Loose games: Ed Miller disagrees with HEFAP

[TheSeeker03]

This is on the subject of raising Big Offsuit hands (AQo, AJo, KQo) in loose games in Late Position.

HEFAP reasons that you should not raise them but limp in because your edge against, say 4 limpers, is small since hands are offsuit. And when you do flop the top pair, the pot will be large enough for many loose weak players to have their playing style (calling) coinside with correct play.



Ed Miller, I assume, reasons that since you have that little bit of edge and position, sieze your edge now and raise.

Interesting ... thoughts?

[Niediam]

It's one of the big mysteries of the universe. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I have read a few threads on here about the issue where MM chimes in but they go something like this:

2+2er: Why does SSH and HEPFAP have contridicting advice?
MM: They don't contridict.
2+2er: Clearly the two styles are very different.
MM: The games are different.
2+2er: But both say its for games where players play too many hands and go to far with them.
MM: But the games are different.
2+2er: Can you explain in detail what type of game you would use the HEPFAP style in?
MM: Ones where players play too many hands and go too far with them.
2+2er: Huh? I really don't see the difference.
MM: Sorry, I can't explain it any other way.

Good luck trying to figure it out. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[UATrewqaz]

As SSHE states

"Loose is different from just plain bad"

Low states games are full of loose bad players

Higher stakes have alot more LAG's and people who play well once the flop has arrived.

[Victor]

hepfab is wrong on this one as simulations and large internet poker databases have shown.

[Buzz-cp]

happy birthday bro

[andyEB]

In the intro of SSHE it specifically says that comparing it to a book like HEFAP is basically a waste of time...

[Ignignokt]

HEFAP seems to assume semi-reasonable opponents who are limping things like suited connectors and ATo. SSH assumes opponents who limp in any raggy ace, king or queen, or any two sooooted, and who will call down with MPNK.

And even then, Miller doesn't recommend always raising. Read the whole section, including the footnote.

[Gregatron]

[ QUOTE ]
It's one of the big mysteries of the universe. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I have read a few threads on here about the issue where MM chimes in but they go something like this:

2+2er: Why does SSH and HEPFAP have contridicting advice?
MM: They don't contridict.
2+2er: Clearly the two styles are very different.
MM: The games are different.
2+2er: But both say its for games where players play too many hands and go to far with them.
MM: But the games are different.
2+2er: Can you explain in detail what type of game you would use the HEPFAP style in?
MM: Ones where players play too many hands and go too far with them.
2+2er: Huh? I really don't see the difference.
MM: Sorry, I can't explain it any other way.

Good luck trying to figure it out. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I detect a note of blasphemy. Watch yrself buddy! [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[Niediam]

[ QUOTE ]
HEFAP seems to assume semi-reasonable opponents who are limping things like suited connectors and ATo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like your average small stakes online game... but I'm not about to start limping with AQ after a couple limpers or fold AJ in EP.

[Magellan]

Interesting that you bring this up, I just read that very section of HEPFAP last night, and was pondering the idea.

I think as UATrewqaz said:
[ QUOTE ]
As SSHE states

"Loose is different from just plain bad"

Low states games are full of loose bad players

Higher stakes have alot more LAG's and people who play well once the flop has arrived.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it relates in part to the post-flop ability of your opponents, and HEPFAP does seem to be aimed at higher stakes games than SSHE.

What Victor says is interesting though:
[ QUOTE ]
hepfab is wrong on this one as simulations and large internet poker databases have shown.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the gut feeling I had was the same. I just thought that I must be missing something because I don't feel like I have anywhere near enough poker knowledge/experience to be confident calling such texts wrong. I'm interested to look into these simulations further.


So, the crux of what I'm thinking is this:

Regardless of stakes, if you assume that opponents will make the same calls irrespective of the pot size, surely we want more money in the pot. Whether or not these opponents are making a mistake by calling does not adversely affect the likelihood of us winning the hand, so we want to win more bets when we win. Maybe I'm missing something but I think what I'm saying holds up SO LONG AS we win more pots than we lose with a given hand that we're applying this thinking to. With that in mind I guess we have to consider the positional starting ranges of the specific opponents we're faced with at the time, and try to judge whether we have a big enough edge against that range to win more times than we lose. If so, then raising seems to be the way to go.