[PseudoPserious]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you punish correct play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, perhaps I was too flippant and/or general with my original questions. Let's try this one:

You're playing in a live small stakes hold'em game. The game conditions are as described in the preface. At the table are 8 fish, you, and one player who is correctly applying the concepts described in SSH with the odd exception that he views you as another one of the fish...that is, he doesn't give you credit for also understanding poker ideas. How do you change your play versus the SSH-disciple?

As an example, I'd never try to bluff the SSH-disciple on the river when a scare card came. SSH argues that in a large pot, the chance that your opponent is bluffing generally makes a heads-up call with a marginal hand profitable. Furthermore, if the pot was three handed, with SSH in the middle, I'd lead out when my draw DOES get there (instead of trying for a check-raise), expecting SSH to raise with both made hands (for value) and marginal hands (trying to prevent the overcall). I do not dispute that SSH's advice is correct, but that's an example of a change I'd make against an SSH-disciple vice some other opponent.

Is this a worthless exercise? If I'm going to play against folk who apply the ideas in this book, I'd prefer to have something other than "aww, shucks, he's playing correctly, nothing I can do, guess I better find a different game" to fall back on.

Cheers,
PP

Edit: Well, I guess *never* is a little too stringent. Let's just say "I'd be very hesitant to..." instead.