Comparing WLLH 3rd edition to 2nd edition

[binions]

I have read through the early, middle and late preflop sections in the 3rd edition. My observations of the changes:

3rd edition is 76 pages longer. Here are the additions:
Introduction + 5 pages
Limit sections +16 pages
Barry Tannenbaum's 10 common errors + 2 pages

The rest of the additional material resides in the 62 page SNG section, which contains some material ("Poker & Computers" and "Tournaments") that was in the Miscellaneous section of the 2nd edition.

Early Position
As for starting hands, Jones has tightened up and recommends more passive play in early position.

Tighter:
In early position unraised pots, he now says to fold QJs, JTs, A9s and 88/77 (these were calling hands in the 2nd edition). He now says to fold ATs and KQo until you are 3rd to act, and then he tells you to call with them.

In raised pots, he now recommends folding AJs and TT, where he recommended calling these in the 2nd edition.

More Passive:
In unraised pots, he recommends calling with KQs instead of raising (like he did before). Also, the text of the 3rd edition recommends calling with AJs, although the summary chart at the end of the chapter says to raise with AJs.

Changes in loose, passive games:
Borrowing a page from SSHE, he says if you expect 5-6 players to see the flop, then he now says you can call with any pair, even if the pot might be raised.

Middle Position
In middle position, Jones has a new section on a raise or fold philosophy when the pot hasn't been opened. He reiterates the "play any pair" philosophy if you expect 4-5 people to see the flop.

With big cards in middle position in an unraised pot, he now says to raise JTs. First, in he says to raise KJo and JTo (these were calling hands in the first edition). If limpers in front of you, he says call with KQo, AJo, ATo, KJo and JTo. Apparently, QJo is a folding hand since it is not mentioned.

For suited 1-gappers, J9s is the lowest playable (only with 4+ limpers). Compare T8s in the 2nd edition.

For suited kings, he now says KTs is as low as you go. In the second edition, K9-K7s were recommended in middle position.

When facing 3 bets cold, he now says to fold JJ.

When facing 1-3 limpers, he now says raise TT and above, and call 99-88. Earlier, it was raise 88 and above, and call 77-55. (Note, with 3 limpers + 2 blinds, you are getting 4.5 or 5:1 on your call. I would call with any pair after 3 limpers).

You are now supposed to fold J9s, T9s, 98s, KQo, KJo, QJo with 1-3 limpers in front.

QJs is totally missing from the middle position, 1-3 limper summary chart, while JTs is listed as both a raising and a calling hand. Me suspects a typo.

Against a raise, he now says to fold TT-99, except that you can play any pair in a raised pot if you are the 5th one in.

Late Position
He eliminates 65s, 54s, 86s, 75s, 96s, T7s, J8s, and Q9s.

He now recommends raising with medium pairs if you are the 6th one in.

Typo in the summary chart: says to raise 1-3 limpers with AA-TT, but call with 77. Text makes clear that he says raise with AA-88 in this case.

With 1-3 callers, you are supposed to now fold 66-55. These were calling hands in the previous edition.

With 1-3 callers, you are now not supposed to raise A9s, A9o and A8s, but you are supposed to raise JTs.

With 1-3 callers, you are now supposed to fold 87s-54s, T8s-75s, and K8s-K2s.

With 4 or more callers in front, you are now supposed to 65s-54s, 86s-53s, K8-K2s, and Qxs.

With a raise in front, you are now supposed to fold QJs and KJs unless it is going to be multiway.

[jemeisterman]

Thanks for the comparison to the 2nd Edition. I read about Lee Jones update for WLLH in The Intelligent Gambler, and was wondering what he modified specfically.

Nice outline of changes. Thanks.

[binions]

One pet peeve in the Odds chapter that persists in edition after edition.

He says it's 7.5:1 to flop a set with a pocket pair. It's actually 7.5:1 to flop a set or better (ie set, boat, quads).

Just flopping a set is 8.3:1.

[Shandrax]

I think I will never understand recipe-books like that one...

One should be reminded from the comparison to the dealer in Black Jack that a pure strategy will never work. Once people know what you are doing, you will lose (Fundamental Theorem of Poker). Poker is all about mixed strategies and adapting them specifically to the unique situation on your table.

How long will it take people to realize (or remember) this?

[SamG]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I will never understand recipe-books like that one...

[/ QUOTE ]
What's not to understand? They teach people not to play any two face cards and any two sooted. Someone who reads this book will play much better than your average low limit player and should be able to beat that game.

[ QUOTE ]
One should be reminded from the comparison to the dealer in Black Jack that a pure strategy will never work. Once people know what you are doing, you will lose (Fundamental Theorem of Poker).

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think the typical .5/1 player will even notice how you're playing?

Obviously, if you want to advance, you have to go beyond recipes, but this book will get you to the point where you stop hemorrhaging money.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
One should be reminded from the comparison to the dealer in Black Jack that a pure strategy will never work. Once people know what you are doing, you will lose (Fundamental Theorem of Poker).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, given that your opponents are actually sophonts. That's often in doubt in the smaller games. (Smaller being up to 2/4 inclusive on Party, and probably 10/20-15/30 something live.)

As long as the opponents think that the fact I am a Leo will have a bigger impact on how they do against me than the fact that I have read alot of poker books and spend a fair amount of effort on improving my game formulaic play is the best play.

A pure strategy, as long as it's actually close to the correct strategy against a table of amnesiacs, is what works best against morons.

I wonder how long it will take people to realize this. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[BarronVangorToth]

3rd > 2nd

but

SSH is still > 3rd

and it's FAR from close.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[Farfenugen]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I will never understand recipe-books like that one...

One should be reminded from the comparison to the dealer in Black Jack that a pure strategy will never work. Once people know what you are doing, you will lose (Fundamental Theorem of Poker). Poker is all about mixed strategies and adapting them specifically to the unique situation on your table.

How long will it take people to realize (or remember) this?

[/ QUOTE ]

When I first started playing limit poker my only experience with poker at all had been NL bar poker and NL home games with my friends. I was a total beginner at limit poker and my father told me to read WLLHE before I played any 3/6.

