Comparing WLLH 3rd edition to 2nd edition

[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.

[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.

[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 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 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

[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).

[LozColbert]

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

[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.