[cowboyzfan]

Iggy,

well I don't disagree with what you have written. And interestingly, I actually did reread the introduction last night. It basically says what you say it says. However, the point of my post was that I believe most players DO play poorly. So I believe that SSH would apply to most games the average guy on this site looking for a hold'em book would find.

BTW, I have read the book so I know what they focus on. But again, my complaint is about all the posts that have been made about the book that have attempted to minimalize the book's relevance.

How many times have we read that SSH is dangerous, that SSH does not apply to the internet, that SSH will increase your variance, that SSH will only "work" in very loose games and on and on.

Now as my post said, this could be true. I am just asking for examples of why it is true. I can cite you post after post on this board that basically says:

"SSH says 8 players will be on the flop, but on Party, it is only 4 players, so SSH does not apply to Party"

All I am saying is I don't think that is enough of an explanation. I want to know what plays will not work, and more precisely, what plays does SSH fail to explain will not work.

And I do know for a fact Ed does not agree that his book is dangerous [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]