I would have been completely lost without formulaic books like WLLHE. I had no experience with small stakes hold'em. I was still struggling with concepts such as position(something I had to learn the hard way). WLLHE got me through the initial stages of learning to play limit hold'em. I have since graduated from WLLHE play and moved on to SSHE. Now I understand the concepts behind the actions and I can make intelligent decisions.

But, I cannot underestimate the importance that WLLHE played in my development as a poker player. The formulaic play kept me playing long enough to become comfortable with, and seek to continue learning about the game.

[vulturesrow]

Barron,

You are comparing apples and oranges here. SSH is simply not a beginner's book, no matter how generous you are with the term. I see WLLH as a beginner's book and as such it is just fine. I think a more valid comparison is GSIH and WLLH. Personally, I think it is great that Lee was able to incorporate some changes to improve it. It takes some guts to do something like this. I am sure profit was motivator too of course. /images/graemlins/smile.gif But there is no question that this book can turn a beginning player into a winning one at the low limit games. SSH is most likely going to lead a beginner to spewing chips all over the table and wondering where he went wrong, unless he is one of the rare breed that just "gets it".

[Steve00007]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I will never understand recipe-books like that one...

One should be reminded from the comparison to the dealer in Black Jack that a pure strategy will never work. Once people know what you are doing, you will lose (Fundamental Theorem of Poker). Poker is all about mixed strategies and adapting them specifically to the unique situation on your table.


[/ QUOTE ]

Beginners don't care what you are doing. Many of them don't even try to read your hands.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi binions:

I won't get into many specifics but I do disagree with much of this. Here's one example:

[ QUOTE ]
In early position unraised pots, he now says to fold QJs, JTs, A9s and 88/77

[/ QUOTE ]

As we have pointed out for years, WLLH is targeted for low limit games which usually feature many players who play too many hands and go too far with them. I can't see how any of these hands won't show a profit in games like this when you can initially come in for a limp.

But I have another problem with all of this that i want to address here. From what I read Edition Two needed a lot of fixing. From The Intelligent Gambler:

[ QUOTE ]
I asked Barry [Tannebaum] to grab a copy of WLLH and a pen and start marking. And mark he did, leaving red ink on most of the pages. ... And in some cases: "I hate this -- it produces leaks." I listened, contemplated, argued, and (usually) eventually agreed with his recommendations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I remember Jones over the years getting pretty upset with me because I said this book had a lot of errors, and I remember Jones getting even more upset with Ed Miller for being very specific about much of the advice in Edition 2.

Now Lee, you can't have it both ways. You need to admit that we were right and your book needed a lot of fixing. I haven't read the third edition yet, but I hope you realize that I was absolutely correct in not publishing your first edition years ago. I also hope that your third edition is now finally a top notch guide to the new player, but I will withhold any judgement until I have read it thoroughly (and it will be a while before I can get to it).

Best wishes,
Mason

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I will never understand recipe-books like that one...

One should be reminded from the comparison to the dealer in Black Jack that a pure strategy will never work. Once people know what you are doing, you will lose (Fundamental Theorem of Poker). Poker is all about mixed strategies and adapting them specifically to the unique situation on your table.

How long will it take people to realize (or remember) this?

[/ QUOTE ]

When I first started playing limit poker my only experience with poker at all had been NL bar poker and NL home games with my friends. I was a total beginner at limit poker and my father told me to read WLLHE before I played any 3/6.

I would have been completely lost without formulaic books like WLLHE. I had no experience with small stakes hold'em. I was still struggling with concepts such as position(something I had to learn the hard way). WLLHE got me through the initial stages of learning to play limit hold'em. I have since graduated from WLLHE play and moved on to SSHE. Now I understand the concepts behind the actions and I can make intelligent decisions.

But, I cannot underestimate the importance that WLLHE played in my development as a poker player. The formulaic play kept me playing long enough to become comfortable with, and seek to continue learning about the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, my background comes from chess and in chess there are countless "Winning with..."-books. Some beginner will buy it, memorize the lines and then start wondering why he keeps losing to guys who don't even know (this) theory.

Yes agreed, books like that may be a good way to start, but people should not expect to make a fortune in online play with it, simply because it ain't that easy.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes agreed, books like that may be a good way to start, but people should not expect to make a fortune in online play with it, simply because it ain't that easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, a player who plays exactly as Jones suggests will most likely not be able to make much more than $50/hr.

[Rob-L]

I think you need to remember the audience of the book. It's aimed at beginners, and formula's are a good way for a beginner to learn, and hopefully they'll be playing other beginners and/or uniformed players.

At the low limits, I think you'll find both beginners and the uninformed. So in that regard, the book's advice is good. But to advance your skill and play at higher limits, I agree, you need to think outside the formulas.

But, for you to say WLLHE is no good because you won't beat better players or make a lot of money is like saying a Ford Festiva is no good because it will never win a NASCAR Race. It won't, but of course, that is not what it was designed to do. Just like a Festiva is designed for basic transportation, WLLHE is designed to help beginners and low-limit players beat, or at least not get crushed, at the games they are playing.

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes agreed, books like that may be a good way to start, but people should not expect to make a fortune in online play with it, simply because it ain't that easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a book for small stakes games. In that context, you're entirely wrong. Fancy moves in these games will only make you lose money. Making fomulaic, correct plays will bring in the dough.

SSH is similarly formulaic in its approach to the same subject. Sklansky claims that using the formulaic approach outlined in SSH, many people are making >$50,000 per year and that it is relatively easy to do so. I will grant you that $50,000 isn't a fortune, but it is an above-average salary and a lot of money to make playing a game.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi binions:

I won't get into many specifics but I do disagree with much of this. Here's one example:

[ QUOTE ]
In early position unraised pots, he now says to fold QJs, JTs, A9s and 88/77

[/ QUOTE ]

As we have pointed out for years, WLLH is targeted for low limit games which usually feature many players who play too many hands and go too far with them. I can't see how any of these hands won't show a profit in games like this when you can initially come in for a limp.


[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree.

In low limit games where 4-6 people see the flop, I don't see how you can fold middle pairs and suited cards that add to 20 in unraised pots.

