I think Ed Miller has it wrong...
 

I think his book advocates play that increases the variance WAY too much -

I also think it assumes your opponents are morons who go to the river with A high and never assumes they might actually have an A or top pair or set -

while I MIGHT be tempted to open up my game a bit, I find it highly unlikely I will be taking all his comments to fruition to their fullest extent...

discuss amongst yourselves...what have your results been...I'm finding bankroll swings that would require a $3000 bankroll on 2/4 to ride out...

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...

something is amiss here, methinks...discuss amongst yourselves


RB

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

[ QUOTE ]
I also think it assumes your opponents are morons who go to the river with A high and never assumes they might actually have an A or top pair or set

[/ QUOTE ]

On Party usually and at Potowatomi in Milwaukee (and I assume most B&M low/midlimit games) almost always, this assumption is correct.

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

not on Pokerstars anyways....

RB

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

Well, for what it's worth, I believe the "Tight Games" preflop strategy applies much more to most online games than the "Loose Games" preflop strategy.

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

that I will agree with...

RB

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

I think the style Miller advocates is a little too LAG for Pokerstars at 2/4. I think you can use some of his specific points however, such as outs, hidden outs and little edge/big edge stuff.

It murders 2/4 and 3/6 on Party though.

NT

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

like I'm gonna believe any prissy bastard from the Lake Minnetonka Yachy Club...

LOL - J/K -

RB

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

I find most 4/8 B&M games a looser and more passive than online games. However, he does describe profitable situations with marginally profitable hands. This will increase variance but it also increases your EV. If you wish to cut back your potential to save on variance this is fine, you just cost yourself money. In a B&M setting this can be quite costly because your hands are quite reduced in a day.

The other thing that you are forced to do is play better postflop. Waiting around for good starters doesn't challenge your close decision making skills and does not improve your game at quite the rate.

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

He's not wrong, he's just not writing for the games you are playing! But, you are right, you are not playing against total morons. I find on party poker 2/4 there are 1-2 morons per table on average, not 7.

I think ed is used to wild casino games.

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

[ QUOTE ]
I think ed is used to wild casino games.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, ssh applies to low limit vegas games to a T. this goes into the old b&m v. online tightness/looseness.

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.

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

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

Great post Josh

SSH has made me into a better player. PERIOD

What it has done is kind of glued together all the great things I have read and continue to read in the SS forum. For anybody to say that Ed's concepts are incorrect is absurd.

IMO there are two reasons that lead people to say that Ed's book has screwed up thier game:

#1 Lack of understanding of the swings that can occur during x amount of playing time

#2 Using the correct concepts at the wrong time (most importantly raising to protect you hand in small pots that you probably should fold and calling in those same pots)

The only thing that surprised me in Ed's book was his starting hand requirements for the CO and the button, other than that it is full of concepts that have been discussed here since I came around, that just never "clicked" with me (heck most still dont, im still pretty much a novice [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img])

SSH rocks!

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

That is the big thing I am getting from it, trying to think more about lots of things like outs, flop evaluation etc etc. Before I was a multitable clicker playing on auto.

You cant read a book and suddenly change the way you play, you have to absorb and understand and then incorporate the concepts into your play, then make mistakes and learn to refine it.

There are some who seem to have read the book are now misapplying or making mistakes probably while multitabling 4-6 tables and then blame the book cos it goes wrong.

Or they are giving it one or two sessions and giving up, the thing about SSH compared to say Lee Jones is that its not a how to manual there are not set guidelines on the way to play tptk or a draw it is trying to give you the tools and understanding to make those decisions yourself.

I suspect like any way of playing its not for everyone but there are concepts inthere that should help anyone improe their game.

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

[ QUOTE ]
What it has done is kind of glued together all the great things I have read and continue to read in the SS forum

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Reading the book, it felt like I was reading this forum.

