[cowboyzfan]

I think you both said it well. This to me is an important conversation. I do understand what you guys are saying. Basically the key is to understand why you make certain plays. You can't make a play only for the reason you "think" that is what SSH says you should do, instead of understanding why and when you should do it.

Here is a problem I am having, and this is probably why I responded to your post. I think most people consider the "fundamentals" to be the standard, slightly weak-tightish play offered in WLLH, ITH, and MLH.

SSH is considered by many to be a way of adjusting that "standard" play so as to maximize results in certain situations. But here is my problem. In some ways I see SSH as not just a method of tweaking a basically sound approach in certain situations. Rather, it seems more of a radical rethink of what we should really be doing in a Hold'em game.


I will give you one example. In reviewing Internet Texas Hold'em by Matt Hilger I read that hands such as JJ and TT should only be limping hands in a passive game. I seem to remember pretty much most of the "fundamental" books agreed with this basic theme. Hands such as JJ and 10 10 are played for "set value", so you want as many limpers as possible. The basic point is: These hands are not worth raising if you can't knock most opponents out.

Now, doesn't SSH teach us that we should be raising hands that are likely best, from almost all positions? How does one reconcile these "standard" ideas with those ideas of SSH?

This in a nutshell is why I am confused [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] I agree SSH does not have all the answers or cover many things that one would need to know. But when I go back to the standard texts, I read things that are in fundamental disagreement with SSH. And if these standard texts have this wrong (do they?), then how are they not even more dangerous than SSH? Because what they are talking about are the fundamental concepts of how you win money playing Hold'em.

Cowboy