I like Barry T, but does he play low limit holdem? These new starting hand guidelines seem more appropriate for tighter, tougher games.

[Ed Miller]

To be fair, in the GSIH chart I recommend playing QJs, 88, and 77 up front and folding A9s and JTs. Obviously in SSH I recommend playing all of those hands.

I nixed two hands, A9s and JTs, that are probably somewhat profitable even for a beginner. I did it because I wanted to exaggerate to a beginner that you have to play super-tightly up front.

So, in other words, if WLLH is specifically targetted for beginners and not for loose games, then I'm not too concerned that he has you folding a few too many hands up front.

Having said that, I've discussed UTG play with Barry before, and he recommends some folds that I think are clearly at odds with what the Pokerroom stats suggest.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
Barron,

You are comparing apples and oranges here. SSH is simply not a beginner's book, no matter how generous you are with the term.

[/ QUOTE ]


If you don't consider SSH a beginner's book (and I'm fine with not thinking that it is) then wouldn't you recommend Getting Started in Hold 'em?

Soooo many of my friends are getting into poker with this whole craze and all of them have been through the Triple Threat Tutorial of Getting Started in Hold 'em, Theory of Poker, and Small Stakes Hold 'em ... are we missing something here, because, from here, we have Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players and, if you're looking for tournament action, Dan Harrington's fine books, and, why not, getting your head into the game with Dr. Al's Psychology of Poker.

While 3rd > 2nd ... I'm not sure most need 3rd ... and there is still advice that I think is hurtful. And, as David Sklansky advised, much like with doctors, poker books should "do no harm" -- and I believe 3rd still has some advice that may be harmful ... maybe it won't lose you money in some spots, but places you should make money, you won't.

It's better ... but I don't think it's part of the necessary lexicon for most players.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]

So, in other words, if WLLH is specifically targeted for beginners and not for loose games, then I'm not too concerned that he has you folding a few too many hands up front.


[/ QUOTE ]

To be even more fair, in the text he does say "if the game is loose and passive (4-5 see the flop for 1 bet), you can shade these requirements down a little with your suited hands and (even more so) your pocket pairs. In fact, if you expect 5-6 players to see the flop, you can call with any pocket pair even if it's going to cost you multiple bets."

So, ATs, KTs, QJs and middle pairs are OK in loose passive games for beginners. And any pair in no foldem games.

I can live with that. Still think that QTs, JTs and A9s are playable in loose passive low limit games, however.

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
I can live with that. Still think that QTs, JTs and A9s are playable in loose passive low limit games, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

They definitely are.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes agreed, books like that may be a good way to start, but people should not expect to make a fortune in online play with it, simply because it ain't that easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a book for small stakes games. In that context, you're entirely wrong. Fancy moves in these games will only make you lose money. Making fomulaic, correct plays will bring in the dough.

SSH is similarly formulaic in its approach to the same subject. Sklansky claims that using the formulaic approach outlined in SSH, many people are making >$50,000 per year and that it is relatively easy to do so. I will grant you that $50,000 isn't a fortune, but it is an above-average salary and a lot of money to make playing a game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, 50k/year ain't nothing to laugh about.

If I get it correctly the goal is to play like a "Blackjack-dealer". You have a script you run through and cash in on all the guys who play with more leaks over the long run than you do.

Now if it is indeed that easy, a bot should be able to to it, so I predict that the small stakes game will be dead the moment someone manages to get an interface going with Partypoker /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Btw, I wonder how 5 SSH-bots would do against 5 WLLH-bots in a ring game over 1000000 hands. Basically the ultimate proof which book is superior.

[LozColbert]

Mason, for once I wish you would tell us what you really think. Your total lack of candor is amazing.

[LozColbert]

[ QUOTE ]
Soooo many of my friends are getting into poker with this whole craze and all of them have been through the Triple Threat Tutorial of Getting Started in Hold 'em, Theory of Poker, and Small Stakes Hold 'em

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have King Yao's book anywhere in there? I do.

[daveymck]

[ QUOTE ]

Btw, I wonder how 5 SSH-bots would do against 5 WLLH-bots in a ring game over 1000000 hands. Basically the ultimate proof which book is superior.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would go no way to prove which book is superior, if you sat one bot against 9 typical party .5/1 players that would be the test, otherwise the conditions of 10 tagish type players would not be realistic to the conditions each of the two systems need to be profitable.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't have King Yao's book anywhere in there? I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

King Yao's book is quite good, agreed, but in the last few months, a number of my friends have gotten into poker and wanted to get the basics down first. King Yao's is good additional info after the basics, but not worth adding a 4th book to an already daunting curriculum ... Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players undoubtedly would come AFTER Weighing the Odds, but I'd still say that the first three they should read are Getting Started, TOP, and SSH. If you JUST had to give people three texts to get rolling, I think those are the three best.

And, to keep this on subject, even though WLLH 3rd > 2nd, I still wouldn't put it into the rotation. Not in 2005 and the madness that is the current metagame.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[tipperdog]

[ QUOTE ]

I like Barry T, but does he play low limit holdem? These new starting hand guidelines seem more appropriate for tighter, tougher games.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, a shameless plug for Barry T, my coach: No, he doesn't play much low limit--but he's one heck of a LL coach. Also, after I miraculously qualified for the WSOP, Barry very graciously spoke with me 2-3 times per day during the tourney, offering strategic thoughts and well-timed reminders to stay patient. Barry is a great coach and a great guy.

I believe this "conflict" over how to play QJs, A9s, etc. really isn't one at all. There is, however, a disagreement about the character of LL games available today.

I agree that a hand like A9s (or any AXs) is limpable pre-flop if you can be reasonably sure that you'll build a high-volume, unraised pot. I'm sure Barry T would agree. SSHE operates under the assumption that such pots are the norm. However, I find that most LL games are, in fact, tighter. Certainly, they are looser than bigger limit games, but are 7-way limp-fests the norm? Reading the SSHE forums, you'd think not.

Consistently, I find that the type of games SSHE is written for simply aren't available. For that reason, I've abandoned many of its recommendations (such as limping early with hands that crave volume), with good results, I think.

