Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

Hi Everyone:

This is from Arnold Snyder's forum. (Note we understand that the poster Radar O'Reilly is Snyder's wife.)

[ QUOTE ]
For example, in the big Miller/Sklansky no-limit hold'em book, the authors deliberately take issue with Brunson's advice in SuperSystem to aggressively steal blinds against tight players. Without mentioning Brunson, and without addressing the types of players in the game, they say that his strategy is wrong. The logic they provide is to say that blinds are so small relative to the maximum possible pot in no-limit that it cannot be correct for blind stealing to be important. Instead, they advise to be tight about blind stealing in no-limit cash games and concentrate on trapping as the way to make money.
.
In my view, Miller and Sklansky are not only disrespectful of Brunson in their writing on this subject (they fail to cite him, for example, even though he is the preeminent author on this topic and it is his advice they are clearly criticizing), they are also incredibly arrogant and incorrect in their logic. Sklansky admits in the book that he has no experience in no-limit, so how can he presume to present his untested advice as superior to the advice of a winning professional player? As for the mistakes in Sklansky's and Miller's logic here, in a cash game where you can replenish your stack, it is bad logic to compare the size of the blinds with the maximum possible size of a pot in deciding whether and how to play a hand. Instead, they should be looking at other factors, including the return on investment on the bet--if you bet 4 big blinds and win the blinds, you're getting a 37.5% return on investment!!, and even if you have to give up some of the bets, it doesn't take many to turn a good profit on the bets. Also, they should be looking at the bet's overall effect on strategy and earnings, which Brunson lays out clearly but Sklansky and Miller fail to consider. Brunson doesn't advocate stealing the blinds just to earn the blinds. It's part of a strategy of earning by theft so that you can afford to do other things that adversely affect the play of a common type of player. And it's a way of getting action on your good hands that Sklansky/Miller followers will never get unless they're playing against morons.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a link to the complete post:

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...key=1177189733

[ QUOTE ]
nomdeguerre wrote:
>
> These games are very easy to beat by understanding the concepts Miller introduces in GSIH, and later in Small Stakes Hold'em.
.
We have dozens of players contacting us weekly for advice because they are consistently losing in these games with the principles in Miller's book. There are good reasons why these players are losing. Because these players are losing, and because they've shown up here for advice, we are not going to let misleading posts like yours stand without rebuttal, whether they are written with good will or not.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You are specifically saying you want your player to play loose passive games, and you are saying the average pot size will be smaller relative to the rake than in a tight aggressive game? Are you kidding me? To me it seems clear that you have no more experience in low-limit loose passive games than Miller or Sklansky. In no-fold-em hold'em games, the pots are relatively large because the whole table is in to see every flop and so many people are in to the end.
.
In a no-fold-em hold'em game, it's true there's not much use in blind stealing, because everyone will be in to see the flop and so many will be in for the showdown no matter what you do. But it's this same property of the games that makes all of Miller's (and your) playing recommendations wrong too.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest you provide specific quotes, one at a time. (If you don't provide them, I will provide them myself, because it's important that your argument be rebutted.) None of Sklansky's or Miller's references to game and player variation are anything but cursory and vague. They in no way amount to coherent approaches to the game.


[/ QUOTE ]

This complete post can be found here:

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...key=1177971389

[ QUOTE ]
Let me know if you'd like specific examples. For example, I'd be happy to address Miller's mistakes on pre-flop equity, which are typical of the mistakes in 2+2 Publishing's books.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the link:

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...key=1177964526

[ QUOTE ]
In the analysis that begins on p. 131, Sklansky and Miller correctly point out that, if you and your potential opponents don't have many chips, you're in danger of not having the odds to try to flop a set. Fine. I'm sure many new players are completely ignorant of the fundamentals of pot odds, so this kind of beginners' point does need to be mentioned to new players. The problem is that Sklansky and Miller go on with several pages of gobbledygook that will leave the average new player hindered, not helped, in his thinking over how to play his small pairs in NLH.
.
Some of the problems include more goofy statements, such as: "pocket eights does well heads-up in position after the flop, so you don't particularly want to raise out the big blind." Pocket eights does well heads-up in position after the flop? Are you kidding me? This is a perfect example of a hand that may do well in a computer simulation that always goes all the way to a showdown, but that will be very difficult to play against anything but an idiot if the flop brings any higher cards, not to mention possible straights, possible flushes, a pair on the board, etc


[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...key=1177962315

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

tl;dr

christ, he's not dead is he?

