Jim Brier refutes SSH strategy...

[Dominic]

Here's an article in the latest Cardplayer - Jim Brier disagrees with some of Ed Miller's advice in SSH - I'm wondering what everybody's opinion of this article is...and who doe you think is right?

And any response by Ed would be great, of course....

(it's easier to read if you click on the link)

http://cardplayer.com/poker_magazine...php?a_id=14382

Maximizing Small-Stakes Hold'em Winnings — Part I
by Jim Brier


Because of the recent explosion in public poker, many new players have arrived on the poker scene and are entering low-stakes games ($2-$4, $3-$6, and $4-$8). Indeed, most of the poker being played in many cardrooms is low-stakes hold’em. These games frequently have five or more players seeing each flop and not much preflop raising compared to higher-limit games. These games are characterized as being loose and passive. Many of the books written about low-stakes hold’em are aimed at beginners. With beginners, the focus is on teaching them the rules of the game, how to play tight, and how to avoid traps. This approach will keep them from losing heavily when they are just starting out and prevent them from becoming disillusioned with the game.

But what about trying to maximize your overall earning potential in these loose, passive games? There is a new book on the market titled Small Stakes Hold’em, published by Two Plus Two Publishing and authored by Ed Miller, David Sklansky, and Mason Malmuth, that attempts to do this. The book is aimed at experienced low-limit players who are trying to make a substantial income by playing in these games. While it covers all aspects of the game, the thrust is on post-flop play. Dozens of hands are presented to illustrate strategies for winning large multiway pots. Many of the ideas presented are highly original and counterintuitive.

This column is one in a series of columns that will discuss some of these ideas by presenting a number of selected hands from the book. For each hand, the format will be to present the problem and the answer stated in the book, and then I will provide my thoughts. Just for fun, you may want to read the problem and decide what you would do before reading the answers. Remember that all problems are based on a loose low-limit game.

Hand No. 1: You have the Q 7 in middle position. One player limps in and another player raises. You mistakenly call. Everyone folds to the blinds, who both call. The limper calls. There are 10 small bets in the pot. The flop is: J 7 5, giving you middle pair, a backdoor-flush draw, and an overcard. It is checked to the preflop raiser, who bets. What do you do?

Book Answer: Raising is the only correct play. Calling or folding are both major mistakes. First, you could have the best hand, since the raiser may have been raising preflop with A-K or A-Q. Second, if your hand is not the best, a raise may drive out one of the other hands that could otherwise improve and win the pot even when you do improve. The key is that the pot is large and you must do everything possible to protect your hand and/or improve your chances of winning the pot.

My Thoughts: Obviously, due to pot odds, you have a definite play here, so the only issue is whether to call or raise. Most good players instinctively call because the pot odds are 11-to-1 and the drawing odds are about 8-to-1 on the next card. This is a decent overlay to cover the times they improve but still lose. There is also a backdoor-flush draw. But raising has advantages for the reasons cited in the book. However, many low-limit players will not bet an unimproved A-K into a field of four other players. Against this kind of player, a bet means at least an overpair, so you know you don’t have the best hand, thereby removing the biggest reason for raising. But if you are unsure about how the bettor plays overcards, raising is probably the best play.

Hand No. 2: You have the 8 7 in the big blind. Four players limp in and the button raises. The small blind folds and you call, as do the other players. There are 12.5 small bets in the pot. The flop is: 10 7 5, giving you middle pair and a backdoor-straight draw. It is checked to the button, who bets. What do you do?

Book Answer: Raise. This is better than calling. You may have a better hand than the preflop raiser. He may have a big pair or A-10, but he could be betting unimproved overcards like A-K. More importantly, raising improves your winning chances. You would like to see many different hands fold. If you have the best hand, in this large pot, anyone with as little as one overcard to your pair of sevens threatens you. Even without the best hand, you still want many hands to fold. Obviously, you would like anyone with a better hand to fold. If you raise, someone with a better 7, a weak 10, or pocket eights or nines may fear that your hand is stronger than just middle pair and fold. Even if it happens only rarely, the prospect is compelling; inducing a better hand to fold in a large pot is a coup. More subtly, you would also like anyone with a 6 or 9 to fold. If you catch an 8 on fourth street to make two pair, anyone with either of those cards will pick up an open-end straight draw. With a hand this weak, your winning chances improve significantly with every player who folds. When the pot is large, invest extra bets if doing so improves your chance to win.