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that a hand like A9s (or any AXs) is limpable pre-flop if you can be reasonably sure that you'll build a high-volume, unraised pot. I'm sure Barry T would agree. SSHE operates under the assumption that such pots are the norm. However, I find that most LL games are, in fact, tighter. Certainly, they are looser than bigger limit games, but are 7-way limp-fests the norm? Reading the SSHE forums, you'd think not.

Consistently, I find that the type of games SSHE is written for simply aren't available. For that reason, I've abandoned many of its recommendations (such as limping early with hands that crave volume), with good results, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you mischaracterize the sorts of games SSH was written for, and I also think you are making a big mistake when you say "A9s (or any AXs)," lumping the two together. A9s is a VERY different hand than A2s. And if you fold it UTG in a "typical" online low-limit game, you are missing the boat. I know Barry says different, but this is one scenario that I think he's just plain wrong about.

As modest evidence, I present Pokerroom.com stats (http://www.pokerroom.com/main/page/games/evstats/expValue) that are the results of average players with hands in various positions. If you look up A9s, and set position to ANY, players to ANY, and table limit to whatever you want, you'll see that A9s is profitable TO THE AVERAGE PLAYER in any position.

Then do the same for A2s, and you'll see a BIG difference. A9s is nothing but black, but A2s has red all over.

Barry's recommendations for play UTG are too conservative for all but the toughest games.

[Albert Silver]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that a hand like A9s (or any AXs) is limpable pre-flop if you can be reasonably sure that you'll build a high-volume, unraised pot. I'm sure Barry T would agree. SSHE operates under the assumption that such pots are the norm. However, I find that most LL games are, in fact, tighter. Certainly, they are looser than bigger limit games, but are 7-way limp-fests the norm? Reading the SSHE forums, you'd think not.

Consistently, I find that the type of games SSHE is written for simply aren't available. For that reason, I've abandoned many of its recommendations (such as limping early with hands that crave volume), with good results, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you mischaracterize the sorts of games SSH was written for, and I also think you are making a big mistake when you say "A9s (or any AXs)," lumping the two together. A9s is a VERY different hand than A2s. And if you fold it UTG in a "typical" online low-limit game, you are missing the boat. I know Barry says different, but this is one scenario that I think he's just plain wrong about.

As modest evidence, I present Pokerroom.com stats (http://www.pokerroom.com/main/page/games/evstats/expValue) that are the results of average players with hands in various positions. If you look up A9s, and set position to ANY, players to ANY, and table limit to whatever you want, you'll see that A9s is profitable TO THE AVERAGE PLAYER in any position.

Then do the same for A2s, and you'll see a BIG difference. A9s is nothing but black, but A2s has red all over.

Barry's recommendations for play UTG are too conservative for all but the toughest games.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a really interesting resource I didn't know about. Thanks.

I entered A2s for $1/$2, 10 players and any position and got a grand total average of 0.00 wins and losses in BBs. It's true that each and every higher kicker with that ace got a steadily higher result though. One interesting item was the result on Ace with a non-suited card: ANY combination that wasn't at least an ATo yielded a negative result overall no matter the position (even the button). Since the button would be the most likely candidate for an A9o to yield a profit, I checked also the different limits. It remains a losing proposition (all positions) up to and including $5/$10 limits. At $10/$20 it becomes profitable only at the button. A8o, just to compare, still remains a loser though. All in all, interesting stuff.

Albert

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a really interesting resource I didn't know about. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it's cool. But you should definitely be aware that their sample sizes aren't always maybe what they should be... especially for the higher limits like $25-$50. The numbers are unbolded if the sample size is particularly inadequate, but if you look at almost any data, you'll see significant noise.

Having said that, it's often safe to draw conclusions because the data is overwhelming, and A9s is one hand for which I believe the data is overwhelming.

[playersare]

way way back even before I had read or completely understood any of the major poker books, I compiled and sorted the pokerroom hand EV's in order, and taped the useful portion to my wall. helped to reduce the bleeding until I actually figured out what the hell I was doing.

A-A 2.32
K-K 1.67
Q-Q 1.22
J-J 0.86
A-K s 0.77
A-Q s 0.59
T-T 0.58
A-K 0.51
A-J s 0.43
K-Q s 0.39
9-9 0.38
A-T s 0.33
A-Q 0.31
K-J s 0.29
8-8 0.25
Q-J s 0.23
K-T s 0.20
A-J 0.19
A-9 s 0.18
Q-T s 0.17
K-Q 0.16
7-7 0.16
J-T s 0.15
A-8 s 0.10
K-9 s 0.09
A-T 0.08
A-7 s 0.08
A-5 s 0.08
K-J 0.07
6-6 0.07
A-4 s 0.06
Q-9 s 0.06
T-9 s 0.05
J-9 s 0.04
A-6 s 0.03
Q-J 0.03
5-5 0.02
A-3 s 0.02
K-8 s 0.01
K-T 0.01
A-2 s 0.00
9-8 s 0.00

K-7 s -0.00
T-8 s -0.00
Q-T -0.02
Q-8 s -0.02
8-7 s -0.02
A-9 -0.03
J-T -0.03
J-8 s -0.03
7-6 s -0.03
4-4 -0.03
K-6 s -0.04
9-7 s -0.04
K-5 s -0.05
K-4 s -0.05
T-7 s -0.05
Q-7 s -0.06
A-8 -0.07
K-9 -0.07
J-7 s -0.07
8-6 s -0.07
3-3 -0.07
K-3 s -0.08
K-2 s -0.08
Q-9 -0.08
J-9 -0.08
T-9 -0.08
Q-6 s -0.08
5-4 s -0.08
2-2 -0.09

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
... I'd still say that the first three they should read are Getting Started, TOP, and SSH. If you JUST had to give people three texts to get rolling, I think those are the three best.



[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously? I kind of wonder and I'll tell you why: Clearly we are talking Hold'em only here because the two Miller books only deal with Hold'em, mostly Limit.

While I do not disagree that at some point TOP is vital, for real 'understanding' of poker in general, I can't see putting it second because so very many of the games use to elucidate an idea are games other than Hold'em--games the person new to poker (we are talking Hold'em here remember)are going to find totally alien to them.

