Internet Texas Hold'em : Starting Hands ( pg. 73 - 108 )

[mchilger]

Ed, first of all I must commend you and your energy in writing another poker book so soon after Small Stakes. It took me a year after completing ITH before I could even think about writing another one and even then, it is coming along quite slowly.

Thanks for validating at least one of the points I have made in these discussions. Sometimes I feel like I am talking to myself here and I think it leads to a more fruitful discussion when good points are validated in addition to discussing disagreements.

I would just like to add one thing about the Charts. My poker Forum has given me the ability to watch the progress of players over the last year. Many of them came to the Forum after reading the book and were big fans of the starting hand charts. Now a year later you see these same players discussing the merits of playing other types of hands, reraising or folding AQ depending on the type of opponent, etc.

I do believe the two-tiered strategy in my book works quite well and that it is not that hard of a transition for players to make once they gain more experience. At the same time, from an author's perspective, I recognize that it is a difficult line to walk in terms of writing the text. Those chapters literally took me months before i was satisfied with them and they went through numerous rewrites and revisions.

Matthew

[fred22]

Zee,
Thanks for saving this thread from dying.

It's really now turned into a great thread with Ed, Matthew & Mason being pretty active.

Very interesting.

I have both books and I think they are both excellent.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi fish:

There's a difference between not playing a hand and playing a hand wrong. The first has an expectation of zero, and the second may have a negative expectation.

One of the thnigs I have noticed for years in many books and reports is that the authors, while claiming that there advice is tight, will have you calling raises in spots where that call is not profitable. A very good example of this in addition to some of Hilger's advice are the charts in Mike Caro's Professional Hold 'em Report.

Best wishes,
Mason

[BugsBunny]

I like Matthew, post a lot on his forum, and think he's a knowledgeable player and author. I think his book is currently the best beginners book on the market. Having said all that I think your statement goes overboard. I think there are mistakes in his book (and have said so on his forum at times).

Anytime beginners have to 'unlearn' things to advance I think they're at a disadvantage. I think they have to unlearn less after reading his book than WLLH and his book gives a better foundation. But it doesn't change the fact that he's not always correct. (But then neither is Mason or anyone else - but brilliant minds tend to have big egos that often won't admit to being wrong. It's the nature of the beast).

One thing I learned early is that in poker aggression pays off in many ways. And the one general area where I think that Matthews book is weak is that it doesn't have players being aggressive enough. I understand why he does it - I just don't agree with him on this point.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
I think they have to unlearn less after reading his book than WLLH and his book gives a better foundation. But it doesn't change the fact that he's not always correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking of the best beginner's book, I've read Ed Miller's post a couple times and I still can't figure out what he's trying to say (is there some double-speak in there Ed? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )

He says that his book is "one of the best" (whatever that means) first books for beginners. But he seems to imply that WLLH is actually the best first book for beginners. Now, considering the reputation of that book among the cognoscenti of this forum, I really can't figure out what he's talking about vis a vis unlearning bad habits and ITH as a beginner's first book.

[Ed Miller]

I guess I am have trouble squaring this with Ed’s post that one should be taught the optimal or ‘correct’ ways from their first steps. It seems to me that this would necessitate advocating the use of the very same starting hands charts in SSH...assuming a ‘beginner’ starts out playing for small stakes—a fairly logical conclusion.

I believe there are two fundamental principles of winning poker:

1. Bet and raise your strong hands for value.
2. Play tightly in small pots, loosely in big ones.

It is the responsibility of any book on poker strategy... particularly any book targetted at beginners... to convey these principles. They lie at the core of every good strategy.

Unfortunately, when I read many (most) poker books, I often see these principles ignored. Some authors recommend limping preflop with very strong hands like AA, AK, and AJs. Some tell you to stop betting your top pair and overpair hands on fourth and fifth street when someone calls your flop bet on a somewhat dangerous-looking board. Some tell you to check and call with monster draws. All of these ideas run counter to the most fundamental principle of winning poker: Bet and raise your strong hands for value.

Some authors tell you to "fit or fold," regardless of the size of the pot. Some tell you to fold top pair and overpairs routinely on the turn if someone raises you, again without mention of the pot size. Some tell you to fold flush draws on paired boards and straight draws on two flush boards. All of these ideas run counter to the second-most fundamental principle of winning poker: Play tightly in small pots, loosely in big ones.

If I question one of these pieces of advice, often I will be told, "Well, the author was just trying to simplify advice for new players." My question is, "Are not the two fundamental principles of winning poker already simple? Is it impossible to forumlate simple ideas that support and reinforce the core principles rather than ignore and undermine them?"

The reason this issue hits home with me is because I see SO MANY players, many of whom think they play well, who could not articulate these two very basic principles of winning poker. They think winning poker is about making laydowns, saving bets, reading tells, wearing sunglasses, or who knows what else. And it seems so silly and frustrating to me... "How can you have played for years and still not have grasped these two extremely simple ideas?"

