Lee Jones has warped my brain

adsman · #1 01-27-2005, 01:06 PM

A year ago I was searching for a beginners book on Hold em and I eventually picked Mr Jones publication. For the first six months or so I stuck to it and I saw slow and modest gains. Then I branched out, and I read and studied TOP, HPFAP, TPOP, SSHM. And I thought I was going great. But then a funny thing happened. My results started to go down. I couldn't understand it. I thought it was variance but it wasn't, there was a major problem.
Then I discovered this forum and I began posting and reading and I discovered that my first holdem book was held in disdain in this part of the woods. Didn't worry me at all. I'm not attached to it. But then I posted a hand that had gone wrong and an experienced poster replied that my play was "...straight out of Lee Jones." What did that mean?

Now I read a thread dating back to 2003 where Ed Miller takes it to Mr Jones and his recommendations for "charging the flush draws." And it hit me. Everytime I get a flush draw on the flop I bet. But if it is raised back to me, I don't reraise. Just this has cost me a fortune. And its all because of that fecking book.

It's like if you start learning a musical instrument. If for the first formulative years of your learning process your teachers teaching process is flawed..., well, you're fecked. There's nothing you can do. I know. I'm a music teacher. The stuff that goes in first will always remain, especially if acted on over a continual period of time.

What do I do now? How much of that book is suspect? And more importantly, how much of it is buried deep in my brain? And how can I get it out!!??

Joe B. · #2 01-27-2005, 02:02 PM

re-read SSH 3 times

topspin · #3 01-27-2005, 02:40 PM

So you read WLLH, it made you a winning player, then you read a bunch more of other books, your results tanked, and you blame your original book? Your sequence of events hardly supports this hypothesis.

WLLH was the first book many of the regular posters here read, and I'd venture to say that they're all doing fine, so I don't think you're scarred for life. While the advice is a tad weak-tight at times, it's hardly a book that's going to turn you into a losing player -- I'd say it's probably a better first book than SSH, which is likely to turn your average loose-passive newbie into a loose-aggressive newbie.

tek · #4 01-27-2005, 03:29 PM

Have you followed golfers? Sometimes they need to rework a part of their game (swing, follow-through, whatever). Their scores temporarily go down, but then their game improves to a higher level than before.

droolie · #5 01-27-2005, 03:32 PM

If you find yourself saying, "I'm looking for a reason to fold this hand," stop. That's Lee Jones.

Start saying to yourself, "How can I get my competitors to fold their hands?" and you'll be cured. That's SSH.

adsman · #6 01-27-2005, 03:43 PM

I agree with you that the problem with WLLH is that it tends to be too cautious. And as I used that as my starting principles those lessons stuck. I'm talking about postflop play here. Then, when I read the other books, I understood the new principles but I was applying them incorrectly, due to my weak-tight experiences with WLLH. And I've been applying them incorrectly for some time now, and it is only because of this forum that I've realised that. Because the first lessons that you receive stick at a much deeper level than is given credit for.

The hand posts I've seen here with four to a flush on the flop have the poster jamming the pot like crazy. Coming from WLLH I considered that insane. Sure, bet out and call the raises, but 3bet? Cap? What are you nuts?

But that is correct because you're not paying to draw to your flush, you're making the other players pay to stay with you. Jones has it the other way around, and I've taken that in at a deep level and it has cost me an untold number of bets.

I'm just wondering what else in there needs to be scalpeled out of my brain. Because I could read SSH a hundred times but what counts is when you sit down at the table. That deep understanding that I got today when I finally understood why you have to pack the pot on the flop with a four to a flush.

adsman · #7 01-27-2005, 03:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you find yourself saying, "I'm looking for a reason to fold this hand," stop. That's Lee Jones.

Start saying to yourself, "How can I get my competitors to fold their hands?" and you'll be cured. That's SSH.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not bad. Not bad at all. Thanks dude.

ZeeJustin · #8 01-27-2005, 04:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Everytime I get a flush draw on the flop I bet. But if it is raised back to me, I don't reraise. Just this has cost me a fortune.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is some awful advice. Is your post a joke?

frank_iii · #9 01-27-2005, 05:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Start saying to yourself, "How can I get my competitors to fold their hands?" and you'll be cured. That's SSH.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, I think it's more like "How can I win more big pots and get my competitors to pay me off the most?"

Why would you want them to fold when they'll be more than happy to pay you off with 2nd best hands?

topspin · #10 01-27-2005, 05:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That deep understanding that I got today when I finally understood why you have to pack the pot on the flop with a four to a flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd hope what SSH has taught you is to evaluate each hand and make the appropriate play. To always jam a flush draw regardless of the number of players, the tone of the flop, or other situational considerations would be just as bad as always check-calling.