I think I suck. PLEASE help me improve my game!

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't ever play Kxs (except from the blinds) and only play Axs and low suited connectors from late positions

[/ QUOTE ]

I think is bad advice. Kxs can be very profitable in multi-way situations. I know it has been for me. You are rarely going to run into flush over flush situations. Plus you have the times when you flop two pair or trips besides your flush draws. Obviously you dont want to play Kxs out of position but saying never play Kxs seems a little extreme to me.

[Rocco]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't ever play Kxs (except from the blinds) and only play Axs and low suited connectors from late positions

[/ QUOTE ]

I think is bad advice. Kxs can be very profitable in multi-way situations. I know it has been for me. You are rarely going to run into flush over flush situations. Plus you have the times when you flop two pair or trips besides your flush draws. Obviously you dont want to play Kxs out of position but saying never play Kxs seems a little extreme to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, you're right... Saying never play Kxs is wrong. I'd probably want to be on the button or CO and have at least three callers in front to play them.

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
I've read and studied SSH, HPFAP, ToP and Carson's Complete Hold'Em..........My VP$IP is about 25%, which is consistent with what I've read of other posters following SSH guidelines, or perhaps a tiny bit looser. Preflop raise is about 9.5% on $2/$4 and my total AF is around 1.5. I think I play a slightly loose, but fairly aggressive game

[/ QUOTE ]

Go back and read the part in Carson's book where he describes "Book Players." You sound like one of them.

He describes them as players who read a lot and study, can quote the best starting hands, the odds etc. They judge other players based on hands they showdown, not the situation they're shown down in. He takes about how these tight book players do well in passive games but are almost fish in very loose and aggressive games.

I read that most players start out loose or tight and can do okay either way. It's only when they can learn to play both ways, depending on the situation, that they go to the next level. That's good advice.

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't EVER move up after 3000 hands. I dont think 3000 hands even qualifies as a small sample size.

[/ QUOTE ]


this is an overstatement. while under most circumstances, you shouldn't, I'm all for pushing your limits. if you had an infinite bankroll, then the easiest way to get better is to start at a higher limit and learn from there.

[BottlesOf]

[ QUOTE ]
if you had an infinite bankroll, then the easiest way to get better is to start at a higher limit and learn from there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure about this. It depends on how little/much of the game you understand, and just how high you start out.

[sthief09]

while my results are clearly less than stellar, my numbers are a good example of around where they should be. these are just 5/10 and 10/20 hands because I think that's where I played my best non-6max, non-15/30 (no 15/30 becasue the 2/3 blind structure changes things) poker. especially important is my position play. notice my VPIP drop and my PFR rise as I get closer to the button. also notice I raise more in the CO than on the button. ironically, I wouldn't have posted these if I won more money because people would accuse me of bragging [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you had an infinite bankroll, then the easiest way to get better is to start at a higher limit and learn from there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure about this. It depends on how little/much of the game you understand, and just how high you start out.

[/ QUOTE ]

notice I didn't say 100/200. I said a high limit, that is I think you'll learn to play better poker quicker at PP 15/30 or 30/60 rather than .5/1

[amulet]

I loved SMALL STAKES HOLD ‘EM. I thought it was a brilliant. In some ways it reminded me of a combination of THE THEORY OF POKER and HOLD ‘EM FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS. However, as I talk with fellow poker players and read posts on internet sites, I find myself wondering if SMALL STAKES HOLD ‘EM has hurt many players quality of play? This may seem strange to that I can praise a book as being brilliant, yet suggest that it can hurt some of it’s readers quality of play. Before fellow 2+2ers jump all over me, please read the rest of my thoughts.

To paraphrase David Sklansky badly, most people who come to poker are not innately genesis at poker. There are a few who have innate ability, but they don’t generally read books, and poker books are written for those of us who learn through a process of reading, playing, thinking about the game, more reading, playing, etc. Additionally, it is human nature to want to play more hands. And most beginning players, most losing players, and therefore, most players play too many hands. Those that survive at Hold ‘em learn to have discipline, develop a better understanding of the hand values and position, and learn to play less hand. SMALL STAKES HOLD ‘EM was written for small stakes games (or really lose games). Games where a player can have a positive expectation on hands you would ONLY play in a loose game. However, it is really not that simple. Playing those extra hands, often involves pushing small edges, being skilled enough to understand how to get away from a hand post flop, understand that many of said hands can only be played in late position (once you know how many opponents and how much it will cost you vs what is in the pot, plus many other considerations. These abilities take a good understanding of the game. Which brings me to my point. SMALL STAKES HOLD ‘EM was not written for beginning players, in fact I think a reader needs a fairly good understanding of poker to apply what is written in the book. And I think many new and inexperienced players are reading it, however, they are not yet on a level to really understand a lot of the book. Therefore, their play has suffered because instead of trying to play less hands, understand positions, etc., they now have read it is often correct to play hands most players on their level were mucking before SMALL STAKES HOLD ‘EM told them it was alright to play more hands. I believe from my observations and conversations that that is their understanding of what it said. Of course what it really said was much more complicated but the newer player, or the player without a good understand of poker, cannot really understand this. Also having read the book they now do not understand they do not have the level of understanding need to apply what they learned. While SMALL STAKES HOLD ‘EM was not written for the beginner it has such terrific information that eventually the readers will understand the game better, and improve their play, but for a while I think their play will be hurt because they do not have the understanding of general poker theory and experience to get out of SMALL STAKES HOLD ‘EM what they think they do. In the meantime, I suggest they need to be well rounded by reading others books such as THEORY OF POKER, HOLD ‘EM FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS, MIDDLE LIMIT HOLD ‘EM, INSIDE THE POKER MIND, and maybe even WINNING LOW LIMIT HOLD ‘EM, etc., and develop a good general understanding of the game. Also Ed Miller is working on a book that will be the prequel that many of these plays should have read first.

One last point. I love the aggressive style of play that SMALL STAKES HOLD ‘EM has advocated, and clearly said is correct in most situations. However, I also see players taking that super aggressive style way too far, and applying it where I believe it does not belong. This super aggressive style is becoming pervasive in some players, and it is not correct for all situations. This is a subject that I could write as much as I wrote above, however, I will leave that for another time.

Overall, I love SMALL STAKES HOLD ‘EM, but I think a player needs a good understanding of Hold ‘em before they are ready to apply much of what is written. Instead it has become a bible for players who still have their training wheels.

[MyssGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
SMALL STAKES HOLD ‘EM was not written for beginning players, in fact I think a reader needs a fairly good understanding of poker to apply what is written in the book. And I think many new and inexperienced players are reading it, however, they are not yet on a level to really understand a lot of the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is perfect. I'm glad I didn't get SSH until I've read ever other book you've mentioned AND played 30k-50k hands (pre-pokertracker, but kept hourly records elsewhere). The title may be deceiving to new players, as it's an advanced book that assumes you have the poker knowledge and experience. And yes it makes this point in the book, but how many of us have skipped the intro to get right to the poker stuff.

Great points!