's perfect for transforming a tight/semi-passive player like myself into a tight/aggressive player. I am getting much more value for my hands since reading the book. Obviously my variance has increased a bit. But, you can't argue with the mathematics of the value bets that I'm now making.

Re: I think Ed Miller has it wrong...
 

My standard deviation has gone up slightly since I read SSH, but my winrate has gone up alot more.

Gotta be a bit selective about games. When the table has an see flop average under 30% it's time to play HEFAP rather than SSH. When it's a Friday night on Party and the table has a see flop average of 62% it's time to go wild.

I think Ed happens to mention something about adjusting to your opponents. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

And his post-flop play fits in perfectly with TOP suggestions for pots of that size.

Re: I think Ed Miller has it wrong...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most of us have been playing in a manner advocated by SSH for an while now. SSH is really like a formalization of the play that Clarkmeister, Dynasty, Ed Miller, Joe Tall, etc. etc. have been pushing for a while, and it's the style that most of us in SS have been emulating for a while.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to write something like that, but it was easier to just copy paste yours [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I dont play as loose as some suggests but my postflop game is pretty similar to what is described in SSH, with a few exeptions, that I´ll post when I get time.
Maybe it increase variance, but it will increase winrate aswell [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

The advise is good, but too many misapply it, which is hardly a reason to say that he is wrong..

Re: I think Ed Miller has it wrong...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most of us have been playing in a manner advocated by SSH for an while now. SSH is really like a formalization of the play that Clarkmeister, Dynasty, Ed Miller, Joe Tall, etc. etc. have been pushing for a while, and it's the style that most of us in SS have been emulating for a while.

So maybe it's increased my variance, maybe not. In most ways, it's how I've been playing already.

[/ QUOTE ]


this is exactly what I was going to write.

notice that the people who are bombing from SSH are the people that never bothered to read this board before reading the book. the game suggests a radical change for some people, and it's tough to change your game completely all at once. the book suggests play that is PROVEN TO WORK FOR THE REGULAR POSTERS HERE.

Re: I think Ed Miller has it wrong...
 

Notice that...

- NOT ONE regular poster here has had any problems with SSH strategy
- just about everyone else has

why do you think that is? it's because while the regular posters here have been playing the SSH/2+2 way for a while, most other people haven't. those people aren't accustomed to that style of play, so it's going to take time.

you expect the game to make you a big winner right away. it won't do that. I'm sure while blaming Ed, you're making mistakes and misinterpreting his writing. read the book and play for a few months. then look back and you'll notice how much better you've gotten.

it's ridiculous that people are bitching about Ed screwing them up (not you in particular) a month after the book was written. it's not a manual. you can't read it and instantly be good.

saying that Ed got it wrong, while people here have been playign "the Ed Miller way" for months or years, and winning, is ridiculous.