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

[ QUOTE ]
Some of the problems include more goofy statements, such as: "pocket eights does well heads-up in position after the flop, so you don't particularly want to raise out the big blind." Pocket eights does well heads-up in position after the flop? Are you kidding me? This is a perfect example of a hand that may do well in a computer simulation that always goes all the way to a showdown, but that will be very difficult to play against anything but an idiot if the flop brings any higher cards, not to mention possible straights, possible flushes, a pair on the board, etc

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay that's just daft. Of course trickier hands are helped more by position. I don't need anyone's stats to tell me that.

confused with the reason for the post ?
 

I am confused as does this post mean that ed miller standing with two plus two is on the line?

I would call this thread arnold criticisms of ed miller, for when I read this title I Thought to myself "oh no professional no limit volume one is in trouble"

I am glad to see that is not the case, still is it so other two plus two forum readers and posters can rebutt arnold claims? or was this post a way for another point of view for no limit can be given ?.

can you clarify this for me mason.

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

Mason:

For every 1 sale you loose, Snyder helps you sell 5 more books. Lets just call him an Axx HoXe with a chip on his shoulder who is kissing up to the wrong people, debating might be pointless at this stage because they are arguing applied details, not fundamental concepts.

For what its worth, we see a lot of these types of arguments here ont he forums all the time, its usually from inexperienced players or 70 year old nits who cannot see the field on the other side of the forest - they are not thinking big picture, only their own applied situations. Over time these people never come around to the side of logic, they are too stuck in their own world to see the light.

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

[ QUOTE ]
For example, in the big Miller/Sklansky no-limit hold'em book, the authors deliberately take issue with Brunson's advice in SuperSystem to aggressively steal blinds against tight players. Without mentioning Brunson, and without addressing the types of players in the game, they say that his strategy is wrong. The logic they provide is to say that blinds are so small relative to the maximum possible pot in no-limit that it cannot be correct for blind stealing to be important. Instead, they advise to be tight about blind stealing in no-limit cash games and concentrate on trapping as the way to make money.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is just incorrect. Yes, they advocate limping first in on the button, but do not state that it is the absolute correct strategy and that raising can never be correct. In the preflop section, they specifically state that limping first on the button "can definitely be okay" and then in the concepts section go on to elaborate on that concept and state why it can be a good play. Furthermore, shortly after the book came out, Ed Miller made a post on the SSNL forum where he elaborated on this topic, but stated that if he had to choose between always raising and always limping J9 on the button, he would choose to raise. So the claim that they are attacking Brunson (and I suppose others) who advocate blind stealing is just absurd. Also, I'm sure that Brunson's book is geared more towards tournament play anyway, where blind stealing IS important (as S&M concede in one of the footnotes) once the stacks get short and the antes kick in.

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

Brunson's book is aimed at cash games thirty years ago when his opponents were tighter and more straightforward.

Whoever takes things more personally is more messed up, that's a rule of life. All these threads prove is that Snyder is worse than Malmuth. I wouldn't go for a drink with either.

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

[ QUOTE ]
Whoever takes things more personally is more messed up, that's a rule of life. All these threads prove is that Snyder is worse than Malmuth. I wouldn't go for a drink with either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I quit drinking 21 years ago but turning down an opportunity to talk with Mason is -EV.

Re: confused with the reason for the post ?
 

Hi MASTERHOLMES:

First off, we're working on Professional No-Limit Hold 'em, Volume I and I expect to send our comments back to Matt Flynn either tomorrow or the next day. Our comments are fairly minor in nature and we expect to produce the book in July.

