Is "Small Stakes Hold'Em" a waste of time?

[cramfak]

I picked up Small Stakes Hold'Em because it sounds like a really good idea. Play in small stakes games and get two advantages: No need for a large bankroll and tons of loose, poor players you can take advantage of. But where are all these loose players? If a loose game is one with 6 or more people in before the flop, I simply haven't found it online even though I'm playing very small stakes (as low as .25/.50 limit). Has anyone else found these kind of games or is a waste of time to learn a strategy that's only good for a theoretical loose game?

[7n7]

SSHE is definitely not a waste of time, lots of great concepts in the book regardless of how loose or tight the game is.

However, it's been stated several times that games like the book describe aren't that easy to come by online, but live, the book is gold at the tables.

Read it, I don't think you'll be sorry. Just understand that when you play online, you'll need to adapt the strategies presented a little depending on the current game conditions.

[ILOVEPOKER929]

This is one of the greatest books ever written on poker. So no it is not a waste of your time. In all areas of life, in order to go from mediocre to great we must first make that great leap from mediocre to good and no other book will enable you to make that leap better than Ed Miller's Small Stakes holdem.

[Gonso]

The authors do make it sound a little easier than it is to a point, but it's still effective at low limits, particularly the "5 to a flop" 2/4 live games, which is standard.

But yes, that book is excellent. There's very little controversy with that one.

[mwette]

I have been playing poker for a couple of months or so
and I have started w/ limit and this book. My firsrt
read was cover-to-cover. Then I played a bit, then I
re-read bits at a time between on-line play sessions.
Now I play on-line an hour or so and go back to 3-read
different sections. I think I am in a good learning
groove right now. I really like the book.

[Poker Plan]

[ QUOTE ]
This is one of the greatest books ever written on poker. So no it is not a waste of your time. In all areas of life, in order to go from mediocre to great we must first make that great leap from mediocre to good and no other book will enable you to make that leap better than Ed Miller's Small Stakes holdem.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

It's a classic

[*TT*]

Small Stakes Hold'em is a book that teaches you how to adjust your action in multi-way pots, and against loose and passive players. It also discusses agressive players, tight players, and everything in between - think of it as a its a book about adjusting to player types and table texture, a key skill necessary to be a winning player. It is primarily a post flop book, if you spend your time getting caught up on the pre-flop recommendations then your not understanding the concepts presented within it's pages - money is made in multi-way pots after the flop, and loose and passive games make the games potentially much more profitable (although you must ride through the high varience that will occur when multiple opponents are showdown bound).

So the short answer is the post flop concepts still apply, but if you use the pre-flop charts when the pots are multi-way, and adjust accordingly when the pots tend to be 2-4 players then Small Stakes Hold'em really will be the only book you will need at this stage for the levels you play at.

[rubberloon]

It's excellent as a starter book. There I learnt how not to do it (Arthur Wesley, later Duke of Wellington).

[daveT]

As a further thought. If you are able to master the concepts in this book, the transition to NL will very easy, especially the small stakes capped games.

Two years ago, when I started, I was beating the small stakes after about two months, propping after four, and moved over to no limit. I think I was beating it with a month.

It is a great foundation for all poker players.

[smbruin22]

i have some problems with this book and what games it's intended for? and i don't agree that you teaches all sorts of different types of play (not sure anyone said that, but i find the advice fairly confusing. i think it teaches one type of game which has been disappearing in my experience.

however, the book is outstanding (maybe the best) in things like reading the flop and finding hidden outs (i still have huge problems with paired boards for whatever reason). and other generic sections are excellent. ed is a really excellent writer. guess i'm saying though i don't understand some of the advice/examples.