Is Hellmuth's strategy really for beginners?

[sattre]

I initially posted this at liveactionpoker.com, but it hasn't really sparked debate, so...
Hellmuth's stategy in "Play Poker like the pros" has some counterintuitive logic that I'd like to talk about. First off, I should say that when I started playing, I had read Sklansky/Malmuth's books and Lee Jones' book, as well as Super System. So, I had some understanding of starting hands, and general plays, but no one can ever put the deep conceptual ideas of "Hold Poker for the Advanced Player (HPFAP)" or "Theory of Poker (TOP)" together without a lot of experience - I still haven't. So, knowing the basic brush strokes of HPFAP and TOP, I went on to read Phil's book. Now I don't regret reading Phil's book, but I think it's very counterintuitive by nature. That is, Phil emphasizes playing only "top 10 hands" for the new player. I believe he considers those to be pocket A's all the way down to 7's, AK, and AQs. I was playing no online poker at the time and played low limit HE at Canterbury Casino in Minnesota. The play, like most low limit play online or at a casino, is very loose and usually passive. And you have hardly any value from pairs, often even up to Jacks, without catching a set or being lucky enough to have it fold to you and be to the right of the one guy who will fold his blind to a raise. So, obviously, the value of small pairs go down in terms of tight-aggressivenss, and they go up in terms of set value. Ax suited is much better, as are suited connectors, a bankroll etc.
But my problems with Phil's book go deeper. The most common types of games that a very new player - which is obviously whom the book is directed towards - will play in are these ones. But Phil says, go in with pairs and very strong aces, which is nice but extremely simplified.
One play (discussed recently on the twoplustwo forums under "general theory") he suggests in his book is with pocket Jacks. If you're in late position - and I assume you're raising with pocket Jacks - and the multiway pot flop comes: KQx, he says that you should re-raise a bettor. Now I don't see any reason for this play at a lower limit, unless you're against a total maniac or someone who's betting at a draw into a preflop raiser. But that disregards anyone else in the hand, and a lot of the time, you're going to be calleddown by Q9, even though you raised preflop. Phil's rationale is to "find out where you're at." You could probably get someone with a weak King or Queen to check the turn, but they're going to call you down if you bet either street. If you happen to get it heads up and check it the whole way, it would be a nice scenario, but not very likely. So the raise is costing you an extra bet and often more - if you bet there's no way you'll get a call on a later street by anything less, and it's highly likely that you'll get a call from something more - people don't release "nice" hands.
But the thing that's most counterintuitive about all of this is that where on the one hand, the strategy is ultra-simplified, but on the other it's putting a tremendous amount of pressure on a new player. How is a new player supposed to use this sort of judgment with typically made hands - pairs in the whole - without a very significant amount of table experience? In fact it's my opinion that this is the type of situation that a much more advanced player would have, rather than, for example, understanding how to adjust to game types or how to adjust to certain kinds of players. The latter two concepts, to me, are what new players should focus on. And while it's very important that a new player remain tight - even supertight - they're going to get that information from other books, along with a discussion as to why they would ever vary their play from this strategy (quite important). All in all, I think a playing style that puts this much pressure on someome is much more advanced than telling a person how to adjust their preflop hand strategies to different game types.

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] congrats if you made it through [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[TheGrifter]

A lot of what Hellmuth professes in his book isn't just not good for beginners, it isn't good for anyone. Phil professes to have never read a poker book, I think maybe he should. My advice, keep studying WLLHE and pick up the less advanced hold em book by sklansky and malmuth and then reread HEFAP.

[SheridanCat]

Paragraphs. Please. I am not going to read that wall of text and many others here will also avoid it. You will get debate if you make your arguments easy to read and understand.

Regards,

T

[sattre]

I initially posted this at liveactionpoker.com, but it hasn't really sparked debate, so...

Hellmuth's stategy in "Play Poker like the pros" has some counterintuitive logic that I'd like to talk about. First off, I should say that when I started playing, I had read Sklansky/Malmuth's books and Lee Jones' book, as well as Super System. So, I had some understanding of starting hands, and general plays, but no one can ever put the deep conceptual ideas of "Hold Poker for the Advanced Player (HPFAP)" or "Theory of Poker (TOP)" together without a lot of experience - I still haven't.

So, knowing the basic brush strokes of HPFAP and TOP, I went on to read Phil's book. Now I don't regret reading Phil's book, but I think it's very counterintuitive by nature. That is, Phil emphasizes playing only "top 10 hands" for the new player. I believe he considers those to be pocket A's all the way down to 7's, AK, and AQs.

I was playing no online poker at the time and played low limit HE at Canterbury Casino in Minnesota. The play, like most low limit play online or at a casino, is very loose and usually passive. And you have hardly any value from pairs, often even up to Jacks, without catching a set or being lucky enough to have it fold to you and be to the right of the one guy who will fold his blind to a raise.

So, obviously, the value of small pairs go down in terms of tight-aggressivenss, and they go up in terms of set value. Ax suited is much better, as are suited connectors, a bankroll etc.

But my problems with Phil's book go deeper. The most common types of games that a very new player - which is obviously whom the book is directed towards - will play in are these ones. But Phil says, go in with pairs and very strong aces, which is nice but extremely simplified.

