SSH broke my game!

[cowboyzfan]

I think you both said it well. This to me is an important conversation. I do understand what you guys are saying. Basically the key is to understand why you make certain plays. You can't make a play only for the reason you "think" that is what SSH says you should do, instead of understanding why and when you should do it.

Here is a problem I am having, and this is probably why I responded to your post. I think most people consider the "fundamentals" to be the standard, slightly weak-tightish play offered in WLLH, ITH, and MLH.

SSH is considered by many to be a way of adjusting that "standard" play so as to maximize results in certain situations. But here is my problem. In some ways I see SSH as not just a method of tweaking a basically sound approach in certain situations. Rather, it seems more of a radical rethink of what we should really be doing in a Hold'em game.


I will give you one example. In reviewing Internet Texas Hold'em by Matt Hilger I read that hands such as JJ and TT should only be limping hands in a passive game. I seem to remember pretty much most of the "fundamental" books agreed with this basic theme. Hands such as JJ and 10 10 are played for "set value", so you want as many limpers as possible. The basic point is: These hands are not worth raising if you can't knock most opponents out.

Now, doesn't SSH teach us that we should be raising hands that are likely best, from almost all positions? How does one reconcile these "standard" ideas with those ideas of SSH?

This in a nutshell is why I am confused [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] I agree SSH does not have all the answers or cover many things that one would need to know. But when I go back to the standard texts, I read things that are in fundamental disagreement with SSH. And if these standard texts have this wrong (do they?), then how are they not even more dangerous than SSH? Because what they are talking about are the fundamental concepts of how you win money playing Hold'em.

Cowboy

[Bluffoon]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you both said it well. This to me is an important conversation. I do understand what you guys are saying. Basically the key is to understand why you make certain plays. You can't make a play only for the reason you "think" that is what SSH says you should do, instead of understanding why and when you should do it.

Here is a problem I am having, and this is probably why I responded to your post. I think most people consider the "fundamentals" to be the standard, slightly weak-tightish play offered in WLLH, ITH, and MLH.

SSH is considered by many to be a way of adjusting that "standard" play so as to maximize results in certain situations. But here is my problem. In some ways I see SSH as not just a method of tweaking a basically sound approach in certain situations. Rather, it seems more of a radical rethink of what we should really be doing in a Hold'em game.


I will give you one example. In reviewing Internet Texas Hold'em by Matt Hilger I read that hands such as JJ and TT should only be limping hands in a passive game. I seem to remember pretty much most of the "fundamental" books agreed with this basic theme. Hands such as JJ and 10 10 are played for "set value", so you want as many limpers as possible. The basic point is: These hands are not worth raising if you can't knock most opponents out.

Now, doesn't SSH teach us that we should be raising hands that are likely best, from almost all positions? How does one reconcile these "standard" ideas with those ideas of SSH?

This in a nutshell is why I am confused [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] I agree SSH does not have all the answers or cover many things that one would need to know. But when I go back to the standard texts, I read things that are in fundamental disagreement with SSH. And if these standard texts have this wrong (do they?), then how are they not even more dangerous than SSH? Because what they are talking about are the fundamental concepts of how you win money playing Hold'em.

Cowboy

[/ QUOTE ]

You will get decent results correctly playing the WLLH way. You are going to lose some incorrectly playing the WLLH way.

You can make more correctly playing the SSH way. You can get killed incorrectly playing the SSH way.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


Because if someone says it is dangerous simply if you do not follow the advice correctly, that could be said about any poker book ever written. What is so exceptional about the danger of SSH?

[/ QUOTE ]

The danger of SSH is that it is easy to misinterpret what it is saying if you read the book superficially.

First of all, it is easy for the uninformed to view it as a beginner's book. It is not. The book assumes a certain level of knowledge and experience. This is particularly dangerous for a new player with an instinctively aggressive style.

Secondly, the book advocates what at first glance appears to be a much more aggressive style than almost any other non-expert book. It is easy for an uninformed player to mistake selectively aggressive strategy for generally or universally aggressive strategy. It is interesting that the only other writer in this area that focusses on aggressive play is Gary Carson, who is also the only other author quoted in the book.

Thirdly, the authors assume a certain knowledge of starting hand strategy, and focus a lot more on postflop play, since this is the major weakness of players at this level. This focus can lead inexperienced players to think that they can play more hands if they play them more aggressively, which is certainly not what the book recommends.

All of the "dangers" of the book fall under your catagory of not following the advice correctly, but these dangers are more subtle and easier to fall into than not following advice like don't cold call a raise with 54 offsuit.

[Bjorn]

Well i think it is not that unreasonable to expect a bit of a downswing after reading a big poker text like SSH or any other good poker book.

You have to consider that the amount of "poker wisdom" in a text of the size probably took the authors 1000ths of hours to gain and even though it all has been prepackaged into a nice little package it is still more than what most of us can digest in a short time, let alone incorporate into our play.

It didn't get any easier when i ploughed through both SSH and 7CS for AP in about a week either...
[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Reading TOP cover to cover nonstop on one 14h trip was probably not the smartest either.

/Bjorn

[QTip]

Great post!

[theRealMacoy]

Great post Gentlemen,

Thanks for getting it started Monty.

Cheers,
The Real Macoy

[SenecaJim]

Monty, that was an excellent post. I read a post of Ed Miller's somewhere that basically said he wrote the book to stimulate and guide thinking about the game. However, if somebody wanted to use it as a recipe book it would help them win more as well, just not as much. Also , it wouldnt' improve them as much.

As for me, I began following the recipe and it helped my game a lot. My current 3rd reading I'm reading it with the purpose of helping me think about my game, interspersed with rereadings of top and gtaot. Great book, great post.