ITH Poker Forum

[nsidestrate]

In middle position, the notation of "call 1/2/3" starts to expose more differences than it did in EP. I'm going to do the chart from the perspective of assuming you have enough callers to meet Matthew's criteria and then add some notes at the end about that.

In an attempt to head off a frequent criticism, I agree that most people overuse pre-flop charts and that you need to be making your own independant decisions. I'm fully down with that point of view. I mostly started to pursue this line of thinking because I find these comparisons interesting to myself and because I frequently see complaints that Miller is too loose pre-flop and I wanted to see if that is objectively true.

The differences:

1) K9s/Q9s -- Miller says to limp, Hilger says to fold. The advanced section of ITH doesn't discuss these hands. I tend to play K9s/K8s and other Kxs when I think the table will not likely raise behind me and/or there are likely to be many to see the flop. I always fold Q9s.

2) KJ -- Miller says to limp, Hilger says to fold. I used to fold these hands and I've started limping since I read SSH. I'm finding it a slightly -ev play for me thus far.

3) 99 -- Miller says to raise, Hilger says to call. I almost always raise. ITH does say you can raise this hand in the advanced section either first-in or against one limper. I like to raise this hand to try to discourage Ax type of hands.

4) KQs/KJs/KQ -- Miller says to raise, Hilger says to call. I always raise first-in with these hands and frequently raise against callers. In the advanced section, Hilger would have you raise these hands first-in or against one caller. The advanced section also looks at raising 88/77/A9s/A8s/A7s/KTs/QJs/QTs/JTs. I wouldn't raise the Axs suited hands, but I often raise the others first-in.

5) TT -- Miller says to re-raise against a raise, Hilger says to fold. I follow SSH's advice against all but tight raisers with good results. ITH essentially provides the re-raise advice in the advanced section, so this isn't much of a difference

6) JJ -- Miller says to re-raise, Hilger says to call. Again, I almost always re-raise and the advanced section essentially concurs.

7) AQ -- Miller folds to a raise, Hilger says to call. I actually usually choose the third option, re-raise. The advanced section would allow the re-raise.

8] KQs -- Miller says to call a raised pot, Hilger says to fold. I'm with SSH on this one. I like how KQs plays heads-up or multi-way.

9) 66/55/44/33/22/JTs/J9s/T9s/98s -- Hilger will only call these with two or three people already in the pot, Miller will always call. I mention this because having three limpers ahead of you from MP isn't always very easy -- so you will fold these hands more if you follow ITH. Of course, I think fudging the "call 3" when you expect that there will be several limpers behind you and you don't expect a raise is probably the first place where most people venture away from the ITH chart, but I thought it was worth a mention.

My conclusion is that we are still looking at pretty similar advice in MP. Unlike EP, where I think ITH is actually a bit looser, I'm going to have to give the looser nod to SSH in MP, although it is still very close. If you factor in the advanced section, K9s/Q9s/KJ in an unraised pot and KQs in a raised pot are the main differences where SSH will play them and ITH will not. The only argument for ITH being looser is that he might raise 88/77/A9s/A8s/A7s/KTs/QJs/QTs/JTs first-in if the conditions were right. When you add back in that ITH would sometimes fold 66/55/44/33/22/JTs/J9s/T9s/98s unless there were several callers, I'm awarding the loose points to SSH by a very small margin. I think you still have to reject the argument that SSH is dangerously loose pre-flop.

[Bugsbunny]

Just 1 point. You have to understand why Ed advocates calling with hands like Q9s. In other words understand the concepts behind it and the game type he's discussing.

There are times I would play this hand and times I would muck it. There are also times I would raise it first in (mostly from MP3 - since we're discussing MP here).

It all depends on the game type and the opponents

If the game is loose/passive and hand like Q9s is worth a speculative limp. It'll make straights and a reasonably high flush. It will also make a decent high pair (I'd be happier if the 9 made the high pair on the board, but wouldn't autofold the Q either).

If the game is aggressive to any significant extent the Q9s becomes much riskier, but can still be worth a limp if the game is loose enough (if the pot gets raised after you limp you can still usually expect a fairly multi-way pot).

And it may be worth a steal attempt from MP3 depending on the characteristics of the players left to act. It's a hand that will play decently either HU or 3 way. (HU against random hands it'll win about 58%. 3 way against random hands it'll win about 40%).

So this type of hand truly falls in the "it depends" category. I think ITH is correct in leaving it out of the charts, considering the target audience. I also think Ed is correct in including it considering both the target audience for his book (non-beginners), and the game types he's discussing.

This is a good hand for trying to understand the concepts involved and how to decide whether to play a hand preflop or not.

[nsidestrate]

If the game is loose/passive and hand like Q9s is worth a speculative limp. It'll make straights and a reasonably high flush. It will also make a decent high pair (I'd be happier if the 9 made the high pair on the board, but wouldn't autofold the Q either).