I am going to say that if you are a Hold'em player the progression should be:

1. Getting Started
2. SSH
3. HPFAP

---Leavenfish

[pokerbear]

Hi. Ed is correct that the hands he specifies are playable up front by competent players. Is that really the question, however?

WLLH has a target audience of fairly new players. These players need to start somewhere on their road to success. On way is to play slightly tighter, especially up front, than you might if you already played pretty well.

A problem with QTs, JTs is that newer players cannot get off these hands when they run into kicker trouble. So they pay off and say, "Nice kicker" to the players with dominating hands. This lack of judgement cuts into their earn, and ought to be avoided. WLLH is not meant to be a prescription for the best possible strategic play; it is meant to get newer players profitable.

(As long as I am here, let me answer the question about my playing low limit. I did that for many years as I earned my way, and I do not anymore. I do however coach many lower limit players, and I see hundreds of hands indicating how my students and their opponents act and think. I am not out of touch with low limit play.)

BarryT

[GreywolfNYC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I like Barry T, but does he play low limit holdem? These new starting hand guidelines seem more appropriate for tighter, tougher games.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, a shameless plug for Barry T, my coach: No, he doesn't play much low limit--but he's one heck of a LL coach. Also, after I miraculously qualified for the WSOP, Barry very graciously spoke with me 2-3 times per day during the tourney, offering strategic thoughts and well-timed reminders to stay patient. Barry is a great coach and a great guy.

I believe this "conflict" over how to play QJs, A9s, etc. really isn't one at all. There is, however, a disagreement about the character of LL games available today.

I agree that a hand like A9s (or any AXs) is limpable pre-flop if you can be reasonably sure that you'll build a high-volume, unraised pot. I'm sure Barry T would agree. SSHE operates under the assumption that such pots are the norm. However, I find that most LL games are, in fact, tighter. Certainly, they are looser than bigger limit games, but are 7-way limp-fests the norm? Reading the SSHE forums, you'd think not.

Consistently, I find that the type of games SSHE is written for simply aren't available. For that reason, I've abandoned many of its recommendations (such as limping early with hands that crave volume), with good results, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm also a student of Barry's. His advice is always rock-solid and has made me nothing but money.
(if you read this, Barry, Tina sends a hug).

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Barry:

Low limit games feature many players who play too many hands and automatically go too far with their hands. These are precisely the type of games which maximize the value of hands like JTs and QTs.

If your book was called something like Surviving Low Limit Hold 'em or even Getting Started in Hold 'em I could perhaps buy your argument. But throwing away hands that are not marginal makes little sense to me.

[ QUOTE ]
A problem with QTs, JTs is that newer players cannot get off these hands when they run into kicker trouble. So they pay off and say, "Nice kicker" to the players with dominating hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if you're on the button with JTs and five people limp in are you saying be prepared to say "nice kicker?"

Best wishes,
Mason

[GreywolfNYC]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Barry:

Low limit games feature many players who play too many hands and automatically go too far with their hands. These are precisely the type of games which maximize the value of hands like JTs and QTs.

If your book was called something like Surviving Low Limit Hold 'em or even Getting Started in Hold 'em I could perhaps buy your argument. But throwing away hands that are not marginal makes little sense to me.

[ QUOTE ]
A problem with QTs, JTs is that newer players cannot get off these hands when they run into kicker trouble. So they pay off and say, "Nice kicker" to the players with dominating hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if you're on the button with JTs and five people limp in are you saying be prepared to say "nice kicker?"

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,
As one of Barrry's students I think I can answer this very easily. Barry doesnt recommend playing these hands in early position, not on the button. I think the play of hands in EP is one of the areas where his ideas differ from those in SSHE. For what its worth, he is also not fond of open-limping from any position. I suspect this is another point on which you disagree.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Barry:

Low limit games feature many players who play too many hands and automatically go too far with their hands. These are precisely the type of games which maximize the value of hands like JTs and QTs.

If your book was called something like Surviving Low Limit Hold 'em or even Getting Started in Hold 'em I could perhaps buy your argument. But throwing away hands that are not marginal makes little sense to me.

[ QUOTE ]
A problem with QTs, JTs is that newer players cannot get off these hands when they run into kicker trouble. So they pay off and say, "Nice kicker" to the players with dominating hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if you're on the button with JTs and five people limp in are you saying be prepared to say "nice kicker?"

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,
As one of Barrry's students I think I can answer this very easily. Barry doesnt recommend playing these hands in early position, not on the button. I think the play of hands in EP is one of the areas where his ideas differ from those in SSHE. For what its worth, he is also not fond of open-limping from any position. I suspect this is another point on which you disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

You miss the point. I think Mason is implying that if Barry thinks JTs is OK to play in late position after several limpers, then there is little difference in playing JTs in early position in a loose, passive game that normally has several limpers.

Yes, late position gives you an informational advantage, and a raise behind you is less likely, so it's not exactly the same. But, in some passive games, its darn close.

As for open limping, that's a whole other debate.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi wolf:

The point I'm bringing up is slightly different from what you think. The complaint for many years among many players is "How do you beat these games for the maximum where many of your opponents won't fold, and conventional strategies seem to have difficulty?"

Suppose Barry told you to only play ace-king suited, aces, and kings in early position in the games that WLLH is targeted for. You could then make the exact same argument and claim that you do win.

By the way, if the pot is raised and you're on the button with JTs you should call if there are a bunch of people in.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
For what its worth, he is also not fond of open-limping from any position. I suspect this is another point on which you disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. I do disagree strongly. Some hands need large implied odds and multiway action. In certain loose games, such as those WLLH is supposedly targeted for, this can easily be achieved.

So for example, small pairs should often be played for a limp up front while raising (when first in) would clearly be wrong.

This brings us back to the JTs. Since it also likes high implied odds and multiway action, it should be right to limp in up front with these hands but not open raise with them.

The advice to not open-limp from any position seems to me to be a style that just might work well in certain particular games, especially if you cut down on the number of hands. But it also shows a lack of complete understanding of exactly what it is that gives a hand value.

