Can you read ITH and SSH same time?

[cowboyzfan]

[quote It assumes you have a good foundation and knowledge of the game and gives you a certain playing style against certain types of oppenents.
I like SSH a lot, but if you don't have a good foundation already, SSH can be a dangerous book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that SSH is probably not the best first book for a begginer. I have always recommended other books such as WLLH or ITH, then SSH. However, I have this to say about what seems like daily posts about the danger of SSH or how SSH only applies to certain game types and certain opponnents (many implying that it is wrong for the internet).

I would like to see a sticky or something where Ed and other NPA's discuss whether SSH is a "style of play" or "the right way to play". From what I have seen, it is the right way to play in the majority of situations.

People say SSH can be "dangerous", but I am not so sure this is fair either. The basic points of SSH are play tight pre flop, play tight in small pots, and play aggressively in large pots. How is that dangerous?

The average poker player, online or in a card room, is loose/passive. So how can it be so dangerous to play tight/aggressive against them? The average fish cold calls pre-flop raises like they are going out of style, but SSH says very rarely cold call pre-flop raises. What is dangerous about that?

I don't claim to be an authority at all on poker. I just want to learn. But we keep seeing over and over in this forum threads saying why SSH does not apply in this situation, or the other. But what we don't see is an explanation of WHY IT DOES NOT APPLY.

Everyone says that the internet is much tighter than what SSH assumes. But is the internet play much better? Maybe there are fewer players pre flop, but are they not still playing crap hands, and playing them poorly?

If SSH does not apply to tighter games, the internet, or whatever variant you wish, then what does? And do I have to give back the money? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Where is Ed to respond to this constant barrage of SSH criticisms? I am not saying the poster i am responding to is criticizing the book. I am talking about a myriad of recent posts that have served to diminish or marginalize SSH over the last few months on this forum. If we took all these "facts" about SSH to be true, Ed's book would apply so rarely, it would be not much more than a novelty item, certainly not a foundation for limit hold'em play.

Maybe the critics are right, but where is the proof? That is all I am asking for. Things said over and over, without being challenged, become common knowledge fairly quickly.

one final point, SSH was not my first book, so maybe it can be "dangerous", but i just don't see how. Sure anything is dangerous if misapplied. The other issue is, of course you have to adjust your play according to game conditions and SSH does not cover every possible game condition. But what can we ask from one book? Sometimes you have to learn to apply your own knowledge and experience to what the book says.

For example, SSH does not necessarily cover tight games, with very skilled opponents, that is true. But I seem to remember SSH does say it is best to avoid these games, so in a way, it is covered. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to see a sticky or something where Ed and other NPA's discuss whether SSH is a "style of play" or "the right way to play". From what I have seen, it is the right way to play in the majority of situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you read the "Introduction" and the "Using This Book" sections, I think it's clearly a style of play. In the Introduction, it is said "We advocate a tight, but aggressive attacking style." You can decide for yourself if it is the right or wrong style, but just like anyone who may not bet unless they have the nuts, that's a certain style of play.

[ QUOTE ]
People say SSH can be "dangerous", but I am not so sure this is fair either. The basic points of SSH are play tight pre flop, play tight in small pots, and play aggressively in large pots. How is that dangerous?

[/ QUOTE ]

This book is dangerous if you don't understand it. Go on over Amazon.com and read some reviews and you'll see that many people just don't understand it. For instance, given the correct situation, this book suggests that you should raise on the flop with a middle pair. If you don't understand what the "correct situation" is though, this can be a costly mistake.

[ QUOTE ]
The average poker player, online or in a card room, is loose/passive. So how can it be so dangerous to play tight/aggressive against them? The average fish cold calls pre-flop raises like they are going out of style, but SSH says very rarely cold call pre-flop raises. What is dangerous about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I answered the dangerous part above, but to comment on this, you really need to read the "Using This Book" section unless you just used a bad example here. This book isn't really about preflop play. It gives recomendations on being tight preflop if you're not already but as the book says "Understanding postflop concepts and play is far more essential to maxumizing your win rate" and to move quickly through the preflop chapters.

[ QUOTE ]
If SSH does not apply to tighter games, the internet, or whatever variant you wish, then what does? And do I have to give back the money? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to rag on you again about this, but you REALLY have to read the Introduction and Using This Book sections. I know how people like to skip over the salad and get to the steak, but the salad sets up the whole meal.

The book says in this book, it assumes your opponents play poor. In "Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players", it assumes your oppenents play fairly well.

[cowboyzfan]

Iggy,

well I don't disagree with what you have written. And interestingly, I actually did reread the introduction last night. It basically says what you say it says. However, the point of my post was that I believe most players DO play poorly. So I believe that SSH would apply to most games the average guy on this site looking for a hold'em book would find.

BTW, I have read the book so I know what they focus on. But again, my complaint is about all the posts that have been made about the book that have attempted to minimalize the book's relevance.

How many times have we read that SSH is dangerous, that SSH does not apply to the internet, that SSH will increase your variance, that SSH will only "work" in very loose games and on and on.

Now as my post said, this could be true. I am just asking for examples of why it is true. I can cite you post after post on this board that basically says:

"SSH says 8 players will be on the flop, but on Party, it is only 4 players, so SSH does not apply to Party"

All I am saying is I don't think that is enough of an explanation. I want to know what plays will not work, and more precisely, what plays does SSH fail to explain will not work.

And I do know for a fact Ed does not agree that his book is dangerous [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[IggyWH]

I think another thing you got to understand too is poker attracts some great minds. Great minds think outside the box and while they might love SSH, they also don't want people (namely fish) to read this book and become better.

They'll badmouth the book and say how dangerous it is when really, they think it's a great book and don't want people to read it.

Like I said earlier though, I think the book could be dangerous. I think it's best to have a foundation before reading SSH. There's many advanced concepts that if you don't understand the something like odds, you could get yourself into serious trouble.

Since this book stresses aggression, if you don't use that aggression correctly, you're just leaking chips which can become very costly (hence the dangerous part).

[cowboyzfan]

[ QUOTE ]
I think another thing you got to understand too is poker attracts some great minds. Great minds think outside the box and while they might love SSH, they also don't want people (namely fish) to read this book and become better.

They'll badmouth the book and say how dangerous it is when really, they think it's a great book and don't want people to read it.

Like I said earlier though, I think the book could be dangerous. I think it's best to have a foundation before reading SSH. There's many advanced concepts that if you don't understand the something like odds, you could get yourself into serious trouble.

Since this book stresses aggression, if you don't use that aggression correctly, you're just leaking chips which can become very costly (hence the dangerous part).

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed

[Joe B.]

"This book is dangerous if you don't understand it. Go on over Amazon.com and read some reviews and you'll see that many people just don't understand it. For instance, given the correct situation, this book suggests that you should raise on the flop with a middle pair. If you don't understand what the "correct situation" is though, this can be a costly mistake."


so what is the correct situation? what page shows you the correct situation for above?

thanks

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
"This book is dangerous if you don't understand it. Go on over Amazon.com and read some reviews and you'll see that many people just don't understand it. For instance, given the correct situation, this book suggests that you should raise on the flop with a middle pair. If you don't understand what the "correct situation" is though, this can be a costly mistake."


so what is the correct situation? what page shows you the correct situation for above?

thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

The "correct situation" isn't really something you can classify and say specificly. There also isn't a specific page where it tells you when to do such a thing. Pretty much the whole "Part Three : PostFlop Concepts" section of the book talks about such a thing.