The reason for the thread is to just throw some of this stuff out there and let our posters react to it as they see fit. It has nothing to do with anything else.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: confused with the reason for the post ?
 

Really? 'Cause Mason, I love Dave and all, but I would no sooner rush to Dave's defense in a poker logic dispute than I would rush to the defense of a hungry lion in a rabbit hutch.

Dave doesn't put poker advice into print unless he knows he's right. And I don't mean he thinks he's right, or his advice is mostly right, I mean out to five decimal places, bet your daughter's virginity he's right right.

I know that, you know it, Dave sure as hell knows it, so does Doyle AND Arnold, and every one else in the at large, English speaking poker community with the sole possible exception of Mike Matasow.

Also...

Ed & Dave weren't dissing Doyle. At all, and I don't understand how anyone could come to that conclusion.

Even a limited understanding of implied odds tells even beginning players that, in deep stack, full ring no limit cash games (and those are the games covered in NLH:T&P) there is no pressure to steal the blinds. Rather, it teaches you that every time you enter the pot, particularly with sub-standard holdings, you are putting your whole stack at risk.

Seriously Mason, just forward all this to Dave. This is the kind of stuff he does for fun on rainy afternoons.

It does rain sometimes in Vegas, doesn't it?

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

I don't see where Brunson talks about stealing blinds. Stealing blinds is common late in no limit tournaments, when the play is very tight and there are blinds and antes.

Brunson talks about stealing small pots, not stealing blinds.

I don't think either Brunson or Sklansky and Miller emphasize stealing blinds. There books are primarily about cash game play, where blind stealing is not important.

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

Maybe the fundamental misunderstanding is that the Snyders don't realize NLH:T&P isn't about tournament NL hold'em? After all, Snyder's major book was about tournaments, not cash games.

Or perhaps they don't understand the not-so-subtle differences between tournament and non-tournament play?

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the fundamental misunderstanding is that the Snyders don't realize NLH:T&P isn't about tournament NL hold'em? After all, Snyder's major book was about tournaments, not cash games.

Or perhaps they don't understand the not-so-subtle differences between tournament and non-tournament play?

[/ QUOTE ]


nope


[ QUOTE ]
As for the mistakes in Sklansky's and Miller's logic here, in a cash game where you can replenish your stack, it is bad logic to compare the size of the blinds with the maximum possible size of a pot in deciding whether and how to play a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

Mason - I think the title you chose for this thread is not very good. extremely misleading.

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

[ QUOTE ]
Mason - I think the title you chose for this thread is not very good. extremely misleading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Bob:

Well, you're not the first to point this out to me and your comment is probably accurate. But it did catch your attention, and I did have a little fun.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

Since I got serious about playing no limit, I have read Sklansky's NL book about 10 times. In that same time I have read Largay's NL book once (awful book), and I have read Doyle's Super System I and II once each.

It is not difficult to figure out where the good advice in NL comes from. I wouldn't worry about Snyder's opinion much. Snyder wrote some good blackjack books decades ago, but his recent incorrect tournament poker advice and now this only seems like jealousy towards better writers and players.

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

What I find remarkable is that in contrast to Limit HE, the styles in NL cash games amongst successful pros vary a lot. Therefore I think it is correct to say that more than one way leads to Rome. There are whole poker universes between David Grey and Prahlad Friedman, "Greenplastic" and all the others and yet they are all winning players. Isn't that weird?

Because of that it is almost ridiculous to watch Snyder and Mason trying to prove that the other is dead wrong on the subject. In my opinion the discussion is more about authorities than content and that's pretty sad.

The secret of NL Hold'em is to make the other guy fold...

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

LMAO Mason.

You clearly tilted Snyder with your criticism of his Poker Tournament Formula book.

He keeps rebuying, losing his buy in, and rebuying some more . . .

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

A lil back alley mugging by Snyder.
The poker world should be a freezeout and not a rebuy tourney...

Re: confused with the reason for the post ?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dave doesn't put poker advice into print unless he knows he's right. And I don't mean he thinks he's right, or his advice is mostly right, I mean out to five decimal places, bet your daughter's virginity he's right right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that DS is infallible? That in his dozens of books there are no mistakes, miscalculations, or bad advice?

