Book Review Of Ed Miller's SSHE On Amazon - Page 5

Jeff W · #41 01-12-2005, 06:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Before I read SSHE I was breakeven at best (on a very good day) - now it's +2.8BB at the microlimits and I intend to carry on learning and improving.

That book opened my eyes to a lot of stuff - indispensable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read Small Stakes Hold'Em IN the shed?

TwoShedsJackson · #42 01-12-2005, 07:08 AM

I did - though it was tough trying to decide which of my two sheds to use.

Rudbaeck · #43 01-12-2005, 10:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You picked a specific instance and said because this one situation is like this, then Steamboatin's general statement is wrong. Steamboatin's statement regarding using SSH for loose games and HPFAP for tight games while general in nature is correct more often than not.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, Steamboatin is, just to make it fully clear, saying that HEFAP is more applicable to the Party 1/2-5/10 game than SSH? These games are all tight according the SSH classification.

If Steamboatin wants to backpedal and say that he implied only tight games at 30/60 or higher then he is free to do so.

I'm betting my bankroll on SSH being more applicable to any online game 5/10 and below, and any live game 15/30 or below the vast majority of the time, regardless of how many see the flop.

steamboatin · #44 01-12-2005, 11:09 AM

Man, can you miss the point any farther? I made a general statement as in No specifics. You want to add numbers and specify certain games and I'm not taking the time or the effort to reply to any more posts.

I'll repeat myself one more time and I'll type really slow so everybody can understand.

In general, SSH is more applicable to LOOSE games which are common BUT NOT LIMITED to lower stakes. HPFAP is more applicable to TIGHT games which are more common BUT NOT LIMITED to higher stakes.

Rudbaeck · #45 01-12-2005, 12:00 PM

And I don't agree.

SSH is more geared toward games where the opponents are bad, regardless of if they are loose or tight.

HEFAP is more geared toward games where opponents are atleast somewhat skilled.

Preflop tightness isn't really the dividing line. Especially not the average of 6 players to the flop you set up in the original post I responded to.

I think we mean the same thing though, and I just got hung up on you dividing games by how many see the flop, when that wasn't what you really intended.

elwoodblues · #46 01-12-2005, 03:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
SSH is more geared toward games where the opponents are bad, regardless of if they are loose or tight

[/ QUOTE ]

Describe a table where the players are playing well (i.e. they are good players) where 6-8 people are seeing the flop on average.

Justin A · #47 01-12-2005, 04:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But in real casinos, you have people who just wander in off the main floor and want to try poker, businessmen who are there to blow off some steam after work, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not just people coming from the main floor. I've played in casinos that only have poker, and the play there is just as bad if not worse.

Justin A

Rudbaeck · #48 01-12-2005, 04:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
SSH is more geared toward games where the opponents are bad, regardless of if they are loose or tight

[/ QUOTE ]

Describe a table where the players are playing well (i.e. they are good players) where 6-8 people are seeing the flop on average.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was that there are plenty of games with less than 6 people to the flop where SSH will help your more than HEFAP. (Ie, pretty much all party games.)