I think Ed Miller has it wrong...

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

I also like the sections that refer to Carson's book. I got a fair amount of my early aggression and draw-pushing from my first read of Carson.

[arkady]

Same here Tosh, I would venture a guess that had I read it before joining 2+2, it would have been extremely ground breaking. But at this point, I was reading the book and nodding my head. The only thing I sort of liked was assigning outs to backdoor draws, but otherwise I am in your camp. Frankly I expected the book to be exactly what it is.

[Rico Suave]

Brian:

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can relate to this statement somewhat, although I learned more than a couple of things and certain concepts are more firmly cemented now. I basically have "learned" how to play by studying this forum, and the book is pretty much a compilation of the ideas discussed here. What I find interesting, is that if you venture away from the 2+2 forums, you will find a much different style of poker being played by well studied, serious, and, presumeably, winning players. It is a much different mind set that is rooted in weak tightness, where only big edges are pushed, and minimizing loses is paramount. For these types of players, the concepts in the book will be a significant departure from their comfort zone.

--Rico

[MarkD]

I've never read Carson. I did briefly look at it recently but it just seems a little too fundamental at this point. I have too many other books I need to read (I just bought about 10 poker books).

I'm sure the references are spot on though. I remember a lot of interesting points Carson used to make on these boards about pre-flop play. I think he had it about right but most people argued against him back then.

[chson]

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

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 -

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...

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...

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...

something is amiss here, methinks...discuss amongst yourselves


RB

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe some of Ed's advice is -EV but there's really no way to prove it. His advice on raising instead of calling with weak draws such as two pair/trips (5 outs) appears incorrect since the pot would need at least 16 bets to make the raise correct. Ed's advocating this play when the pot's only at 8 bets!

A call in this situation (8 bets in the pot with a 5 out draw) is obviously correct.

[Holm Fries]

[ 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...
RB

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have to think of why people post to this forum. There is a greater incentive to post hands that "bombed" so as to figure out how to play better next time. Therefore you don't see a whole lot of hands that extoll the virtues of application of SSH (although come to think of it I have seen some of that lately).

I would also add that it isn't just regular posters to this former who emulate concepts seen in the book. As a relatively new (<1 yr) player it helped a lot to fine tune things. Particularly I thought the explanation of non-intuitive and seemingly contradictory concepts (i.e., protecting a vulnerable hand) was really good.

I play 2/4 online regularly and have never experienced the variance you suggest. Is this indicative in something else in your game not attributed to SSH?

[MarkD]

Start a new thread with this disagreement it will be educational. I also have a strong feeling that you are wrong if it's the spot I'm thinking of. Nonetheless there will be many psoters who benefit from a discussion of these disagreements and I think you should post it in a new thread.

[Garbonzo]

Chalk one more up for:

"Love the book, thinks it's great

I have not been reading the SS forum for more than 3-4 months. I still love the book and find it invaluable, in fact, I just bought my 4th copy for a another friend trying to learn....and the 5th friend that wants to learn will get his/her ceremonial copy with a nice firm lecture as well....

Thanks Ed!

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of us have been playing in a manner advocated by SSH for an while now. SSH is really like a formalization of the play that Clarkmeister, Dynasty, Ed Miller, Joe Tall, etc. etc. have been pushing for a while, and it's the style that most of us in SS have been emulating for a while.

So maybe it's increased my variance, maybe not. In most ways, it's how I've been playing already.

[/ QUOTE ]


this is exactly what I was going to write.

notice that the people who are bombing from SSH are the people that never bothered to read this board before reading the book. the game suggests a radical change for some people, and it's tough to change your game completely all at once. the book suggests play that is PROVEN TO WORK FOR THE REGULAR POSTERS HERE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is something to ponder: What if most everyone began playing the "Ed Miller way"? What then happens to your EV when the stream of fish has dried up?

[sfer]

He used to post here? Huh, I can't imagine that given his clear animosity toward the Mason on RGP. Anyway, a lot of our standard betting strong draws lines are right out of his book, and he had a good hand strength section which has now been totally overshadowed by the NPA.