Re: confused with the reason for the post ?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dave doesn't put poker advice into print unless he knows he's right. And I don't mean he thinks he's right, or his advice is mostly right, I mean out to five decimal places, bet your daughter's virginity he's right right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that DS is infallible? That in his dozens of books there are no mistakes, miscalculations, or bad advice?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you making an accusation without providing proof of your accusation?

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: confused with the reason for the post ?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dave doesn't put poker advice into print unless he knows he's right. And I don't mean he thinks he's right, or his advice is mostly right, I mean out to five decimal places, bet your daughter's virginity he's right right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that DS is infallible? That in his dozens of books there are no mistakes, miscalculations, or bad advice?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you making an accusation without providing proof of your accusation?

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I am merely asking a question counsellor. To err is human, and we are all human.

Re: confused with the reason for the post ?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dave doesn't put poker advice into print unless he knows he's right. And I don't mean he thinks he's right, or his advice is mostly right, I mean out to five decimal places, bet your daughter's virginity he's right right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that DS is infallible? That in his dozens of books there are no mistakes, miscalculations, or bad advice?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you making an accusation without providing proof of your accusation?

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I am merely asking a question counsellor. To err is human, and we are all human.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tis ok. Only pointed it out because you and I have disagreed with concepts covered within David's books before. I thought you were taking a jab, and if so I was asking you to back it up - my bad. No doubt there have been errors (usually in the edit and proof reading process), nobody can deny that - but the fundamental concepts have always been correct to date that I am aware of unless you know of something that I don't.

Re: confused with the reason for the post ?
 

My point is that once something is reduced to math, arguments become moot. The math shows conclusivly what answers are right and what answers are wrong. (And yes, I understand that you can have some equations with more than one right answer because the solution is a range. But possible solutions outside that range are still wrong.)

Dave's whole talent is his ability to grasp the basic math and logic that underpin poker issues. Say what you want about his ability to execute at the table, but his fundamental understanding of the game is unassailable.

Re: confused with the reason for the post ?
 

I think most of the criticism of Sklanners is not that his maths is wrong, it's that it sometimes doesn't apply very well to real world poker. His idea to raise preflop different amounts based on hand strength is rejected as exploitable by people who play more than DS, for example.

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

Not suprising coming from Radar.

I gave up early when I saw this quote from another thread about books:
[ QUOTE ]
Overall, I think the poker literature is pretty bad. There are a number of books that do an adequate job of explaining the basics of things like pot odds, and the importance of things like kickers, but there are virtually no books on limit or no-limit cash games that will actually make you a winner at the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems they've taken the place of RGP as far as adversary. Only a matter of time until Carson joins that site... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] I wonder how he can stand not getting the attention.

b

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

Mason,
You're a 5 year old trapped in a man's body.

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

No books on limit cash games that can make you a winner?

Even if you ignore every 2+2 book, that statement is STILL ignorant.

Weighing the Odds
Real Poker II
Hold'em on the Come
How Good Is Your Limit Hold'em

Those are all excelent. I haven't read the Johnny Chan one, but I hear that's good too.

Re: confused with the reason for the post ?
 

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that once something is reduced to math, arguments become moot. The math shows conclusivly what answers are right and what answers are wrong. (And yes, I understand that you can have some equations with more than one right answer because the solution is a range. But possible solutions outside that range are still wrong.)

Dave's whole talent is his ability to grasp the basic math and logic that underpin poker issues. Say what you want about his ability to execute at the table, but his fundamental understanding of the game is unassailable.

[/ QUOTE ]

pOKER /= Math

Poker = Economics (micro)

Poker = Math + Reads + Psychology + Sales + Instinct

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

[ QUOTE ]
No books on limit cash games that can make you a winner?

Even if you ignore every 2+2 book, that statement is STILL ignorant.

