Jim Brier refutes SSH strategy...

[BSXX]

Very helpful post Ed...again. I have been devouring your book and lovin' every bite, but the raise middle pair against many hands issue (I had seen posts about it on 2+2) was perplexing to me. Once I put myself back in the context of the loose game your book primarily addresses, it made much more sense because in that type of game there actually is "SOME CHANCE YOU HAVE THE BEST HAND (or can get the one with the actual best hand to fold)." But we have all faced rocks that you have to fold to if they bet at you and you held middle pair with a weak draw.

[Ed Miller]

But we have all faced rocks that you have to fold to if they bet at you and you held middle pair with a weak draw.

In both the book examples, you shouldn't fold even if a rock bets. That's because you have more than enough chance to draw out on top pair.

[StellarWind]

Do you have permission to post the entire article? This isn't right or legal. Just post the link next time and allow CardPlayer to benefit from people seeing their online ads.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
The point about his reasoning is that its rarely wrong given his assumptions. That's why he is good to read. You may disagree with how your game fits his assumptions, but understanding how to play in different types of games is an imprortant skill and helps one develop their poker thinking. Of course as the type of game he posists you are sitting in becomes more anomolous the less immediately valuable his thoughts become, but even then, the theoretical understanding of the "why" behind the move or line he is discussing is certainly not rendered any less valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I completely agree with the above statement. I don't think I ever said anything to the contrary.

That's why I said, "but that doesn't mean I can't gain value from other things Mr. Brier has written."

And...

"I haven't read much of his work, but I still plan to."

I think my problem with the statement is with the word "many", mainly for the reason Ed Miller pointed out in his response in this thread.

Miller:
"Vegas is the world capital of weak-tight hold 'em play... and many of the regular small games players are the worst offenders. I told Jim that a lot of this play is really limited to Vegas... that online and in LA these super weak-tight small players aren't nearly as ubiquitous."

Therefore, Mr. Briers assumption is true. Perhaps I was a bit too harsh in saying it was a "faulty" assumption. Many players will not bet their unimproved overcards. I just think it's a somewhat misleading statement. Yes, "many" players will do such things, but I think the statement could be interpreted as "most players".

Again, I have no doubts that Mr. Brier is an excellent thinker and, most likely, a great player. I look forward to reading his work, regardless of that funny taste in my mouth. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[waynethetrain]

I love SSH, but I have the same problem with the book (or any book for that matter) that Brier does as expressed in the examples given. I do not like when a strategy is presented based on "an assumption" of how other players (low limit in this case) willl usually play. Players are not uniform even at the same limit. For example, IMO, playing $1-$2 at UB is like playing on a different planet from $1-$2 on Party. Players on PP are much looser.

So IMO, you should present an example and the proper "thinking" given a reasonable range of possible opponents. In other words, there isn't a single right answer. There are only principles to be thinking about when trying to decide the proper course of action.

Personally, I would not bet my unimproved AK into a field of 4-5 players. So Brier is exactly correct that there are players that won't. I see others like me all the time. There are plenty of them.

[BSXX]

You make alot of good points. UB and PP are different worlds. You can win more hands at UB, but you don't win much money. You can win (or loose) more money at Party.

More importantly, you’re point about trying to categorize players at a given limit is an over-simplification of the reality. I have played very tight $.50/$1 games and played very wild $5/$10 games. To properly frame a poker hand lesson, you have to describe the specific game you are playing in (e.g. very loose game) and then describe the specific player who acted (e.g. a tight/passive player), or give several possible actions based on the range of opponents.

Granted, this would be a tedious process for an author, but I think it would much more instructive if it were done. Otherwise, you are not comparing apples to apples when you take a hand illustration out of one book and compare it to a similar hand illustration in another book.

[MCS]

I'd like to hear a good response to Brier's "multievent parlay is unlikely" argument. I've heard this before and I feel like it's wrong, so I'm trying to determine how best to refute it.

One idea is that you frequently DON'T need to improve to win, combined with the fact that Brier seems to underestimate how often you can knock out a hand that would have both called and won. For example, if you raise middle pair and knock out overcards that would have paired, and the original bettor had a draw, then you've won without improving. And this seems pretty common.

That, plus the fact that a couple of his events are pretty likely. For example, "(1) one of these hands must exist"? Isn't the probability of this around 1? I mean, "these hands" just seems to refer to any hand that could outdraw you. (2) seems likely as well. And as I was saying before, (5) is often just unnecessary.

[J.R.]

this multievent parlay rational is more applicable to spots where a raise is suggested as a way to clean up kicker outs. Its less valid here, where you are both more likely to have the best now and to also improve your chances of winning by folding another hand. #3 is the biggest thing to overcome in a loose ss game wherer 2 is almost always satisfied, especially in this spot where the board is ragged and T high. But ironically, because the board is ragged and ten high (a reason why hands might not fold for two what they would call for one flop bet), the potential benefits from raising are also greater as there are so many hands you want to fold.

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]

One idea is that you frequently DON'T need to improve to win, combined with the fact that Brier seems to underestimate how often you can knock out a hand that would have both called and won. For example, if you raise middle pair and knock out overcards that would have paired, and the original bettor had a draw, then you've won without improving. And this seems pretty common.



[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't part of the premis in playing against 'weak' players, that they play too many cards and take them too far? If so, it's hard to understand the concept of trying to knock many of them out of a hand with a raise. It seems more often like you are simply giving them more reason to stay in with their weak or drawing hands simply because the pot is now going to be bigger.
I'm not saying I disagree...just wondering about the logic in loose, low limit games.

---Leavenfish