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

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree more with this post. I'm not really a regular poster here, but more like a regular reader. I get to browse the forums alot at work. While I am certainly no great player, I am a consistent winner. I was a break even or small winner for the longest time(with really weak-tight play.) I remember when I started reading these forums and thought some of the plays people we're making were ludicrous. I didn't understand alot of the concepts that were being applied. After reading the forums for awhile I started picking up on who the more experienced respected posters were(Ed, Clark, Dynasty etc.) So I started following their posts pretty regularly and tried adding new things to my game. Whenever you try something new, you aren't going to instantly be good at it. My variance was alot higher of course since I played really weak tight before, but I decided to stick with it. I just kept reading and playing, reading and playing. Now when I look back I can't believe some of the blunders I made that I thought was perfect poker at the time. I'm still learning so much. It's hard not to look at short term results after failing. If you are dramatically changing the way you play poker, then you are almost certainly going to lose in the beginning. It pisses me off to see people come on here and berate Ed's book for their poor play. It goes like this: Someone sucks at poker, reads a book, still sucks at poker, and then instantly blames it on a terrible book. Don't look at short term results. There are so many posters here applying these concepts and consistently winning these games. Try working on your game before criticizing SSH. It is great CRYSTAL CLEAR advice.

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

Hey Pudley, when did you morph into Jeff A?

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

[ QUOTE ]
I think his book advocates play that increases the variance WAY too much -

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares? I can handle variance as long as I'm winning in the long run. This is why it's so important to have the correct bankroll.

[ QUOTE ]
I also think it assumes your opponents are morons who go to the river with A high and never assumes they might actually have an A or top pair or set -

[/ QUOTE ]

I play against a lot of morons, so he's not too far off. I don't think the book says to never assume your opponent has a hand.

[ QUOTE ]
while I MIGHT be tempted to open up my game a bit, I find it highly unlikely I will be taking all his comments to fruition to their fullest extent...

[/ QUOTE ]

Good, more weak-tight players is a good thing.

[ QUOTE ]
discuss amongst yourselves...what have your results been...I'm finding bankroll swings that would require a $3000 bankroll on 2/4 to ride out...

[/ QUOTE ]

You must really be on a bad run of cards or you're not playing well. I've had 125BB swings and I do think a bankroll of 300BB is necessary. But 750BB is absurd.

[ QUOTE ]
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...

[/ QUOTE ]

We're human, we make mistakes, and we're trying to get better. I view this as a good thing rather than a bad one.

[ QUOTE ]
something is amiss here, methinks...discuss amongst yourselves

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd agree that something is amiss here, but I think maybe we're talking about two different things.

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

these and brassnuts' comments pretty much sum up my feelings.


I just wish Ed could've come up with words other than TIGHT and LOOSE to differentiate the two pre-flop strategies. Reading people talk about TIGHT games when they really mean TIGHT-LOOSE is driving me up the wall...

Nevertheless, Ed rules.

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

I can honestly say that SSH hasn't changed anything about my play. I didn't find anything ground breaking and I doubt anyone who regularly reads the board and puts it into practice will have done.

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

This is how I feel. I still haven't finished the book yet but nothing in it seems revolutionary. There has definitely been some thought provoking passages though and the examples are very crisp and clear and yet I can see how people could easily misapply the concepts. I have picked up a few things that should enhance my game though and I expect to pick up a few more before I finish the book. It is thought provoking and that's all I can hope for.

ps. I really like the references to HPFAP and TOP. I find them very appropriate and it further enhances the experience of reading SSH by seeing the advice tie in with these other pivotal works.

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

Hi Tosh,

Agreed. I'm curious what Clarkmeister learned from this book. I agree that the book is great, and I learned a couple of new things, but for the most part, it was just a re-hash of the things I have been reading from Ed, Clark, Dynasty, etc. for the past year on these very forums. I really don't know any other way to play poker. I was lucky to have started here, and I didn't have a bunch of weird concepts filling my head that I had to learn to get over.

-Brian

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

[ QUOTE ]
ps. I really like the references to HPFAP and TOP. I find them very appropriate and it further enhances the experience of reading SSH by seeing the advice tie in with these other pivotal works.