You may want to look at Small Stakes Hold 'em where there is a discussion on this very point (of what it is that gives a hand value). It might change your outlook on these matters.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Shandrax]

JTs has the potential to win big pots, agreed. The problem is this: Many times you won't hit the flop and you fold. On other times you hit the flop, but your high cards are dominated. On other occasions you hit the flop and connect to the straight or the flush (note: this is the potential big hand), but everyone else FOLDS because they got nothing.

In the most part of the discussion about the true potential of JTs or other suited connectors many people seem to underestimate that you need two conditions to be true: You need to hit your hand which is already difficult enough AND the other guys need to be willing to continue with the pot. The combination of both makes this ideal situation very rare.

Same goes for baby pairs like 2-2. Yes, you will hit the set every once in a while, but in lots of these cases the pot will stay small because the other guys fold.

Your big pot potential will realize not whenever you flop the nuts, but when other guys flop something also which happens 1/x times 1/y = 1/xy!

Does the payoff for this compensate for the bets you are going to lose every single time you miss it?

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
You need to hit your hand which is already difficult enough AND the other guys need to be willing to continue with the pot. The combination of both makes this ideal situation very rare.

[/ QUOTE ]

Open-limping JTs is still a winner for me in the Party Poker 5/10 game, which anyone will agree is significantly tighter than the games being discussed in this thread. Folding it in EP in a game with plenty of calling stations is incredibly dumb.

I challenge you to find anyone who is a significant winner in loose games who is a loser with JTs in EP.

[ QUOTE ]
Does the payoff for this compensate for the bets you are going to lose every single time you miss it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Shandrax:

[ QUOTE ]
You need to hit your hand which is already difficult enough AND the other guys need to be willing to continue with the pot. The combination of both makes this ideal situation very rare.


[/ QUOTE ]

Low limit games typically feature many players who not only play too many hands but automatically go to far with them. This is typical of many players who are new to poker and is well described in Jones' book (both 1st and 2nd editions).

If the game is as you describe, then I can accept your argument.

Best wishes,
mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Rudbaeck:

The absolutely correct answer to this question is what is your game like. But in general, low limit games feature many players who play too many hands and go too far with them. But if you're in some particular game and that is not the case, then adjust your strategy accordingly.

best wishes,
mason

[pokerbear]

Hi. A lot to cover here.

1 - Open limping: I do tell many students not to open limp. This is a function of the games they play in, the image they are trying to project, and the fact that forcing peopple to open raise keeps them from playing a number of hands that they should not play when first in. Of course hands have value that rises and falls with the number of players, the typical aggression level and the ability of the players to play post-flop. And yes, if a game is overwhelmingly loose-passive, I will open-limp with pocket pairs and some large suited connectors, among others.

2 - I am nevertheless more sensitive to position than many others seem to be. Even if you feel your game is loose and passive, some one may pick up a big pair behind you and raise, cutting down on the typical size of the field. If there are five limpers, I caertainly advocate (at least) limping on the button with JTs. Does that still give novices problems when they flop top pair? Yes. Might they still misplay? Yes. But at least they have made a definite correct play, and get to act last on all streets, giving them an incrementally better chance to play decently if not optimally. A novice limping up front might find himself in a number of far less desirable situations than the one described.

3 - I want to thank my students in this thread for leaping to my defense, and for their endorsements (and hi to Tina, too). I beg them to remember that each student gets different advice geared to his style, ability, goals, and the games they are playing in. I do not give generic advice in a one-size-fits-all fashion.

BarryT

[Rudbaeck]

2: It doesn't matter that occasionally the person on your left raises and isolates you. Overall you still remain a winner limping JTs UTG in a somewhat passive game.

The average player is turning a profit with JTs UTG in loose games. Recommending someone who is even remotely skilled to fold here is giving up alot! (Somewhere around 0.25BB or so.)

[GreywolfNYC]

[ QUOTE ]
You may want to look at Small Stakes Hold 'em where there is a discussion on this very point (of what it is that gives a hand value). It might change your outlook on these matters.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Mason,
Actually I have looked at SSHE, closely in fact. I believe that the style of play that Barry has helped me develop is better suited to the games that I regularly play, mostly in NYC and sometimes in AC at the 10-20 & 15-30 limits. The games tend to be either tight-aggressive or somewhat loose-aggressive. A hand involving six or seven limpers is a rarity. On average, three to five players are seeing the flop for three bets. From what I've seen of the 10-20 at the Mirage (I'm in Vegas about 30 days a year), it is far more loose-passive than the games I'm accustomed to.

On a side note, when I first met Barry in Las Vegas, he specifically asked me what limits I played, how much experience I had, and what I wanted to accomplish in poker. I told him I wanted to consistently beat the lower middle limit, live cash games for now and move up when my bankroll could handle it. Eventually I'd like to play full time in Las Vegas. The advice he has given me has been directed specifically to my level of experience and my personal goals. I think that he has been working not only to help me at the limits I play now, but also prepare me to move up when I'm ready to do so.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Wolf:

Okay. I would suggest that you try to understand the underlying theory of the game. That way you will be able to adjust your play depending on the game that you are in. Right now it looks like you have a cookbook approach that may be working well in the one specific game that you are playing, but it certainly won't work well for the games that WLLH are targeted for, and that's what this thread is about.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

I'm sorry but I thought this thread was about WLLH, a book that is targeted towards specific games which generally feature players who play too many hands and go to far with them. It appears that you have mixed in your advice (in the book) which is not targeted towards these games. (I say appears since I have not yet read the third edition.) It now sounds like WLLH advice is more in line with our book HPFAP. I guess that's okay if you're playing those games which HPFAP is targeted for, but if you're playing low limit games the specific advice that we are looking at, is, as Ed Miller has stated, too conservative and will not allow your readers to win at the optimum.

Now this doesn't mean they won't win, and it also doesn't mean that your loyal students don't win. It also doesn't mean that you don't win. But it does mean that the words on the pages need to be examined t see if they are the best that can be produced, and I suspect from what I have read in this thread that they are not.

One other point. Over the years I have noticed a number of poker students who are very loyal to their instructors. They feel that if it wasn't for their instructors they wouldn't be winners, and perhaps that is the case. But that doesn't mean that they were given the absolutely best information. In most poker games, and this is particularly true today with all the new players, if you just get typical players to tighten up substantially, they will begin to win. See my book Poker Essays, Volume III for more discussion.


