Big Problems with Ed Miller

[Mason Malmuth]

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

[fraac]

tl;dr

christ, he's not dead is he?

[fraac]

[ 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.

[MASTERHOLMES]

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.

[*TT*]

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.

[bsheck]

[ 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.

[fraac]

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.

[steamboatin]

[ 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.

[Mason Malmuth]

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

[phydaux]

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?