[/ QUOTE ]

I also like the sections that refer to Carson's book. I got a fair amount of my early aggression and draw-pushing from my first read of Carson.

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

Same here Tosh, I would venture a guess that had I read it before joining 2+2, it would have been extremely ground breaking. But at this point, I was reading the book and nodding my head. The only thing I sort of liked was assigning outs to backdoor draws, but otherwise I am in your camp. Frankly I expected the book to be exactly what it is.

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

Brian:

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that the book is great, and I learned a couple of new things, but for the most part, it was just a re-hash of the things I have been reading from Ed, Clark, Dynasty, etc. for the past year on these very forums. I really don't know any other way to play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can relate to this statement somewhat, although I learned more than a couple of things and certain concepts are more firmly cemented now. I basically have "learned" how to play by studying this forum, and the book is pretty much a compilation of the ideas discussed here. What I find interesting, is that if you venture away from the 2+2 forums, you will find a much different style of poker being played by well studied, serious, and, presumeably, winning players. It is a much different mind set that is rooted in weak tightness, where only big edges are pushed, and minimizing loses is paramount. For these types of players, the concepts in the book will be a significant departure from their comfort zone.

--Rico

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

I've never read Carson. I did briefly look at it recently but it just seems a little too fundamental at this point. I have too many other books I need to read (I just bought about 10 poker books).

I'm sure the references are spot on though. I remember a lot of interesting points Carson used to make on these boards about pre-flop play. I think he had it about right but most people argued against him back then.

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

[ QUOTE ]
I think his book advocates play that increases the variance WAY too much -

I also think it assumes your opponents are morons who go to the river with A high and never assumes they might actually have an A or top pair or set -

while I MIGHT be tempted to open up my game a bit, I find it highly unlikely I will be taking all his comments to fruition to their fullest extent...

discuss amongst yourselves...what have your results been...I'm finding bankroll swings that would require a $3000 bankroll on 2/4 to ride out...

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...

something is amiss here, methinks...discuss amongst yourselves


RB

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe some of Ed's advice is -EV but there's really no way to prove it. His advice on raising instead of calling with weak draws such as two pair/trips (5 outs) appears incorrect since the pot would need at least 16 bets to make the raise correct. Ed's advocating this play when the pot's only at 8 bets!

A call in this situation (8 bets in the pot with a 5 out draw) is obviously correct.

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

[ QUOTE ]

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...
RB

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have to think of why people post to this forum. There is a greater incentive to post hands that "bombed" so as to figure out how to play better next time. Therefore you don't see a whole lot of hands that extoll the virtues of application of SSH (although come to think of it I have seen some of that lately).

I would also add that it isn't just regular posters to this former who emulate concepts seen in the book. As a relatively new (<1 yr) player it helped a lot to fine tune things. Particularly I thought the explanation of non-intuitive and seemingly contradictory concepts (i.e., protecting a vulnerable hand) was really good.

I play 2/4 online regularly and have never experienced the variance you suggest. Is this indicative in something else in your game not attributed to SSH?

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

Start a new thread with this disagreement it will be educational. I also have a strong feeling that you are wrong if it's the spot I'm thinking of. Nonetheless there will be many psoters who benefit from a discussion of these disagreements and I think you should post it in a new thread.

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

Chalk one more up for:

"Love the book, thinks it's great

I have not been reading the SS forum for more than 3-4 months. I still love the book and find it invaluable, in fact, I just bought my 4th copy for a another friend trying to learn....and the 5th friend that wants to learn will get his/her ceremonial copy with a nice firm lecture as well....

Thanks Ed!

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is something to ponder: What if most everyone began playing the "Ed Miller way"? What then happens to your EV when the stream of fish has dried up?

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

He used to post here? Huh, I can't imagine that given his clear animosity toward the Mason on RGP. Anyway, a lot of our standard betting strong draws lines are right out of his book, and he had a good hand strength section which has now been totally overshadowed by the NPA.