I think the answer lies largely in the body of available literature. The overwhelming majority of advice - books, magazine articles, internet sites, etc. - ignores and undermines these principles. It's no wonder so few ever figure it out.

So to answer your question, simplifying for beginners is fine for me. But when you simplify, you must do so ACCORDING TO THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF WINNING POKER. You are supposed to play tightly in small pots, so feel free to tell beginners to play even more tightly than "optimal." But DON'T feel free to tell beginners to limp with their strong hands or lay down overpairs in big pots. These ideas are simple, but they run contrary to the core principles.

Final note: I've said it several times before, but I wanted to reiterate it for this conversation. I think ITH is a good book filled with generally solid advice. My final test for any poker book is, "If you read and follow the advice in this book, will you become a solidly winning player?" (Not a BETTER player, a SOLIDLY WINNING one. Better sets the bar far too low.) I think the answer for ITH is definitely yes... and that is something I cannot say for most poker books.

Nevertheless, there is that one area of the book that I'm negative on.. the advice to limp preflop with strong hands like JJ and AJs. Whether it's "simplified for beginners" or not, it runs counter to basic principles, and it teaches people to think about poker the wrong way.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Nevertheless, there is that one area of the book that I'm negative on.. the advice to limp preflop with strong hands like JJ and AJs. Whether it's "simplified for beginners" or not, it runs counter to basic principles, and it teaches people to think about poker the wrong way.

[/ QUOTE ]

For purposes of this discussion, I'm going to accept that limping preflop with AJs is wrong (even though you haven't given any context, like position or looseness of game, I'm still going to accept it.) I still don't agree with your conclusion. First of all, you make the point quite strongly in your book that your readers should stop wasting their time arguing over decisions about exactly where to draw the line with preflop hands. Most preflop "systems" are good, so now get to working on your more important postflop skills. You jump from that to the conclusion that because he suggests beginners limp with AJs, he is teaching people to think about poker the wrong way. That's just not true. I learned about how to take the pot size into account by reading ITH. I learned how to make loose calls on the river when the pot is large from ITH. I learned how to raise to protect my hand and my outs from ITH. I learned not to slowyplay when the pot is large from ITH. I learned those fundamentals by reading ITH. They are not stated in bold letters as you have above, but you can only read "unless the pot is small", or "if the pot is big", etc so many times, until you get it. So no, just because the book makes a couple preflop recommendations that you say are wrong does not mean it teaches to think about poker the wrong way, because for every prefop hand you disagree with, it says 20 times in the text to follow your poker fundamentals. It would be a gigantic stretch to assume a beginning reader could even make the connection between a particular preflop recommendation and those poker fundamentals to begin with. But even if he managed to do that, any subsequent reading would dispel any such notion.

Now don't get me wrong. SSH is a great book. But the reason that it's a great book is not because it invented those fundamentals. The reason it's a great book is simply because it selects certain concepts that apply to certain (popular and misunderstood) game conditions, and organizes those concepts well, and explains them well, and focuses on them intently. The book "specializes", in other words. I've read both books more than once, and I find nothing in them that is inconsistent, and I can hardly think of single thing I learned from SSH that I didn't already learn from ITH. (Maybe the only thing that strikes me as new was the concept of "edge" you have on one street vs. the edge you have on the next street, and deciding on which street to raise. Of course examples like those are in ITH, but it doesn't discuss trading one "edge" for another later in those terms.) I think ITH is more suited as a first book since it covers a broader range of game conditions, and a broader range of topics like bluffing and bankroll management. This doesn't mean SSH wasn't valuable. I still learned more from reading it - it clarified my understanding of some concepts very nicely.

[Billy Zee]

Hiya's

As a beginner I have just browsed " Advanced Concepts ", if nothing more than to try and understand the " why " of the non-advanced section.
I have yet to find a better breakdown of not only the hands to play, but the circumstances in which to play them and how to play them. This approach has given me a better insight in playing Hold'em . ( NL as well as LH )

Unless I see a drastic difference in hands of say SSH, I plan on just widening my starting hands via your chart recommendations.

Regards
Billy Zee

[Billy Zee]

howdy fred,

Thank you for the kind words. I didn't do this out of the kindness of my heart though. Selfish motives are at work here [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Discussions of this type help me think through a reading. " Reading for comprehension ", has never been one of my strong points.

I'm glad to see the participation of 2+2 Authors and Matthew as well also. And we still have some more Chapters to go ... Woo Hoo !!

Regards
Billy Zee

[paperboy]

I probably missed this, but ITH recommends playing a lot of small non-suited connectors in the blinds. I wondered why SSHE doesn't?

Paperboy