My Thoughts: In comparing this hand with the first hand, raising is less clear despite the slight improvement in pot odds. This is another situation in which it is assumed that a typical small-stakes player will bet into a big field with an unimproved A-K. This time, the field is even larger with five opponents. Furthermore, there is a two-flush on the table, so a raise will not eliminate flush draws. 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: (1) one of these hands must exist, (2) the person holding such a hand will call if you do not raise, (3) that person will fold because you do raise, (4) you must improve, (5) they would have improved to a better hand, and (6) their better hand goes on to win the pot. Without getting bogged down in mathematics, the likelihood of this parlay occurring is the product of all of these individual probabilities. This usually results in a very small number, often less than 1 percent.

One of the major recurring themes in the book is that when pots get large, you should invest extra bets to improve your winning chances. In loose games, regardless of the limit, this is an important idea. But, there are other considerations. What is the likelihood that you have the best hand? Many players will not bet overcards into a large field even if they did raise preflop. So, if one of these players is betting the flop into a large field, you know he probably has an overpair or at least top pair. When this happens, raising becomes very unattractive, but calling is still right due to the pot odds. Furthermore, whenever you raise, you give the bettor the opportunity to three-bet. This can result in two things, both of which are bad. First, you will be obliged to call the raise due to the pot odds, so the net result is that you have cost yourself three bets to take off a card instead of one bet. Second, all of this raising may drive out other hands, which benefits the guy with the best hand at your expense.

[wuwei]

In another thread, Mason mentioned that Jim will be writing an article for 2+2 exploring this topic, and Ed will be responding.

[gaming_mouse]

Has anyone read "Middle Limit Holdem"?

This is the first I've heard of it, but the Amazon reviews are impressive, if that means anything.

I'd like the thoughts of some 2+2ers.

gm

[helpmeout]

MLH is on par with SSH IMO.

Probably better for $3/$6 on, if you havent read it you are missing out.

Go to the books/software section and findout about more good books.

[Octopus]

Middle Limit Holdem is fairly well known and respected on this forum. In his review Mason gave it a 6 +/-2. The +/-2 refers to the fact that it is frequently rather weak-tight. If you can adjust for that, he says, then it is an 8. If not, then it is a 4. I would recommend it highly. Just stand ready to disagree with some of it. Thinking about why you disagree may be the most valuable part since his explanations are normally clear and well thought out.

In any case, this Jim Brier review is along the same lines. Jim appears to think it unlikely that a pre-flop raiser would bet overcards into a medium size field because, presumably, he would not. Many people around here would (with some flops) and certainly many online players would. If they will not, then the chances you have the best hand (in the examples he singles out in this article) are much lower and a raise is more marginal.

I am looking forward to their (Jim and Ed's) exchange. It should be very educational.

[Bill C]

I have read most of the current books. MLH and SSH are the two best IMO.

Bill

[IndieMatty]

However, many low-limit players will not bet an unimproved A-K into a field of four other players.

This could not be farther from the truth.


I honestly stopped after that.

[BSXX]

It is a very good book. You are not likely to agree to agree with all of his recommendations for the specific hands, but the approach he uses is still instructive even if you don't. Ciaffone is not real popular at this forum, but he is a very good teacher of poker. His books complement the 2+2 books very well. Read it and you will know what I am talking about.

[J.R.]

"However, many low-limit players will not bet an unimproved A-K into a field of four other players."

I honestly stopped after that.

You're doing yourself a great disservice. Say what you will of his conclusion in this particular case, but Jim's ideas are well reasoned, oragnized and thought out. Just because you disagree with his assumptions does not make his reasoning any less valid, and it can only help your game to honestly give his ideas some thought and decide for yourself when they are applicable (its not a matter of "if", but "when"). BTW, he is talking about the same game as this book is targeted to, which isn't necessarily Party. Go look up some of his older 2+2er posts. They are good. And so is his play.

[slavic]

You know hand #2 is a standard play. In fact Feeney writes about it in his book and details a situation of using it to trick a thinking opponent into giving way too much action. At the smaller stakes though, few people think of a resteal and the straight forward nature of the play works.


I believe that the problem I have with this article is the following line.

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

Brier defines these pots as being "large". As pots get large having callers takes money from all players involved in the hand. So if you say have a 20% chance of winning and the raiser has a 40% chance. If by raising you increase your chance to 35% and his to 65% well you have both gained and depending on the size of the pot you likely have done so in a profitable manner.

The best description of this I have seen is in HEPFAP21st under the title "When the pots get big".