SSH broke my game!

[SA125]

n/m

[trainslayer]

[ QUOTE ]
That means finding your leaks in real-time. Are you in a hand without a plan? Leak. Are you feeling uncomfortable and out of your depth? Leak. Feel like someone at the table is playing sub-optimally but don't know how to exploit it? Leak. Are you caught by surprise by someone's bet or raise and not sure how to respond? Leak.

Are you making plays because you think you're supposed to instead of understanding why? Big, big leak.

[/ QUOTE ]

dammit boy, that hurt.

Thanks.

[jar]

This post is EXCELLENT. I'd think about sending it or something based on it to Mason for the magazine.

[PuckNPoker]

[ QUOTE ]


Btw, don't take this personally. I'm a major offender in this respect and this rant is directed at myself as much as anyone else.

/mc

[/ QUOTE ]

I will take your advice "personally" but in a good way. Such a great post, I prefer honesty to sugarcoating. I will read and re-read what you have to say, and will learn from it.

Thank you.

[cowboyzfan]

[ QUOTE ]
Without the information in the other four or five books and my playing experience, following the results in SSH would have been disastrous IMO.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would be really informative if you explained why you have this opinion. I read comments like this a lot but it rarely goes beyond "IMO". Just as this excellent thread discusses, we are really not learning anything in these discussions unless we are learning "why" we do X or think X.

thanks

[cowboyzfan]

Just to follow up, I understand that SSH is not "complete" in that it does not cover every possible game situation. For example, it does not say much about short handed play. Also, the writers of SSH did assume that most readers have read books such as WLLH or ITH.

But what I really want to know is what in SSH do people find so "dangerous"? These comments border on implying the book is wrong in some way. 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?

[witeknite]

First thing off the top of my head is hand protection. I can see where an inexperienced player could raise trying to protect their hand without realising that their hand isn't worth protecting.

WiteKnite

[Monty Cantsin]

[ QUOTE ]

But what I really want to know is what in SSH do people find so "dangerous"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Compared to, say, Winning Low Limit Hold'em, SSH recommends folding less with your marginal hands. In some cases it recommends playing marginal hands pretty strongly. In general it recommends folding less in large pots.

Many people already play too many hands and go too far with them. For them, the rule of thumb "don't fold in large pots" could cause problems if they don't understand the fundamental reasoning behind this idea which is that your expectation is a product of your winning chances times the size of the pot. (Btw, I think Ed Miller does a good job of communicating this idea.)

Also SSH stresses using bets and raises to protect vulnerable hands. Again, the fundamental idea is that there is a cost associated with betting and raising and there is a corresponding payoff in terms of increased winning chances. These values are always different for each unique situation, if you don't get into the habit of calculating for yourself the cost/benefit of each of your plays you could easily end up playing aggressively for its own sake and not making the most profit on your plays.

Here's a good example of someone thinking beyond the "raise to protect your vulnerable hand" and getting greater value because of it: Stellar Wind's Difficult 99 Hand. Whether you agree with his play or not, you have to admire this example of someone seeing past the rules of thumb to understand the thinking process behind them.

/mc

[Bluffoon]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to follow up, I understand that SSH is not "complete" in that it does not cover every possible game situation. For example, it does not say much about short handed play. Also, the writers of SSH did assume that most readers have read books such as WLLH or ITH.

But what I really want to know is what in SSH do people find so "dangerous"? These comments border on implying the book is wrong in some way. 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 ]

Sorry Cowboy hopefully I play poker better than I express myself.

SSH preaches aggression. Without the proper fundamentals this aggression can easily result in a lot of chip-spewing.

If you don't fully understand the differences between a loose/tight/passive/aggressive games you are going to be playing aggriessively with a lot of hands you shouldn't be playing. Evaluating a game and adjusting your hand selection is a fundamental skill.

Folding is also a fundamental skill. If you don't fold in appropriate situations you are going to to be playing aggressively with a lot of losing hands. Very expensive.

Gutshots and second pair with an overcard and back door draws are tricky and dificult hands to play. It takes a lot of experience to know when these hands can be played and when you should push with them and when you should lay low. SSH advocates that you play these hands very aggressively. Without a lot of experience playing these types of hands you can get cleaned out very quickly.

So I guess what I am saying is that I believe that it is better for a novice to play in a weak-tight Lee Jones style and to add aggressiveness and skills slowly in order to be able to better evaluate how effectively you are implementing various plays.

So I have worked on various skills and my fundamentals are sound and I am winning steady and I pick up SSH and I see that I can improve my hand protection skills and be more selective with overcard play. So I plug these skills into an already functioning agame and I immediately see positive results. But if my semi-bluffing skills were weak and I peeled too many cards on the flop with I would be making horriblly expensive mistakes trying to protect hands on the turn with inadvisable semi-bluff raises with hands that I should have either folded or never even played.

[Bluffoon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But what I really want to know is what in SSH do people find so "dangerous"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Compared to, say, Winning Low Limit Hold'em, SSH recommends folding less with your marginal hands. In some cases it recommends playing marginal hands pretty strongly. In general it recommends folding less in large pots.

Many people already play too many hands and go too far with them. For them, the rule of thumb "don't fold in large pots" could cause problems if they don't understand the fundamental reasoning behind this idea which is that your expectation is a product of your winning chances times the size of the pot. (Btw, I think Ed Miller does a good job of communicating this idea.)

Also SSH stresses using bets and raises to protect vulnerable hands. Again, the fundamental idea is that there is a cost associated with betting and raising and there is a corresponding payoff in terms of increased winning chances. These values are always different for each unique situation, if you don't get into the habit of calculating for yourself the cost/benefit of each of your plays you could easily end up playing aggressively for its own sake and not making the most profit on your plays.

Here's a good example of someone thinking beyond the "raise to protect your vulnerable hand" and getting greater value because of it: Stellar Wind's Difficult 99 Hand. Whether you agree with his play or not, you have to admire this example of someone seeing past the rules of thumb to understand the thinking process behind them.

/mc

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. You said that so much better than I did. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]