Applying WLLHE/SSHE/HPFAP to micro games

[marchron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I'm trying to tell you is that instead of a rigid line of demarcation, you should be able and ready to notice when a table is loose and passive enough that SSHE applies and when it's not. Not only might two tables be completely different at the same stakes, it might be possible that the same table changes from one to the other as new players rotate in.

[/ QUOTE ]I understand what you are trying to tell me, and I agree with you 100%.

I'm not looking for any sort of rigid line, just thoughts on what level the game typically changes from mostly weak recreational players to mostly solid players (or regulars) playing a solid tight agressive game. In NL its around the $1/$2 level and I'm just wondering what the LHE landscape is typically like.

[/ QUOTE ]
Rather than tell you that, I'll just say that when I sit at a full-ring game that has a 35-40% players-to-flop number, I'm sitting down and playing SSHE all the way. Between 30 and 35%, I use reads, either through observation while I'm still on the waiting list or on the fly after I sit down, to determine who to play a more HPFAP style against. Below 30%, well, I usually don't sit down at all unless I'm to the left of a known fish or huge maniac. At that point, SSHE is basically out the window, as even if I'm in a pot against someone whom the book would be applicable for, I have to fight for his money against other TAGs who may be in the pot.

Now where those stakes are depends on your site. For example, I play pretty much at UltimateBet, and if they have a 1/2 full-ring game going at all, it's hardly ever above 30%. But I can routinely find 2/4 and 3/6 games in the high 30s, and I've even spotted some 5/10 and 10/20 games in the low 40s.

[Ignignokt]

[ QUOTE ]
Im currently reading the Stoxtrader book "Winning in Tough Holdem Games" and Im ive got to say that that parts ive read so far cover lots of statistics related stuff for blind defence. this and the hand ranges discussion is right up my alley. I like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind that those stats are for mid-to-high-level shorthanded games, where players are smarter postflop. The micros might be a lot tougher than a couple of years ago, but the players (even the better micros players) generally still have much less of a clue than those at 50-100.

I like that book for its discussion of different lines - reinforcing something important for limit play (especially SH), which is the concept that you should have a plan for the hand almost from the moment you decide to play.


WRT WLLH, I also recommend it as a "first" book. And the reference Xhad makes (stop raising w/nuts when chop is likely - obv in reference to live games when HU) may be to spare the rake, which may not cap out until several raises/reraises. In essence, you may win more by not betting more.

Once you get to 3/6 or higher though, the rake will usually be maxed by the second or third river raise, so reraise yourself crazy. Also when opponent is an imbecile.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
WRT WLLH, I also recommend it as a "first" book. And the reference Xhad makes (stop raising w/nuts when chop is likely - obv in reference to live games when HU) may be to spare the rake, which may not cap out until several raises/reraises. In essence, you may win more by not betting more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought about this too but then I realized that realistically you never see a B&M game lower than 2/4 and 4*8=32 which caps most live rakes I've seen. Even at 1/2 counting your bets and your opponent's then 2*2*8 = 32.

Also if this is what they meant they should just say so. At first I thought they were leaving stuff out for simplicity, but then in their section about river play they start talking about game theory and how often you should call relative to pot size to have an unexploitable strategy. It just boggles my mind that they'd throw that in a book that does so little justice to difficult flop situations.

[OziBattler]

nh sir

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind that those stats are for mid-to-high-level shorthanded games, where players are smarter postflop. The micros might be a lot tougher than a couple of years ago, but the players (even the better micros players) generally still have much less of a clue than those at 50-100.


[/ QUOTE ]

yep but but for me, I think you nailed it here (even though Ihavent finished reading it yet it seems quite clear that it promotes this level of thought)

[ QUOTE ]
I like that book for its discussion of different lines - reinforcing something important for limit play (especially SH), which is the concept that you should have a plan for the hand almost from the moment you decide to play.


[/ QUOTE ]

[infinity235]

I read WLLH -> ITH -> SSHE -> TOP -> SSHE -> SSHE -> SSHE -> HPFAP, and after the first read of SSHE I successfully unlearned WLLH. I'm not saying it's a bad book, but it's definitely too weak-tight. For a beginning player, I seriously recommend Getting Started in Hold'em (which I read a while ago, and I must say it is the best beginners book I've read) or ITH.

[Ignignokt]

[ QUOTE ]
but then in their section about river play they start talking about game theory and how often you should call relative to pot size to have an unexploitable strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point being that this is too advanced for loose games, right?

[ChrisJ]

SSHE has worked for me and has got me moving up the micro stakes levels. It has probably been the book that has most improved my play.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but then in their section about river play they start talking about game theory and how often you should call relative to pot size to have an unexploitable strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point being that this is too advanced for loose games, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's both too advanced and unnecessary at small stakes. Also, I would be a lot kinder to the book in some places if I could say "oh well it's for beginners so I'd expect them to oversimplify in places," but things like that make it fail even from that perspective.

Basically if game theory isn't too complicated for the book, neither is the basic WA/WB line yet instead the book suggests bad lines like raise flop/check turn/call river instead.