Poker strategy question from SSHE

[Alexost]

OK, I know from reading the forum that SSHE has great poker theory, but does not accurately describe current LLHE online conditions.

Question one: Are current LLHE online conditions more closely related to mid and high stakes conditions?

Question two: How does small, medium, and high stakes online compare currently, since SSHE no longer accurately reflects low limit online conditions?

That is, is SSHE now more relevant to mid and high stakes?

Question three: Page 62, "The player UTG, a tight, unimaginative player, raises."

The point being made is not to cold call raises with weak or mediocre hands. But, it's stated as if being tight and "unimaginative" is weak play.

Are the authors suggesting a player use a little imagination when they play? Much of the book shows that there is a pretty strict mathematically sound order of playable hands. So, how does a strong, "imaginative" player, play?

Any thoughts?

[nomadtla]

1) Just cause current LLHE players online are tighter preflop doesn't mean they play well postflop. I still think SSHE is the best book for LLHE online and live. The difference now is you can't just read SSHE once and expect to beat the games. You really have to take in what they are saying and realize why they are saying it. I think a player could thrive up to 3/6 online with what SSHE teaches if they were thinking on their feet and understood how changing conditions changes the advice.

2) As said above I think SSHE is still aplicable through small and mid-stakes online. The thing is that you have to read SSHE as a way to think and not necesarilly a way to play. I think a good grounding between SSHE, HPFAP, and TOP is all you need to survive in any online game. Though none of these books will be any help if you are looking for a specific plan to answer every question. The examples in these books are meant to be looked at braodly so you can learn how to think about poker hands, not just so you know how to play AQo UTG when you miss the flop.

3) I think by saying "unimaginative" they are talking about a player who is not trying to trick you. Sometimes this is the right way to play. Acctually I will say most of the times this is the right way to play. But the reason they said it in the book was not to insult unimaginative play, but rather to say that if you know this guy is playing solid why get involved.

Poker requires a certain amount of imagination but I would say most winners esspescially in the lower limits play pretty straight forward. Playing straight forward is different then being un-imaginative though. What is straight forward in a multi-way pot is not the same as a HU pot. What is straight forward at a loose passive table, is not striaght forward at a TAG table. You may call all these different styles unimaginative but that does not mean the player is not taking stock of the conditions.

[GLKST526]

In HPFAP, sklansky advocates occasionally raising in early position with hands like T9s, partially to take advantage if people are respecting EP raises too much, but also to mix up your play and keep opponents from being able to know where you are at at all times. I think that this is what is meant by "imaginative". A player who is unimaginative would not utilize this aspect in their game, they would be raising JJ+ AQ+ in that position, and thus you should adjust your calling ranges accordingly. That would be my guess

[nomadtla]

We are saying the same thing I just didn't lay out my explanation like that. If your EP raises are getting too much respect then adjusting your game is straight forward play to take advantage of the table conditions. But yes I think that is exactly what they mean when they say "unimaginative" a player who is not adjusting who has memorized a preflop chart and plays like that constantly. I was just explaining it so that those reading my response realized that offten the "unimaginative" play is the right play.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
The point being made is not to cold call raises with weak or mediocre hands. But, it's stated as if being tight and "unimaginative" is weak play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're seeing things that aren't there. S&M have said in their other books (and I think it's likely Ed Miller agrees) that in games full of loose bad players you can play a very boring straightforward game and make a killing.

[Alexost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point being made is not to cold call raises with weak or mediocre hands. But, it's stated as if being tight and "unimaginative" is weak play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're seeing things that aren't there. S&M have said in their other books (and I think it's likely Ed Miller agrees) that in games full of loose bad players you can play a very boring straightforward game and make a killing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see, I think you're right.