Best wishes,
Mason

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
A problem with QTs, JTs is that newer players cannot get off these hands when they run into kicker trouble. So they pay off and say, "Nice kicker" to the players with dominating hands. This lack of judgement cuts into their earn, and ought to be avoided. WLLH is not meant to be a prescription for the best possible strategic play; it is meant to get newer players profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course these hands can give people kicker problems. And they give everyone kicker problems, not just beginners, though beginners will get into a few more bad situations than better players.

But whether the hands give kicker problems or not isn't really the issue. The issue is whether these hands are PROFITABLE or not. Merely asserting that they are problem hands doesn't make your case.

These are my points:

1. Hands should be recommended based on whether they are profitable or not.

2. The profitability of certain hands from certain positions can be fairly well surmised from the Pokerroom.com stats (http://www.pokerroom.com/main/page/games/evstats/expValue) stats available for free on the web.

3. Trying to argue this point without looking at the available data is more than a little silly.

In GSiH, I recommend that beginners fold QTs and JTs up front as well. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about some of your other UTG recommendations.

I've personally heard you recommend, not just to beginners, but to experienced players that they fold stuff like ace-jack offsuit and ace-ten suited UTG. I've even heard you recommend folding pocket nines up front.

Forgive me if I've misheard or misremembered your advice, but one look at the Pokerroom stats should convince you that folding ATs or 99 up front is just plain silly. And it should bring the prudence of folding AJ into serious question.

Yes, they are beginners. Yes, they should get tighter recommendations than good players. But please don't get carried away.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Ed:

[ QUOTE ]
Forgive me if I've misheard or misremembered your advice, but one look at the Pokerroom stats should convince you that folding ATs or 99 up front is just plain silly. And it should bring the prudence of folding AJ into serious question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to carry this a little further my understanding is that the pokerroom stats are based on everyone's play. This includes both good and bad players. So if a hand there is profitable for everyone, it should be even more profitable for someone who plays well.

Best wishes,
Mason

[tipperdog]

Mason,

I think you make some fair points here. You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
One other point. Over the years I have noticed a number of poker students who are very loyal to their instructors. They feel that if it wasn't for their instructors they wouldn't be winners, and perhaps that is the case. But that doesn't mean that they were given the absolutely best information.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am loyal to Barry, as I do believe his advice has substantially increased my win rate. Of course, it's impossible to know if his advice is the "absolute best" (though I'd be immediately suspicious of anyone who claimed to know the "absolute best" answer in all circumstances).

However, Barry bases his advice for me on my playing style and the hands and games we've discussed. Accordingly, I'm much more willing to give his advice the benefit of the doubt, even if that advice contradicts the guidance in SSHE, HEFAP, or PokerRoom EV charts. I don't think that's blind loyalty at all; it actually seems quite reasonable.

[GreywolfNYC]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Wolf:

Okay. I would suggest that you try to understand the underlying theory of the game. That way you will be able to adjust your play depending on the game that you are in. Right now it looks like you have a cookbook approach that may be working well in the one specific game that you are playing, but it certainly won't work well for the games that WLLH are targeted for, and that's what this thread is about.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Mason,
I appreciate your advice very much. I've also worked hard to have a good understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of the game, and I continue to study TOP and HEPFAP and refer back to both of those works frequently. In my humble opinion, HEPFAP is the seminal work on limit hold'em and I expect it will be for a long time to come.

I do, in fact, adjust my game all the time. Rather than using a cookbook approach in all situations I will modify my playing style based on who my opponents are and what kind of game I'm in.

I was winning money playing poker before Barry started teaching me. I decided to take lessons from him because I wanted to improve. This I can tell you: rather than using a sort of pro forma approach to the game, Barry's lessons have much more in common with those in Barry Greenstein's book. Yes, we discuss specific hands and different plays, but at the heart of his teaching is the greater importance of position and people than the cards themsleves.
All the best,
GWNYC

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
PokerRoom EV charts. I don't think that's blind loyalty at all; it actually seems quite reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

He tells you to fold a hand that an average player (not an average winning, but one of the pretty steady losers) is making a profit on, and you think following the recommendation is reasonable?

You're paying to be told to fold solidly profitable hands?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Wolf:

I suggest you give Small Stakes Hold 'em a good reading. There are some explanations in there about how and why hands gain positive value that you should find helpful.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi dog:

I have no problem. These are your decisions and you'll have to make them yourself. On the other hand, it's very clear to me that some of this advice is wrong for the games that WLLH is targeted for. Also, it's probably more important for you to get a complete fundamental understanding of the underlying theory of the game if you have not already done so. This will allow you to make the proper adjustments, as opposed to wild plays that I see some regulars make all the time at the poker table.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Rudbaeck:

I have a theory about certain writers and teachers, and it may apply here (but I'm not sure). It is the idea that these people think back on their losing plays, whether they were correct or not, and then conclude that perhaps they shouldn't have played the hand, or called the raise, or made the raise in the first place, etc. So this begins to translate into them giving weak-tight advice which is long term harmful for their students/readers even though it will allow formerly losing players to win a little.

An example is a couple of years ago I went to a luncheon where the speaker gave a little poker talk. Part of it included the following advice (which was suppose to be targeted for beginners):

On the flop, if you don't think you have the best hand or the best draw you should fold.

So from this you should conclude that in a large multiway pot, if you flop an open end straight draw you should fold if there is a two flush on board since obviously there is probably a flush draw out. The fact that you may have six outs to the nuts is not a reason to play.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Rudbaeck]

I think he simply has missed the wealth of empirical data available today.

PokerRoom, players with half a million of their own hands in database, large datamining projects for example.

[tipperdog]

FWIW, Barry generally thinks I play too weakly, and usually, he's advising me to bet and raise more.

Also, you wrote:[ QUOTE ]
It's probably more important for you to get a complete fundamental understanding of the underlying theory of the game if you have not already done so.

[/ QUOTE ]

What can I say? It's a work in progress /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Rudbaeck]

I've now read the entire book. And I can say without hesitation that I gladly lend this to any friend who is a poker newbie wanting to learn more. Almost all the weak-tight advice is gone.

