Cardplayer Review of SSHE

[wyattjames4]

There is a review of SSHE in Cardplayer by Jim Brier. I was wondering what you all thought of his criticism. Id especially like to hear Eds thoughts on the article if he reads this post. I thought it was interesting as I usually hold SSHE as gospel truth.

[wyattjames4]

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_maga...f90176c136f349

theres a link to the article

[ddubois]

[ QUOTE ]
While it is true that you would like to see many different hands fold, the likelihood of it making any difference is quite small, because a multievent parlay is required as follows...

[/ QUOTE ]
I have brought up this point on the forums before, and it was never answered to my satisfaction. I don't agree with the articles' exact set of hurdles that need to be met, at least not the way he presented them, but I do think his point has merit.

Let me see if I can work this out. Hand 1 is Hero. Hand 2 is the button PFR who autobets when checked to. Hand 3 is the range of hands that might call one but probably wouldn't call two and whom we want to fold...

Board: Jc 7s 5h
Hand 1: 42.1899 % [ 00.42 00.01 ] { 8d7d }
Hand 2: 39.9121 % [ 00.40 00.00 ] { AA-TT, AKs-A9s, KQs-KTs, QJs, AKo-ATo, KQo }
Hand 3: 17.8980 % [ 00.17 00.01 ] { TT-88, 66, 44, AKs, ATs-A2s, KTs-K7s, T9s-T8s, 76s, 65s, 54s, 43s, AKo, ATo-A7o, A5o-A2o, KTo-K7o, T9o-T8o, 76o, 65o, 54o, 43o }

Is my range for hand 3 good? I tried to be realistic about what would actually fold. We can try to get every gutshot, every pair that could pick up an OESD, every pocket pair bigger than 7 but smaller than J, sole overcards to J, and maybe AK to fold, but I assume no jack will fold. But I don't include 3-out or 5-out hands that we are beating, like 72o or 52o (my thinking being that we want them to call along?) - maybe I should have included these hands for this analysis to be correct?

So, assuming we get hand #3 to fold:

Hand 1: 54.3452 % [ 00.54 00.00 ] { 8d7d }
Hand 2: 45.6548 % [ 00.46 00.00 ] { AA-TT, AKs-A9s, KQs-KTs, QJs, AKo-ATo, KQo }

So for the investment of one SB, if player 3 is holding one of the listed hand and he folds, we increase our equity by about 12%, in a pot with 14.5 SB (14.5 SB would be the size of the pot if we called instead of raising), an absolute increase of equity of about 1.74 SB.

If I put up 1 SB to win 1.74 SB, player 3 has to have one of the hands I had listed about... 37% of the time? So will he? There are 1326 possible starting hands in hold'em. Let's say player 3 is loose and plays 700 of the starter holdings, and that every hand in my list is amoung his starters. There are 350 ways to hold something in my list, so he will have one of them... 50% of the time!? I'm surprised!

So, is any of my post correct?

[Entity]

His review is fair, I'd say; I think he may underestimate the tendencies of opponents to bet with unpaired overcards into large fields, though.

Rob

[Rah]

I tend to agree with Brier here. Unless you have some good reads, It's a bit foolish to assume that the bettor has ace high. Some of those SSH concepts may be slightly EV+, but I definitely think they easily become EV- if you don't have any reads.

[Tosh]

[ QUOTE ]
Second, all of this raising may drive out other hands, which benefits the guy with the best hand at your expense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh?

[DataMiner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Second, all of this raising may drive out other hands, which benefits the guy with the best hand at your expense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I reacted similarly. I think he meant that you're helping to protect _his_ hand which is stronger than yours.

[J.R.]

of course that's what he meant, but Jim doesn't mention that 1) if the best hand is a very strong hand, the best hand may want loose calls (as opposed to a more vulnerable best hand that wants protection, not value and against which it would be correct to draw for many hands to draw for one bet but not 2 or 3 ) and 2) he fails to consider the benfits that accrue/may accrue to your hand as a result of getting it headsup/less multiway.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Second, all of this raising may drive out other hands, which benefits the guy with the best hand at your expense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is an important concept that does not always get its fair share of attention in this aggression-driven forum.

You have a vulnerable made hand in a multiway pot under attack by a hand that may be better, but you have outs when you are behind. That's the situation in this example where you are hoping your middle pair is good but you may be drawing against an overpair.

When you are ahead you generally want to be very aggressive to force out as many drawing hands as possible.

But when you are behind this strategy may be terrible. Your outside opponents may be drawing virtually dead against the hand you hope to make. Keep them in the pot and a share of their money is yours. Force them out and you are spending extra bets to get nothing in return.

The needs of the made and drawing halves of your hand are in conflict. Striking the correct balance is the art of poker and requires careful consideration of the likelihood that you are ahead, your ability to protect your current hand, and the strength of the hand you are drawing toward.

The example in the article is hard and your read on the PFR definitely matters. You certainly don't want to be raising without a reasonable chance of having a better hand than PFR. Two special considerations for this hand:

1. The straights and other redraws floating around your two-pair outs mean there is some value in protecting your draw.

2. The possibility that an untouchable flush draw is controlling a big share of the pot equity is a reason to just call. Against a flush draw, 35% of the time you currently have the best hand you are actually doomed and have nothing to protect.

[Danenania]

Nice post. Very good points that we often forget to think about.