Weighing the Odds
Real Poker II
Hold'em on the Come
How Good Is Your Limit Hold'em

Those are all excelent. I haven't read the Johnny Chan one, but I hear that's good too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the fact that even though they're at odds with 2+2, it kinda hurts credibility to just ignore their stuff so completely. I understand they're competing, but c'mon. You still have to give credit where credit is due.

b

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the Johnny Chan one, but I hear that's good too.

[/ QUOTE ]

You hear wrong. The others are great however, even if they have minor flaws the overwhelming content is good.

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

[ QUOTE ]
Seems they've taken the place of RGP as far as adversary. Only a matter of time until Carson joins that site... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] I wonder how he can stand not getting the attention.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well played

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

I like this post from one of the threads that you posted a link to:

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky/Malmuth tend to make players overthink poker
posted by StevenG on 04-14-2007 01:10
which is the problem. The principles on pot odds and betting with purpose are good ones, but they get TOO mathematical and it gets to the point where players are performing trig in their heads to try and figure out whether to call, fold or raise their hand postflop.

The truth is in the middle. You need some of the knowledge they impart, but you need not take it so seriously that you forget you're playing poker, which is a people game played with cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Using trig to figure out the right poker play, priceless.

Yeah and all that math stuff is an impediment to playing well...

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

The real big problem with Ed Miller and NLHTAP is that by his own admission, he gained true understanding of NLHE way after NLHTAP was published. It's not like we needed Ed's admission, though, the book itself is teeming with disclaimers that makes authors sound unsure of what they're saying.

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

Once again, this discussion is ridiculous. There are two ways to win a hand. One is by winning a showdown and one is if the other guy folds. Snyder puts emphasis on sheer aggression and position to put maximum pressure on the opponent in order to make him fold, David and Ed are talking about the technically best way to play to hand. So who is right and who is wrong? In my opinion they are not even talking about the same subject.

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

[ QUOTE ]
The real big problem with Ed Miller and NLHTAP is that by his own admission, he gained true understanding of NLHE way after NLHTAP was published. It's not like we needed Ed's admission, though, the book itself is teeming with disclaimers that makes authors sound unsure of what they're saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

He wasn't required to understand anything that wasn't covered in the book. At least 85% of the ideas were mine and I wasn't unsure of anything. Dozens of world class players raved about the book to me. Ed Miller's main job was to take the concepts I taught him and explain them excellently to the readers. Cookbook ideas about how to play specific type hands in specific situations, was not meant to be part of that book for the most part. His new book will cover stuff like that so he had to learn more.

Re: confused with the reason for the post ?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think most of the criticism of Sklanners is not that his maths is wrong, it's that it sometimes doesn't apply very well to real world poker. His idea to raise preflop different amounts based on hand strength is rejected as exploitable by people who play more than DS, for example.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, most people can't apply it well at the table, but it applies fine. That's not Sklansky's fault, most people just aren't winning players.

Re: confused with the reason for the post ?
 

What is the purpose of this post? You are copying criticisms of 2+2 publications without engaging them at all.

Are you suggesting that readers should find 2+2 literature so unassailably perfect that we should automatically hate anyone who dares to criticize? What does this say about your level of respect for your audience?

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

[ QUOTE ]
Using trig to figure out the right poker play, priceless.

Yeah and all that math stuff is an impediment to playing well...

[/ QUOTE ]
I prefer geometry for my poker decisions. Poker is all about angles. Do you see why?

Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The real big problem with Ed Miller and NLHTAP is that by his own admission, he gained true understanding of NLHE way after NLHTAP was published. It's not like we needed Ed's admission, though, the book itself is teeming with disclaimers that makes authors sound unsure of what they're saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

He wasn't required to understand anything that wasn't covered in the book. At least 85% of the ideas were mine and I wasn't unsure of anything. Dozens of world class players raved about the book to me. Ed Miller's main job was to take the concepts I taught him and explain them excellently to the readers. Cookbook ideas about how to play specific type hands in specific situations, was not meant to be part of that book for the most part. His new book will cover stuff like that so he had to learn more.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, there's been countless other threads that I wished you would have posted this in.

Permission to cut and paste where appropriate?
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]