He now pumps draws, folds TPNK only when met with resistance action from multiple opponents etc. (No longer assuming you are beat because your flop bet was called.)

He attributes most of it to Barry, but it reads as if a crew from the SS forum here had revised the book! Many of the loose game concepts hashed out here over the last few years are included.

The play isn't always optimal, and it has some very bizarre errors, like the part about calling based on Game Theory. But I no longer have to hold a 30 minute sermon on what is wrong with the introductory text!

Anyone who learns to play this style will beat the Party 2/4 for a fair amount. More can be won, but I don't think teaching that complex a style in one single book is even remotely possible.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]

1. Hands should be recommended based on whether they are profitable or not.


[/ QUOTE ]

A small disagreement, Mr. Miller, but shouldn't variance play some role in these recommendations as well. I think it might be a mistake to instruct beginners to play small +EV but high variance hands for a few reasons.

First, no matter how much you tell them that poker is a long term game, short term results will matter. If they are lucky and are big winners up front with QTs, then all of a sudden, J9s, 65s and QTo start to look pretty good, with predictable results. On the other hand, if they get rocked with these trouble hands by always having to say "nice kicker" and such, then they might just say "to hell with it" about the whole thing and either start playing wild and crazy or not playing at all.

Second, I think it is incredibly likely that many, many new players are underbankrolled, and variance is the enemy.

Now, not many of the players who can use a WLLH-type book will really understand either of those caveats, so instead of getting them in 'trouble' with marginally proftiable hands, why not sacrifice a tiny bit of EV for the sake of low variance, clarity and to drive home the point (as you do in GSIH) that tight play is required.

Note, I'm not expressing an opinion on the specific recommendations made but any of the works mentioned in this thread, I just wanted to make the point that focusing *solely* on EV is not always appropriate when dealing with new players.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1. Hands should be recommended based on whether they are profitable or not.


[/ QUOTE ]

A small disagreement, Mr. Miller, but shouldn't variance play some role in these recommendations as well. I think it might be a mistake to instruct beginners to play small +EV but high variance hands for a few reasons.


[/ QUOTE ]
First, the hands being discussed are not "small +EV." Second, I think Ed disagrees (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=genpok&Number=1717420&Foru m=All_Forums&Words=variance&Searchpage=0&Limit=25& Main=1668690&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=43&dat erange=1&newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertyp e=&bodyprev=#Post1717420) about variance:

[ QUOTE ]
I consider myself a teacher first, TStone, not a theorist. I teach novice and intermediate limit hold 'em cash game players to whoop up on small and medium stakes games. And I believe that the overwhelming majority of players whom I am trying to teach would be better off if they pretended variance didn't have anything to do with any decision they make at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

[oreopimp]

Good post.

You need to get to a point where, winning or losing is not what you are thinking about when sitting down at a table. When u sit at a table...dont "expect" anything, just sit and down and every hand make the correct, best desicions u can. Play good poker, whether u lose or win. Money will take care of itself.

[TStoneMBD]

[ QUOTE ]
I consider myself a teacher first, TStone, not a theorist. I teach novice and intermediate limit hold 'em cash game players to whoop up on small and medium stakes games. And I believe that the overwhelming majority of players whom I am trying to teach would be better off if they pretended variance didn't have anything to do with any decision they make at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

is this in reference to me because i have no idea what youre saying here

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
is this in reference to me because i have no idea what youre saying here

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing to do with you.

I was just pointing out that Ed Miller's view of variance is quite different from that of the poster I was responding to. It might have made my point more clearly to limit the quotation to this part:

[ QUOTE ]
....I believe that the overwhelming majority of players whom I am trying to teach would be better off if they pretended variance didn't have anything to do with any decision they make at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

[sethypooh21]

I was just pointing out that Ed Miller's view of variance is quite different from that of the poster I was responding to. It might have made my point more clearly to limit the quotation to this part:

[ QUOTE ]
....I believe that the overwhelming majority of players whom I am trying to teach would be better off if they pretended variance didn't have anything to do with any decision they make at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree wholeheartedly with Ed's statement. People *would* be better off if "they pretended variance didn't have anything to do with any decision". However, I might have a slightly different view of someone who is likely to get the *most* out of a true beginners books such as WLLH. It could largely be the crowd I hand with, but my guess is a lot of these new players who *wish* to learn are ex-athelete types drawn by the competitive aspects of poker. The way one learns and improves in the athletic context is very straight forward, through repetitive trial and error. You see what works and what doesn't. You do it right, the shot goes in, the drive is high and straight or whatever.

In poker, this doesn't work (well it does, but the 'repetitive trial and error' process is much, much longer then a new player is likely to realise), and those hands which are most likely to give incorrect immediate feedback are those high variance hands with either slightly positve or slightly negative EV.

Wishing that a new player wasn't subject to this stimulus, and saying it would be better if they weren't doesn't change the fact that *because* they are new to poker, they are not likely to immediately grasp the unimportance of short term results as a barometer.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree wholeheartedly with Ed's statement. People *would* be better off if "they pretended variance didn't have anything to do with any decision". However, I might have a slightly different view of someone who is likely to get the *most* out of a true beginners books such as WLLH.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ed doesn't make an exception for beginners.

[ QUOTE ]
...those hands which are most likely to give incorrect immediate feedback are those high variance
hands with either slightly positve or slightly negative EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

The hands discussed in this thread don't fit this description.

I played around with my PokerTracker database:

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
Hand Std. Dev., BB/hand

AA 4.7
AKs 4.6
KQs 3.1
QJs 4.3
JTs 2.8
T9s 2.3
98s 1.8
</pre><hr />

The average SD/hand for all hands (not just those listed) is ~1.5 BB/hand. Medium suited connectors don't have higher variance than other hands you would play and variance actually decreases as the rank decreases.

It seems that to decrease variance, one should fold AA and play JTs. Since that's ridiculous, clearly EV, not variance, should determine what hands to play, just as Ed said in his earlier post in this thread.

[ECDub]

Binions,
Thanks for taking the time to post the differences between the two editions. You did a nice job.