I'm cool with that in late position when there are already limpers galore. From middle position, there are usually not enough limpers ahead and always some risk of a raise behind. I just can't bring myself to like this yet.

And it may be worth a steal attempt from MP3 depending on the characteristics of the players left to act. It's a hand that will play decently either HU or 3 way. (HU against random hands it'll win about 58%. 3 way against random hands it'll win about 40%).

The problem is that you aren't looking at random hands, but hands that are willing to cold-call a raise. I would expect you to be a dog to any hand that is willing to cold call. I'd consider a first-in raise from the CO or button, but I'm drawing the line there. What is odd is that I would agree with you for QTs. Given that I am only one small rank better, perhaps it is just the pyschology of being less than 10 that keeps me away from this hand.

[Bugsbunny]

If the game is loose/passive and hand like Q9s is worth a speculative limp. It'll make straights and a reasonably high flush. It will also make a decent high pair (I'd be happier if the 9 made the high pair on the board, but wouldn't autofold the Q either).

I'm cool with that in late position when there are already limpers galore. From middle position, there are usually not enough limpers ahead and always some risk of a raise behind. I just can't bring myself to like this yet.

I did say it's speculative. And I did say loose /passive. Loose will give you enough players. Passive will keep it from being raised. (usually in both cases, sometimes things don't work out the way we hoped, obviously). But that's why game texture is very important to consider. Also the specific nature of the players left to act.

And it may be worth a steal attempt from MP3 depending on the characteristics of the players left to act. It's a hand that will play decently either HU or 3 way. (HU against random hands it'll win about 58%. 3 way against random hands it'll win about 40%).

The problem is that you aren't looking at random hands, but hands that are willing to cold-call a raise. I would expect you to be a dog to any hand that is willing to cold call. I'd consider a first-in raise from the CO or button, but I'm drawing the line there. What is odd is that I would agree with you for QTs. Given that I am only one small rank better, perhaps it is just the pyschology of being less than 10 that keeps me away from this hand.

Again, I didn't say I would always do it. If they're loose they may well call with what amounts to a random hand. If they're decent they usually either fold or re-raise (with the chances of a fold being much greater). If they reraise obviously you're not happy, but you're also not dead yet. Plus since you're raising from an earlier position people who pay attention to such things will give you more credit for a hand than they would if you were raising from the CO or the BT, so are less likely to play back. People who don't pay attention are just lousy players and you have enough hand to at least see a flop against such a player.

[Georgeair]

Wouldn't it also be fair to say that SSH is simply a book designed (either intentionally or not) for slightly more advanced players while the main thrust of ITH is towards beginners and intermediate players? As you point out, much of the advanced portion of ITH, and probably many of the more seasoned players, may synch up with SSH already.

I haven't read SSH yet (Christmas holidays will change that), but I fully intend to take in the first read understanding the realities of my experience and skills.

[nsidestrate]

Wouldn't it also be fair to say that SSH is simply a book designed (either intentionally or not) for slightly more advanced players while the main thrust of ITH is towards beginners and intermediate players?

I think that is generally accurate. I think that the most significant differences between ITH and SSH will show up in how they play from the blinds.

[Bugsbunny]

I think ITH is correct in leaving it out of the charts, considering the target audience. I also think Ed is correct in including it considering both the target audience for his book (non-beginners), and the game types he's discussing.

Intermediate players should at least be thinking about these types of hands, even if they're not yet playing them.

[scandal]

Wouldn't it also be fair to say that SSH is simply a book designed (either intentionally or not) for slightly more advanced players while the main thrust of ITH is towards beginners and intermediate players?

I think that is generally accurate. I think that the most significant differences between ITH and SSH will show up in how they play from the blinds.

Isn't SSH also written to address a game where you opponents will be poor players (not paying attention to position/pot odds, cold calling too much)? ITH seems not to make this assumption so much (seems more noticeable in the late position charts where SSH will have you raise some hands like QJs regardless of the number of limpers in front). Even WLLH has you raising more hands after many limpers than ITH, and I think this has to do with the assumption that people will be limping with trash so raising preflop is +EV where it might not be against better players.

[nsidestrate]

Isn't SSH also written to address a game where you opponents will be poor players (not paying attention to position/pot odds, cold calling too much)?

Well, yes, but I would submit that some of the older texts are far too tight in terms of their assumptions about other players in today's game. Maybe it was right when they were written, but even some of Sklansky's starting hand stuff gives way too much credit to the current crop of players.

ITH seems not to make this assumption so much (seems more noticeable in the late position charts where SSH will have you raise some hands like QJs regardless of the number of limpers in front). Even WLLH has you raising more hands after many limpers than ITH, and I think this has to do with the assumption that people will be limping with trash so raising preflop is +EV where it might not be against better players.

I think Matthew wrote on this forum (or somewhere -- I'm sure I read it) that he deliberately reduced the number of hands he suggested that people raise pre-flop with because he was afraid that people would fall in love with their hands and overplay them post-flop. You will see this effect on others with AK all the time.