|
|
#42
08-26-2004, 01:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I think Ed Miller has it wrong...
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] What does pot size have to do w/ a raise? If you have are 4-flushed pf, and there are 4 players in the pot. EP bets the flop w/ 2 callers, your raise here is +EV because everyone will call (regardless of pot size. PERIOD!). If you have a draw and you are going to see the river and you are in late position, a raise is going to give you a free card. If you have a made hand, and you think it's the best hand, you raise. If your hand is vulnerable and you need to get rid of the other players to give you a better chance to win the pot and to clean up your outs, you raise to force the rest of the players to call 2 cold. There are many reasons for a raise. I think you need to rethink this. 
|
|
#43
08-26-2004, 01:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I think Ed Miller has it wrong...
Yah he was a very regular poster back in the day and that is part of where the animosty towards the Mason comes from. If I remember correctly he submitted a draft of his book to Mason and it was shot down and from that point forward there was a rift.
Back then Carson, Abdul and Steve Badger all regularly posted here. Carson posted a lot. Damn there were a lot of really good posters back then. There was another guy named rounder who had some really interesting thoughts (coupled with some really strange and weird ones). All of these posters got into conflict with Mason / Sklansky and were banned or quit. There was another really strong postrer named Dan Hanson I think who fell into the same conflict. A lot of my standard bettign strong draw lines came straight from mathematics and discussion with a friend (the simplest betting of strong draws anyways).
|
|
#46
08-26-2004, 01:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I think Ed Miller has it wrong...
Your bankroll requirements are much more determined by your win rate that by your variance. So if you win rate goes from 1 BB/hr to 2 BB/hr and your sd goes from 9 BB/hour to 12 BB/hour you bankroll requirement will be considerably less. If you increase your win rate, you will less likely to have long losing streaks. There is no way you should need $3,000. If you play Ed's way you could probably play with 200BB with a less than 5% risk of ruin. If you find yourself in a tight game with good players, don't use Ed's advice. If you are playing low limit, I highly doubt you are playing that type of game (even on Pokerstars).
|
|
#47
08-26-2004, 01:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I think Ed Miller has it wrong...
[ QUOTE ]
The pot size is important. Sometimes you should raise mid pair overcard kicker, sometimes you should call, sometimes you should fold. [/ QUOTE ] Agreed, but there are sometimes where the pot size is irrelevant. Like a good flush draw or straight draw on the flop with many players in the pot. Raising, in this situation, is always +EV regardless of pot size (as long as the players call it). I think that point got mixed up in the later rants. Pot size is important to help with the decision on when to raise.
|
|
#49
08-26-2004, 02:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I think Ed Miller has it wrong...
[ QUOTE ]
Yah he was a very regular poster back in the day and that is part of where the animosty towards the Mason comes from. If I remember correctly he submitted a draft of his book to Mason and it was shot down and from that point forward there was a rift. Back then Carson, Abdul and Steve Badger all regularly posted here. Carson posted a lot. Damn there were a lot of really good posters back then. There was another guy named rounder who had some really interesting thoughts (coupled with some really strange and weird ones). All of these posters got into conflict with Mason / Sklansky and were banned or quit. There was another really strong postrer named Dan Hanson I think who fell into the same conflict. A lot of my standard bettign strong draw lines came straight from mathematics and discussion with a friend (the simplest betting of strong draws anyways). [/ QUOTE ] Are the old posts of these guys available in the archives or were they removed when the posters were banned/left?
|
|
#50
08-26-2004, 02:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I think Ed Miller has it wrong...
I usually post in Micro, and probably aren't worthy of throwing in my 2 cents in the SS forum, but I'll do so anyway.
Whiskey, I would bet that there are a lot of people out there who will agree with your post. But this doesn't make it correct. My thought is that the only mistake people make is applying newer concepts they learn in the book to the wrong games. You basically said as much in your post, that it doesn't reflect the type of play you'll find at 2/4 on Stars. This may be true, but it doesn't mean that concepts from SSH can't still be applied to that game. A major mistake I think people are making is applying the loose game PF standards to tight games. Ed gives many examples in the book of limping PF with certain suited hands, calling a raise in the SB or BB, etc, that are correct for a loose game, but not necessarily for a tight one. Generally in a tight game where people have better PF standards you're going to be facing stronger hands when you have 4-5 limpers to you compared to your typical B&M 3/6 or 4/8 game. You can see people misapplying the concepts all over the place on these boards. Chasing draws when they don't have the pot odds and outs, calling two-bets cold PF (which Ed says should happen, what, like once every 5 hours in a B&M?), NOT raising premium hands PF, misunderstanding pot equity, etc, etc. In some ways the book is kind of an enabler for the action players who now think they have justification for playing a lot more hands aggressively. I'm not saying I don't screw up the concepts sometimes, because I do. But I have no doubt that the concepts, when applied correctly, will undoubtably make someone a winner in the long term.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
