Book Review Of Ed Miller's SSHE On Amazon

[Filet O' Fish]

I was just wondering if anyone had seen this review of SSHE on amazon.com:

"This book hurt my brain. I've read Sklansky's "Theory of Poker" and I personally feel it's the best poker book there is. This book, written with his buddy Mason and newcomer Ed Miller, just baffles me. At best, it's 200+ pages of condescending comments about those who play in low-limit games. At worst, it's an assortment of various concepts (none of which are particularly new or mind-blowing) that seem to contradict the overall premise put forward by the book.

I have two major problems with the book. First, the authors basically assume that low-limit Hold'em games are played by complete and utter morons. People who have absolutely no concept of solid play, pot odds, outs, etc. Because of this, the authors also assume that every low-limit Hold'em game is extremely loose, with players who raise preflop with T8 and are called by 6 people on every hand. I hate to be the one to tell the authors this, but most people who play poker would like to make money. Lee Jones' "Winning Low Limit Hold'em" is a well-known, often-recommended book that most new poker players are willing to read. Therefore, even if they do not memorize that book, they at least pick up a few concepts and realize that playing 27s or 68s is not a very profitable move. Sure, some people play stupid, but probably only one or two at any given table (as a side note, the authors later suggest that a play like raising for a free card makes it too easy for opponents to read your hand... all of a sudden your opponents become smart enough to read hands...).

Second, the authors assume you have a limitless bankroll. They suggest (I swear I'm not making this up) that you continue to call even if you suspect you're drawing dead if the pot is large. Right. Like I have money to just throw away when I know I'm beat and can't improve. They propose that calling only costs you 1 or 2 bets, while folding could cost you the whole pot. I'll give you a minute to stop laughing. I don't know about you, but I don't have the kind of money where I can just continue to bet and bet because my hand has a positive expected value of $.03 in the long run. There is no long run if I blow $50 on a hand drawing dead.

The book does have several very good sections if you haven't read Lee Jones' book (and they're useful even if you have). The chapter on outs is outstanding (pun intended). There are several great examples on counting partial outs, something a lot of players don't even bother with. Again, though, these are not new concepts. They are discussed in Randy Burgess' "Stepping Up" as well, and MUCH more realistically than they are in Small Stakes Hold'em. I don't know about you, but I don't rely on hidden outs like the board pairing to bail me out, but Miller suggests this is okay to do.

My basic point is this: isn't there a time when common sense becomes more important than math and pot odds and ridiculously obscure concepts? I'm sorry, but when I flop middle pair and am raised and then reraised, I'm not thinking about the pot equity I'm giving up by folding, or all of the hidden outs I might have to split the pot. I'm thinking about how obvious it is that my opponents have at least top pair. That's the problem with this book. Unlike the Theory of Poker, which was a purely concept-driven book, "Small Stakes Hold'em" is a playing style that the authors are suggesting you use. Unfortunately, the playing style is rather unrealistic except in the loosest of games. The new concepts put forward are good concepts to know, but they aren't particularly useful at the table.

My advice is to buy "Winning Low Limit Hold'em". It's much simpler, much more common-sense driven, and gives your opponents credit for having an IQ over 30. If the more abstract parts of poker interest you, get Sklansky's "Theory of Poker". Once you understand basic strategy and basic theory, you can pick up "Stepping Up" by Randy Burgess for how to read hands in low-limit and Caro's poker tells book for information about tells in low or high limit.

Again, there is quite a bit of good information in here if this is your first poker book. It's just applied poorly and based on far too many assumptions. If you've read other poker books (particularly the ones I've mentioned), I don't feel like there's anything in this book that is so critical to low-limit players that they'll be losing money if they don't read it. That is, unless you're playing in maniacal games... in that case you'd better be studying this book nonstop."

I have read through and studied this book countless times and I personally find the information contained within to be invaluable. I was just interested in hearing what fellow 2+2ers and especially Ed Miller himself thought about this reviewers point of view.

[Keres]

hmmm, I'd half-jokingly thought about writing a review like that myself. Not because I agree with any of what it says but because I'd prefer it if as few people bought SSHE as possible.

[cowboyzfan]

[ QUOTE ]
My basic point is this: isn't there a time when common sense becomes more important than math and pot odds and ridiculously obscure concepts?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my favorite part of the review [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[chabibi]

i wish everyone that has ever read the book felt that way

[arabie]

I feel bad for the reviewer because he did not have the intellect to correctly interept the books advice. Maybe one day when his poker skills and intellect grow, he can re-read this book and realize his mistakes.

[Ed Miller]

My basic point is this: isn't there a time when common sense becomes more important than math and pot odds and ridiculously obscure concepts?

Well, it's clear from this comment that the reviewer and I have very different philosophies regarding poker. I would answer the above question, "No, there is no time when common sense should trump math. In fact, a reliance upon common sense is what causes most players never to figure out how to play well."

That's the only real comment I have. I know that this reviewer certainly isn't the only person who feels the way he does about SSH, though.

[Beavis68]

I thought math and pot odds were common sense.

[cowboyzfan]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought math and pot odds were common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought we bought books to go beyond common sense and to learn obscure concepts

[rmr1976]

I'm conflicted about this review. I have Miller's book, and I can say my play drastically improved after reading it. I doubled my initial stake in micro limit games within a few weeks. Being someone who values quality work, I'd like to see Ed get the credit (and money) he deserves for putting out a quality book.

On the other hand, if people really do play as Miller suggests, the games will get much tougher. So I hope these concepts don't become widespread.

Fortunately, this review illustrates the reason why most people are not successful--they fail to think, and struggle with difficult concepts. That's good for those of us who do.

This is a clear situation where someone is given accurate information on how to profitably succeed in a gambling game. What does he do? He rejects the advice because it is too hard to understand or implement.

Perhaps we can have the best of both worlds: soft games AND poker writers who produce quality books that educate instead of mislead.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, if people really do play as Miller suggests, the games will get much tougher. So I hope these concepts don't become widespread.


[/ QUOTE ]


I don't think you need to worry about it. First, I'd guess that a majority of people playing the limits most of us are playing (5/10 - 20/40) don't buy these books. Then, of the group who buys them, not all will read them. THEN, of those who buy AND read them, not many will understand. FURTHER STILL ... buy, read, understand, and then APPLY.

I love the 2+2 library of books and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that they present the finest poker writing out there today, unfortunately, they do present a way to play poker that many people simply will not take to as people don't like folding.

I went over an hour the other night without getting a single hand that I played other than my unraised big blinds. A guy asked me what was I doing at the table if all I came to do was fold. When I told him that I came just for the free drinks, we both shared a chuckle and I had someone to talk to as I continued to fold.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com