I think Ed Miller has it wrong...

[sublime]

saying that Ed got it wrong, while people here have been playign "the Ed Miller way" for months or years, and winning, is ridiculous.

Great post Josh

SSH has made me into a better player. PERIOD

What it has done is kind of glued together all the great things I have read and continue to read in the SS forum. For anybody to say that Ed's concepts are incorrect is absurd.

IMO there are two reasons that lead people to say that Ed's book has screwed up thier game:

#1 Lack of understanding of the swings that can occur during x amount of playing time

#2 Using the correct concepts at the wrong time (most importantly raising to protect you hand in small pots that you probably should fold and calling in those same pots)

The only thing that surprised me in Ed's book was his starting hand requirements for the CO and the button, other than that it is full of concepts that have been discussed here since I came around, that just never "clicked" with me (heck most still dont, im still pretty much a novice [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img])

SSH rocks!

[daveymck]

That is the big thing I am getting from it, trying to think more about lots of things like outs, flop evaluation etc etc. Before I was a multitable clicker playing on auto.

You cant read a book and suddenly change the way you play, you have to absorb and understand and then incorporate the concepts into your play, then make mistakes and learn to refine it.

There are some who seem to have read the book are now misapplying or making mistakes probably while multitabling 4-6 tables and then blame the book cos it goes wrong.

Or they are giving it one or two sessions and giving up, the thing about SSH compared to say Lee Jones is that its not a how to manual there are not set guidelines on the way to play tptk or a draw it is trying to give you the tools and understanding to make those decisions yourself.

I suspect like any way of playing its not for everyone but there are concepts inthere that should help anyone improe their game.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
What it has done is kind of glued together all the great things I have read and continue to read in the SS forum

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Reading the book, it felt like I was reading this forum.

[RoodyPooh]

[ QUOTE ]
Notice that...

- NOT ONE regular poster here has had any problems with SSH strategy
- just about everyone else has

why do you think that is? it's because while the regular posters here have been playing the SSH/2+2 way for a while, most other people haven't. those people aren't accustomed to that style of play, so it's going to take time.

you expect the game to make you a big winner right away. it won't do that. I'm sure while blaming Ed, you're making mistakes and misinterpreting his writing. read the book and play for a few months. then look back and you'll notice how much better you've gotten.

it's ridiculous that people are bitching about Ed screwing them up (not you in particular) a month after the book was written. it's not a manual. you can't read it and instantly be good.

saying that Ed got it wrong, while people here have been playign "the Ed Miller way" for months or years, and winning, is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree more with this post. I'm not really a regular poster here, but more like a regular reader. I get to browse the forums alot at work. While I am certainly no great player, I am a consistent winner. I was a break even or small winner for the longest time(with really weak-tight play.) I remember when I started reading these forums and thought some of the plays people we're making were ludicrous. I didn't understand alot of the concepts that were being applied. After reading the forums for awhile I started picking up on who the more experienced respected posters were(Ed, Clark, Dynasty etc.) So I started following their posts pretty regularly and tried adding new things to my game. Whenever you try something new, you aren't going to instantly be good at it. My variance was alot higher of course since I played really weak tight before, but I decided to stick with it. I just kept reading and playing, reading and playing. Now when I look back I can't believe some of the blunders I made that I thought was perfect poker at the time. I'm still learning so much. It's hard not to look at short term results after failing. If you are dramatically changing the way you play poker, then you are almost certainly going to lose in the beginning. It pisses me off to see people come on here and berate Ed's book for their poor play. It goes like this: Someone sucks at poker, reads a book, still sucks at poker, and then instantly blames it on a terrible book. Don't look at short term results. There are so many posters here applying these concepts and consistently winning these games. Try working on your game before criticizing SSH. It is great CRYSTAL CLEAR advice.

[sfer]

Hey Pudley, when did you morph into Jeff A?

[MoreWineII]

[ QUOTE ]
I think his book advocates play that increases the variance WAY too much -

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares? I can handle variance as long as I'm winning in the long run. This is why it's so important to have the correct bankroll.

[ QUOTE ]
I also think it assumes your opponents are morons who go to the river with A high and never assumes they might actually have an A or top pair or set -

[/ QUOTE ]

I play against a lot of morons, so he's not too far off. I don't think the book says to never assume your opponent has a hand.

[ QUOTE ]
while I MIGHT be tempted to open up my game a bit, I find it highly unlikely I will be taking all his comments to fruition to their fullest extent...

[/ QUOTE ]

Good, more weak-tight players is a good thing.

[ QUOTE ]
discuss amongst yourselves...what have your results been...I'm finding bankroll swings that would require a $3000 bankroll on 2/4 to ride out...

[/ QUOTE ]

You must really be on a bad run of cards or you're not playing well. I've had 125BB swings and I do think a bankroll of 300BB is necessary. But 750BB is absurd.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, look even at the discussion boards....the forum is full of people trying the concepts, and looking for justification why they bombed so bad...

[/ QUOTE ]

We're human, we make mistakes, and we're trying to get better. I view this as a good thing rather than a bad one.

[ QUOTE ]
something is amiss here, methinks...discuss amongst yourselves

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd agree that something is amiss here, but I think maybe we're talking about two different things.

[razor]

these and brassnuts' comments pretty much sum up my feelings.


I just wish Ed could've come up with words other than TIGHT and LOOSE to differentiate the two pre-flop strategies. Reading people talk about TIGHT games when they really mean TIGHT-LOOSE is driving me up the wall...

Nevertheless, Ed rules.

[Tosh]

I can honestly say that SSH hasn't changed anything about my play. I didn't find anything ground breaking and I doubt anyone who regularly reads the board and puts it into practice will have done.

[MarkD]

This is how I feel. I still haven't finished the book yet but nothing in it seems revolutionary. There has definitely been some thought provoking passages though and the examples are very crisp and clear and yet I can see how people could easily misapply the concepts. I have picked up a few things that should enhance my game though and I expect to pick up a few more before I finish the book. It is thought provoking and that's all I can hope for.

ps. I really like the references to HPFAP and TOP. I find them very appropriate and it further enhances the experience of reading SSH by seeing the advice tie in with these other pivotal works.

[Brian]

Hi Tosh,

Agreed. I'm curious what Clarkmeister learned from this book. I agree that the book is great, and I learned a couple of new things, but for the most part, it was just a re-hash of the things I have been reading from Ed, Clark, Dynasty, etc. for the past year on these very forums. I really don't know any other way to play poker. I was lucky to have started here, and I didn't have a bunch of weird concepts filling my head that I had to learn to get over.

-Brian