Book Review Of Ed Miller's SSHE On Amazon

[el_grande]

[ QUOTE ]
How reassuring it is to see proof that poker is such a complex and subtle game that even reasonably intelligent people don't have a clue and have so much mistaken conviction in their abilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't go so far as to say he doesn't have a clue, but he does misunderstand a couple of things.

Regardless, I'd rather have someone I KNOW is playing WLLHE style than any other type of player at my table. It's so predictable you pretty much know their hole cards. It's difficult to detect a player using SSH style until you see him showdown a lot of hands and really think about how the hands went.

[stigmata]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anybody the book he refers to: Stepping Up by Burgess?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was also wondering about this book. Personally, this is the first time I've ever heard of it. Can anyone recommend it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Gets good reviews at amazon (but we can see that these arent very trustworthy ;-)

On the other hand, the only part of the posted review I agreed with was "The chapter on outs is outstanding (pun intended). " which preceeded his mention of this book, so it might be worth a look.

Any book suggestions other than the ones that get re-circulated here is probably worth a look - for originality, if nothing else.

Anyone fancy getting it and posting a review? I've still got lots of the "standard" texts on my reading list....

P.s. I think the guy has a slight point, which he is completely overstating: Future versions of SSH should maybe pay a bit more respect to the average online player.

[Ed Miller]

P.s. I think the guy has a slight point, which he is completely overstating: Future versions of SSH should maybe pay a bit more respect to the average online player.

I intentionally constructed most of the tone of the book to counteract what were then (January-May 2004) prevailing misperceptions. When I was writing SSH, most posters/players I talked to had an unjustified over-respect for the skills of their opponents. That caused them to have "monsters under the bed" syndrome, miss value bets, and fold too often. The book was definitely written to say, "Don't be scared of these guys. They are human and get dealt random cards just like you."

Perhaps people have taken that message overly to heart nowadays. I'm not sure. Regardless, I think it's a decent message even now. No, your opponents aren't idiots, but they don't have superpowers either, and most of them make lots of errors.

When I write, I'm conscious of the tone I'm using. I considered the tone I used in SSH to be motivational (rather than technical, detatched, etc.) for the reader. On balance, even if it is a bit arrogant at times, I think the tone helps SSH deliver its message.

[stigmata]

The tone doesnt really bother me that much, and I understand why you used it..... I can see why it might get some peoples goat though. Funny, never thought it was meant to be "motivational", but in retrospect, it does work like that.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that many low limit online games have alot of people who are actively working on their game, and less people "there to gamble".

For me, neither WLLH/SSH really address the differences adequetely.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be interesting to hear what SSH plays you don't think would work in certain (tighter?) online games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's game dependant, and of course I may even be wrong. But generally if I'm playing somewhere like PokerStars and my table is fairly tight, I'm not going to raise something like middle pair with a backdoor draw. A good number of opponents are passive enough that they're going to just call down with top pair, so essentially there are times you're likely drawing to 5 outs to improve, and investing 2 bets into say a 7 SB pot isn't good enough odds to be profitable I don't think.

Like I said though, it's only certain instances that this comes up. Ed says pretty much the same thing in the book, that you have to be willing to adapt to tighter tables. So blindly applying all of the concepts would likely be an error. Of course if you're blindly applying concepts without paying attention to the table texture, then you likely have other flaws in your (in the general sense, not you specifically) game as well and Ed's book is not the cause of your losses.

[VBM]

i started playing limit hold'em in micros recently, and I would say that a novice trying to put into practice aggressive play is different that well-considered, well-executed aggressive play.
i often tried to apply an aggressive style for the sake of "playing the right way" in situations which did not warrant it:
For example, I would absolutely see, and sometimes foolishly provide the impetus, to AK to the end no matter what the board showed or also never release black Kings on a 4-heart board with 4 players.
My other flaw is feeling too good about my pot odds and implied pot odds, but not enough examination at my reverse implied odds.

In both instances, my own challenge has been not considering SSH in it's entirety and internalizing selected parts. It sounds like this guy is doing the same thing.

[JohnnyFX]

Well, I finally picked up the book yesterday, I'm only half-way through, and it's already paid for itself, so I'll have to respectfully disagree with that review.
And thank you, Ed, very, very much, for your excellent book.
The chapters on counting outs and hidden outs alone have been invaluable.

[Cerril]

This is the guy berating all the terrible players for drawing out on him. It's probably also the guy berating you for completing a draw.

[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

[SeeWillie]

[ QUOTE ]
You use SSH when you have six or more to a flop and HEFAP when the game is tighter, regardless of the stakes.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm curious - assuming HEFAP is Hold'Em Poker for Advanced Payers - is Sklansky's Hold'Em Poker worthwhile? Does it "bridge" SSH and HEFAP?