One play (discussed recently on the twoplustwo forums under "general theory") he suggests in his book is with pocket Jacks. If you're in late position - and I assume you're raising with pocket Jacks - and the multiway pot flop comes: KQx, he says that you should re-raise a bettor. Now I don't see any reason for this play at a lower limit, unless you're against a total maniac or someone who's betting at a draw into a preflop raiser.

But that disregards anyone else in the hand, and a lot of the time, you're going to be calleddown by Q9, even though you raised preflop. Phil's rationale is to "find out where you're at." You could probably get someone with a weak King or Queen to check the turn, but they're going to call you down if you bet either street. If you happen to get it heads up and check it the whole way, it would be a nice scenario, but not very likely. So the raise is costing you an extra bet and often more - if you bet there's no way you'll get a call on a later street by anything less, and it's highly likely that you'll get a call from something more - people don't release "nice" hands.

But the thing that's most counterintuitive about all of this is that where on the one hand, the strategy is ultra-simplified, but on the other it's putting a tremendous amount of pressure on a new player. How is a new player supposed to use this sort of judgment with typically made hands - pairs in the whole - without a very significant amount of table experience?

In fact it's my opinion that this is the type of situation that a much more advanced player would have, rather than, for example, understanding how to adjust to game types or how to adjust to certain kinds of players.

The latter two concepts, to me, are what new players should focus on. And while it's very important that a new player remain tight - even supertight - they're going to get that information from other books, along with a discussion as to why they would ever vary their play from this strategy (quite important). All in all, I think a playing style that puts this much pressure on someome is much more advanced than telling a person how to adjust their preflop hand strategies to different game types.

congrats if you made it through


**Hope this is easier to read; I don't know what I could do to make it easier to understand**

[Lori]

I heard his publishers took the words "want you to" off the title of the book that Phil originally submitted to increase sales.

Lori

[snowman]

in low limit no fold'em holdem you need to show the winner, you can't do that chasing with inferior hands. solid tight starting hands not only wins a small amount but builds disipline and hand reading skills, with out this you can't advance, if you don't understand hands like 65 are long term losers you need more studying. if you would fold a, 6 off to a raise and call with a,6 suited you need more studying, play tight it minimizes losses while learning the important skills, once you play a few hundred hours, reread all the books you have, then the concepts shed light because you have hands and past experience to see how they apply, after a 1000 hours you should be able to put players on a small amount of holdings when you are not involved, now the trick is to do that when you are involved

[Al Mirpuri]

Dear Sattre,

I think the poster who asked you to paragraph your post rude.

If out of inconsideration or ignorance you had failed to paragraph your post then so what?

Anyone reading any post is free to comment or not as the see fit for whatever reasons they see fit. So why be rude?

I think you must be a decent chap as you complied.

I am not sure I would have.

Yours,

Al Mirpuri.

[RydenStoompala]

Like any poker book, there are good parts and there are poor sections. The exception has been Sklansky&Malmouth's text (an unavoidable compliment Mason so don't let your head swell up) because those two authors have a real grad school approach for experienced players and they make few, if any, really egomanical statements. Hellmuth, on the other hand, appears to have spent as little time as possible organizing the text, logically. I have no (little) doubt that Phil is one of the best no-limit players in the world but having watched him on television and in person, I can find almost nothing he does that applies to my limit games. Anecdotal evidence was the best part of reading Phil's book but some of the advice was just plain bizaar.

[sattre]

Hey, thanks, Al, for pointing that out. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] It seems like there can't be a thread that's posted without someone being rude.
I agree, Snowman, that it's very important to remain tight as a new beginner. But I think Phil's book lacks conversation about when you should loosen up your play and why. Not just in loose games, but general things like raising a good hand on the button or second button with only one limper. The other thing is that you're not going to find a bookout there (I know of none, at least) that tells someone to limp in with 6-5 suited. Although if I were in a very loose low limit game game and had even 5-2 suited in the SB, I would gladly pay to see a flop.

Sklansky and Malmuth point out that in a very loose game, it's ok to call a raise from the BB with 5-4 suited. I fancy myself a very tight player, but I will play hands like this when the situation arises. Sklansky/Malmuth give you reasons, Hellmuth gives you laws. Anyways, I'm sure you're aware of most of this, but I'll still stick to my argument that I don't think Phil's book helps a new player learn very well, but in fact puts a lot of pressure on them.

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] sattre

[Cosimo]

I liked Phil's book. It's actually the proximate cause of me playing poker. I'd read a few books (including HEPFAP) before and played a bit in B&M casinos, but I never really got into playing regularly. Phil made poker sound fun. His rules aren't too bad; it's better than the "any two cards" rule used by most low-limit players. It's also the book that got me online, when I had been 7+ hours away from a casino previously.

On the other hand, the theory and strategy in the book is abyssmal.

I've given the book to a couple friends and gotten them to play for a bit. A few big hands here and there, and they're hooked. Then I give them the bad news: Hellmuth is all wrong, poker for a living is a grind, playing well requires hard work and is nothing like easy money. At that point, my friends decided that 9-5 suited them better, and they gave up poker as a hobby.

Thing is, except for very few people, coming to poker as a grind is unappealing enough to never even bother trying. I think Phil's book is a good start for new players because it gives them some of the highlights of poker, showing them that the game can be rewarding. Encouraging newbies to be extra-tight might help them to live long enough to see some highlights; drag a big pot or two, without losing their buyin.