ITH Poker Forum

[nsidestrate]

I read somewhere on your website, but I'm too lazy to look it up, that you had some second thoughts about your situations where you advocated waiting until the turn to raise. IIRC, you now believe that those situations are more rare than you thought and that you think generally ramming and jamming on the flop is the best strategy for most cases. I apologize if I've twisted that into what I wanted to hear instead of what you said.

That led me to wonder what (if any) changes you would like to make in the light of your continued thinking on poker. Can you think of any?

This is also probably as good a place as any to thank you. I posted raves about SSH when it came out and I still think it was the perfect book for the poker player I was when it was published. I was a winning player who was moving into the middle limits and the advice in books like Bob Ciaffone's was not what I needed to continue winning at those limits. I needed to dial in more aggression and your book showed me a lot about when and where to do so. PartyPoker 15/30 at the time of your book was a goldmine. I don't think I'll ever see on-line poker as lucrative as that again.

[Ed Miller]

Interesting question. Well, to clarify my thoughts about the waiting for the turn thing... I still very much like the Two Overpair Hands section. I think that's an important point that arises regularly in those games. The example with the pocket kings where you wait until the turn, though... I wouldn't mind ripping that example out. Not because I think the example itself is bad play, but because I think that situation is fairly rare, and I see lots of people waiting for the turn in silly places and then pointing to that example and saying, "See, I did it right."

Another change I always wanted to make is to finish the Q7s hand that I start in the postflop intro. For some reason, I never finished the analysis of that hand in the conclusion like I intended. (I remember being crunched for time and neglecting a couple of the conclusion sections, which is probably how it slipped past me.)

Other than that, I mostly would want to add a whole new section about small stakes online games where people are fairly tight preflop, but still play loose and weird postflop. I think overall I had too many examples where 6 people saw the flop... and the problem is that a lot of the postflop ideas are valuable even in 2- and 3-handed pots, but all the 6-handed examples led people to the conclusion that tighter games are a whole new ball of wax.

I'm likely not going to make these changes to SSHE, but it's possible that I could do the online thing as a separate project/e-book. I'm scarcely motivated to do it at the moment, though, since I have a number of other projects already in the pipeline.

[loyo1]

Other than that, I mostly would want to add a whole new section about small stakes online games where people are fairly tight preflop, but still play loose and weird postflop. I think overall I had too many examples where 6 people saw the flop... and the problem is that a lot of the postflop ideas are valuable even in 2- and 3-handed pots, but all the 6-handed examples led people to the conclusion that tighter games are a whole new ball of wax.

You turn out an ebook on this, and I'm buying. That really nails the current situations I am seeing. A lot of players are executing proper (or close to it) hand selection preflop, but their postflop play is sometimes just odd. Postflop is the hardest aspect of poker to write about, of course, which is I guess why books don't delve into it as thoroughly. But it's where I'm focusing 100% of my study efforts (and where I need tons of work), so look forward to anything you might to choose to write on the topic.

And Ed, thanks for doing this. Greatly appreciated.

[chillrob]

Another change I always wanted to make is to finish the Q7s hand that I start in the postflop intro. For some reason, I never finished the analysis of that hand in the conclusion like I intended. (I remember being crunched for time and neglecting a couple of the conclusion sections, which is probably how it slipped past me.)

I always wanted more analysis on that hand as well. Any way you could give a little more here? Or a whole article on your website would be great.

Rob

[Ed Miller]

Other than that, I mostly would want to add a whole new section about small stakes online games where people are fairly tight preflop, but still play loose and weird postflop. I think overall I had too many examples where 6 people saw the flop... and the problem is that a lot of the postflop ideas are valuable even in 2- and 3-handed pots, but all the 6-handed examples led people to the conclusion that tighter games are a whole new ball of wax.

You turn out an ebook on this, and I'm buying. That really nails the current situations I am seeing. A lot of players are executing proper (or close to it) hand selection preflop, but their postflop play is sometimes just odd. Postflop is the hardest aspect of poker to write about, of course, which is I guess why books don't delve into it as thoroughly. But it's where I'm focusing 100% of my study efforts (and where I need tons of work), so look forward to anything you might to choose to write on the topic.

And Ed, thanks for doing this. Greatly appreciated.

Cool. Before I write the e-book, though, I probably have to suck it up and start playing online again, huh?

[Ed Miller]

Another change I always wanted to make is to finish the Q7s hand that I start in the postflop intro. For some reason, I never finished the analysis of that hand in the conclusion like I intended. (I remember being crunched for time and neglecting a couple of the conclusion sections, which is probably how it slipped past me.)

I always wanted more analysis on that hand as well. Any way you could give a little more here? Or a whole article on your website would be great.

