I hate Ed Miller
 

I used to have such a nice profitable game, now I am a maniac raising station. I dont know how long it will take me to recover. I can see why RGP rips 2+2 for their arrogance.

Re: I hate Ed Miller
 

What does this have to do with Ed Miller?

Re: I hate Ed Miller
 

First of all, I dont really hate Ed.

But the assumptions his book is based on, are not true in my games. And I think he and his critism of WLLH are very arrogant. WLLH is probably a more realistic book for many games.


Actually, it is all just me, too many bad beats for huge pots, please excuse me.

Re: I hate Ed Miller
 

What sites and limits are you playing?

Re: I hate Ed Miller
 

UB and PS, lowest limits, so I am not losing much, but I won a lot over the last year, but the last five weeks I cant win. And the losses are bigger because I am more aggressive. Not really too much damage to my bank, just my ego.

I actually think I had that TJ Cloutier, Phil Hellmuth advice tweaked pretty well for my game.

Re: I hate Ed Miller
 

I used to have such a nice profitable game, now I am a maniac raising station

It's likely you are applying the concepts in the book that are new to incorrectly. Post some hands in the micro or small stakes forum and we will deside.

Peace,
Joe Tall

Re: I hate Ed Miller
 

Hey Beavis,

As far as I'm concerned, the best strategy for nanolimits is to move up.

Ed's book owns WLLH and I think his criticism of Jones is dead-on. Lee is a smart guy and I read his book starting out, but SSHE is just plain better.

NT

NT

Re: I hate Ed Miller
 

[ QUOTE ]
WLLH is probably a more realistic book for many games.


[/ QUOTE ]

nope. not really.
maybe it's more realistic for some players' skill-levels.
but it is not more correct advice for ANY games.


if you think that you might not be applying the SSHE concepts correctly you should be posting a hand or two in the ML or SS forums.
if you think you ARE applying the SSHE concepts correctly, you should still be posting a hand or two in the ML or SS forums.

Re: I hate Ed Miller
 

[ QUOTE ]
UB and PS

[/ QUOTE ]

UB is so squeaky tight that HEFAP is probably your best bet, even at .25/.50. Tables regularly going under 30% see flop average. *shudder*

20 hands in a row without a showdown? Regular fare.

The strategy to beat tables where people play too few hands and lay them down too easy is quite different from SSH.

Re: I hate Ed Miller
 

[ QUOTE ]
I used to have such a nice profitable game, now I am a maniac raising station. I dont know how long it will take me to recover. I can see why RGP rips 2+2 for their arrogance.

[/ QUOTE ]

The best reason to hate Ed Miller is his over use of the word "absurd.

Re: I hate Ed Miller
 

[ QUOTE ]
The best reason to hate Ed Miller is his over use of the word "absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hate? Inconceivable!

Also preposterous, irrational, silly, and foolish. The OP needs either a hug or a kick in the pants. He'll probably get both. I see he finally did post in the Micro forum, so maybe we'll see what his real problem is.

Re: I hate Ed Miller
 

I was the same after my first read through of the book. Now I'm taking a pen and a notebook and going through the book and writing down the important concepts from each page/chapter. I'm only on page 67 and already have 5 full hand written notebook pages worth of important material. There is a lot of important material in the book.

Re: I hate Ed Miller
 

Is this the "I cant help myself victim cry."
Please RGP would love you. It meets all your disfunctional requirements
[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
jim grass

Re: I hate Ed Miller
 

I checked in on the UB play money tables and they are better (as in the play is *correct*) than some higher real money limit games I've seen. Absolutely ridiculous I think. Anyone know why this is?

Re: I hate Ed Miller
 

[ QUOTE ]
I checked in on the UB play money tables and they are better (as in the play is *correct*) than some higher real money limit games I've seen. Absolutely ridiculous I think. Anyone know why this is?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think UB has become the inoffical home base of those players who think they'd win more money if the other players were better.

Maybe it's better late at night US time, but during European hours UB is squeaky tight.

Re: I hate Ed Miller
 

Hey Tim-
Every time I see your avatar I wonder who those two people are...

Re: I hate Ed Miller
 

One problem right now is that dozens of 2+2'ers are clearing the $1-$3000 bonus dollars we got for the July Sit N Go bonus promotion. I should be done in about 400 more table hours at $1-$2.

Re: I hate Ed Miller
 

If the assumptions are not true why are you applying the concepts?

Re: I hate Ed Miller
 

[ QUOTE ]
I was the same after my first read through of the book. Now I'm taking a pen and a notebook and going through the book and writing down the important concepts from each page/chapter. I'm only on page 67 and already have 5 full hand written notebook pages worth of important material. There is a lot of important material in the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same here. I read SSH through twice, then took notes on the third reading. People who think that Miller is spawning a bunch of LAGs are not applying his book correctly, especially in smaller pots. SSH is subtler than many think, and also not as incredibly radical as many think. Just because he isn't telling people to look for reasons to fold every other page (like Jones), doesn't mean he's a LAG.

Re: I hate Ed Miller
 

I don't think it's Ed's fault. Rather, bringing more aggression of any type into one's game has an adjustment period of sorts.

Re: I hate Ed Miller
 

Yeah, to me Ed's book is mostly about thinking more often and using the edge of being a thinking player as much as you possibly can. Every edge, every out, every chance you can apply a clear understanding of the odds, you do it and push every advantage and push it hard. You kind of make yourself like a casino, risking a fortune on tons of chances all the time, but as long as you have the odds, well, that's the way it's done. That's how you build mega-hotels and bribe senators and governors. Add some strategy on top, much of it easily derivable from the numbers and a relatively straightforward application of logic anyway, as the icing on the low-limit cake, and you're good. But that never means you take chances that aren't reasoned and that don't fall in line with the math.

When you move up, strategy becomes more important, but simply playing the numbers suffices an awful lot against the low limit players. The numbers never stop mattering, your strategy adapts, and you never stop thinking no matter how trivial or exalted the level or the players.

That's my take on it anyway. Aggressive, sure, but not sloppily at all. Situations and the math involved dictate aggressiveness more than Ed's word does. And situations, the math, and Ed's take on things often have a nice correspondence, as well they should since he's a 2+2 author now, yet people point to Ed as a wacko haphazardly without seeing that sometimes it's just plain math and logic and that's the end of it, and it's not about Ed at all.

I could see why Ed's book wasn't as radical as some thought fairly early, but now I'm trying to be sure I catch that it may be more subtle than I thought. His advice is so situational, and his whole approach is situational more than concrete. Adopting and experimenting with Ed's ideas is more like working off principles than codified techniques, and is analogous to martial arts to me. You might learn a million techniques and still be a poor fighter, and learn one principle and be a great one. Ed's book seems to talk about core understandings that everything flows out from. Because of that many of his ideas are applicable in any level of game and against players of any intelligence and skill. Once you've got the skeleton of the thing, filling out the rest is trivial.

Ed, that sneaky s.o.b., GOT it. Now I'm gonna see if I can get it.