Rob

The basic idea is that it's sort of a semivalue raise (in the same sense of semi- as semibluff). Some percentage of the time, you'll be raising with the best hand, and that raise protects a big pot, which is valuable. You may even induce folds from hands that really should call (either on the flop or turn).

And when called by a better hand, you usually have outs to the best hand, so you theoretically lose only a small percentage of that extra bet.

The hand deserves more in-depth analysis than just that. Hopefully I'll get to it soon.

[jeffnc]

Yeah, I'm a fan of SSH too, but I do seem some players use it as an excuse to play the way they want to even when the game conditions don't warrant it. I'm definitely left with the impression that online games rarely match the SSH conditions - they are much more likely to be found in live play.

Thanks for visiting this month, great to have you. I will have to come up with my questions now

[AlamedaMike]

Yeah, I'm a fan of SSH too, but I do seem some players use it as an excuse to play the way they want to even when the game conditions don't warrant it. I'm definitely left with the impression that online games rarely match the SSH conditions - they are much more likely to be found in live play.

Thanks for visiting this month, great to have you. I will have to come up with my questions now

thanks for the book Ed. I am a fan of SSHE. The games that I play live are like you describe in your book. Lots of bad players sprinkled with a few good ones. Six-8 way pots for 2-3 bets. I have a problem beating loose games like this. I do better in average games. Three-4 players to the flop and few raises. These are hard to find in the SF Bay area. game selection for me is key. I have a few more questions for later. I am using my Treo and typing is not as easy as a keyboard.

[AlamedaMike]

Interesting question. Well, to clarify my thoughts about the waiting for the turn thing... I still very much like the Two Overpair Hands section. I think that's an important point that arises regularly in those games. The example with the pocket kings where you wait until the turn, though... I wouldn't mind ripping that example out. Not because I think the example itself is bad play, but because I think that situation is fairly rare, and I see lots of people waiting for the turn in silly places and then pointing to that example and saying, "See, I did it right."

Hi Ed, Your last day here. I can post as a guest on NPA - this is a nice feature since I can not get registered.

I was playing a hand last 6/12 session and would normally post this under Limit Hold'em. I had AJo in the BB and there was a call, a raise, and 3 more calls when it got back to me. The SB had folded. That put 12 small bets in the pot.

Today I was studying SSHE and came across the KK hand on page 163) I find that the more I study SSHE the clearer it gets). Then I remembered that what you said above.

Here is what I did and it might not be correct.

Flop was and I have

I am known as being straight forward and a little tight - that means if I bet here most of the players are going to put me squarely on a Jack - end of story - I might as well show them my Jack. I will get a few calls, maybe 2, but only someone with a strong hand is going to call. If the PFR has QQ, KK, AA he is calling but with non-pair hands he is going to give it up.

I checked hoping that someone would take a swing at the pot. It got checked to the button who bet. Great.

Same problem if I raise that will announce my hand even more and they will fold like a house of cards. I called. I decided to slow play. And everyone called.

The turn was a bad card for me as almost any card would be. . The board looks like this.

(6 players, 9 bb)

I decided to try for a check raise and I checked. Now a tricky player (plays 15/30) that had cold called the PFR from a better than average player (plays 20/40) now bets. Two callers and I now raise.

That cleared the field down to 2 players. UTG and the 15/30 player.

Thankfully the river was a blank

I bet, UTG folded, and the 15/30 player thought and then called.

I won a very nice pot.

Several things could have gone wrong on this hand and I was lucky. The Turn could have been checked. The river might have be a and I would have lost to a back door flush from UTG, etc. He might have folded if I ck/r the flop or bet the flop.

Let me know if I played it poorly for the long haul (I am not saying - hey look at page 163, I played it right, I am saying that I might have played it very wrong).

Thanks very much.

[Ed Miller]

I think you played that hand fine, Mike. That flop is very "dry," so it's entirely possible that betting out or check-raising the flop would have amounted to turning your hand over. With aggressive players behind you willing to bet on the dry flop without a jack, I think checking twice is fine.

[AlamedaMike]

I think you played that hand fine, Mike. That flop is very "dry," so it's entirely possible that betting out or check-raising the flop would have amounted to turning your hand over. With aggressive players behind you willing to bet on the dry flop without a jack, I think checking twice is fine.

Thanks - that's what I was thinking and you confirmed it.

I keep remembering in my mind's eye my first 3/6 hold'em session in April 2003 at Cashe Creek. I played Jacks or better draw, 7-stud, 5-stud, and several other home games for 40+ years and 7-stud in Vegas/Reno. I thought I could play hold'em.

I sure hope that there are a lot of players like I was on that day. I lost $300 in that session and then started looking for some books. If I were younger I would have progressed faster. Still have a lot to learn. I still have the Statking data from that day - 4/16/2003. 5 hours and -300$.