Comparing WLLH 3rd edition to 2nd edition

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
... I'd still say that the first three they should read are Getting Started, TOP, and SSH. If you JUST had to give people three texts to get rolling, I think those are the three best.



[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously? I kind of wonder and I'll tell you why: Clearly we are talking Hold'em only here because the two Miller books only deal with Hold'em, mostly Limit.

While I do not disagree that at some point TOP is vital, for real 'understanding' of poker in general, I can't see putting it second because so very many of the games use to elucidate an idea are games other than Hold'em--games the person new to poker (we are talking Hold'em here remember)are going to find totally alien to them.

I am going to say that if you are a Hold'em player the progression should be:

1. Getting Started
2. SSH
3. HPFAP

---Leavenfish

[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).

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Barry:

Low limit games feature many players who play too many hands and automatically go too far with their hands. These are precisely the type of games which maximize the value of hands like JTs and QTs.

If your book was called something like Surviving Low Limit Hold 'em or even Getting Started in Hold 'em I could perhaps buy your argument. But throwing away hands that are not marginal makes little sense to me.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if you're on the button with JTs and five people limp in are you saying be prepared to say "nice kicker?"

Best wishes,
Mason

[GreywolfNYC]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Barry:

Low limit games feature many players who play too many hands and automatically go too far with their hands. These are precisely the type of games which maximize the value of hands like JTs and QTs.

If your book was called something like Surviving Low Limit Hold 'em or even Getting Started in Hold 'em I could perhaps buy your argument. But throwing away hands that are not marginal makes little sense to me.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if you're on the button with JTs and five people limp in are you saying be prepared to say "nice kicker?"

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,
As one of Barrry's students I think I can answer this very easily. Barry doesnt recommend playing these hands in early position, not on the button. I think the play of hands in EP is one of the areas where his ideas differ from those in SSHE. For what its worth, he is also not fond of open-limping from any position. I suspect this is another point on which you disagree.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Barry:

Low limit games feature many players who play too many hands and automatically go too far with their hands. These are precisely the type of games which maximize the value of hands like JTs and QTs.

If your book was called something like Surviving Low Limit Hold 'em or even Getting Started in Hold 'em I could perhaps buy your argument. But throwing away hands that are not marginal makes little sense to me.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if you're on the button with JTs and five people limp in are you saying be prepared to say "nice kicker?"

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,
As one of Barrry's students I think I can answer this very easily. Barry doesnt recommend playing these hands in early position, not on the button. I think the play of hands in EP is one of the areas where his ideas differ from those in SSHE. For what its worth, he is also not fond of open-limping from any position. I suspect this is another point on which you disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

You miss the point. I think Mason is implying that if Barry thinks JTs is OK to play in late position after several limpers, then there is little difference in playing JTs in early position in a loose, passive game that normally has several limpers.

Yes, late position gives you an informational advantage, and a raise behind you is less likely, so it's not exactly the same. But, in some passive games, its darn close.

As for open limping, that's a whole other debate.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi wolf:

The point I'm bringing up is slightly different from what you think. The complaint for many years among many players is "How do you beat these games for the maximum where many of your opponents won't fold, and conventional strategies seem to have difficulty?"

Suppose Barry told you to only play ace-king suited, aces, and kings in early position in the games that WLLH is targeted for. You could then make the exact same argument and claim that you do win.

By the way, if the pot is raised and you're on the button with JTs you should call if there are a bunch of people in.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
For what its worth, he is also not fond of open-limping from any position. I suspect this is another point on which you disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. I do disagree strongly. Some hands need large implied odds and multiway action. In certain loose games, such as those WLLH is supposedly targeted for, this can easily be achieved.

So for example, small pairs should often be played for a limp up front while raising (when first in) would clearly be wrong.

This brings us back to the JTs. Since it also likes high implied odds and multiway action, it should be right to limp in up front with these hands but not open raise with them.

The advice to not open-limp from any position seems to me to be a style that just might work well in certain particular games, especially if you cut down on the number of hands. But it also shows a lack of complete understanding of exactly what it is that gives a hand value.

You may want to look at Small Stakes Hold 'em where there is a discussion on this very point (of what it is that gives a hand value). It might change your outlook on these matters.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Shandrax]

JTs has the potential to win big pots, agreed. The problem is this: Many times you won't hit the flop and you fold. On other times you hit the flop, but your high cards are dominated. On other occasions you hit the flop and connect to the straight or the flush (note: this is the potential big hand), but everyone else FOLDS because they got nothing.

In the most part of the discussion about the true potential of JTs or other suited connectors many people seem to underestimate that you need two conditions to be true: You need to hit your hand which is already difficult enough AND the other guys need to be willing to continue with the pot. The combination of both makes this ideal situation very rare.

Same goes for baby pairs like 2-2. Yes, you will hit the set every once in a while, but in lots of these cases the pot will stay small because the other guys fold.

Your big pot potential will realize not whenever you flop the nuts, but when other guys flop something also which happens 1/x times 1/y = 1/xy!

Does the payoff for this compensate for the bets you are going to lose every single time you miss it?

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
You need to hit your hand which is already difficult enough AND the other guys need to be willing to continue with the pot. The combination of both makes this ideal situation very rare.

[/ QUOTE ]

Open-limping JTs is still a winner for me in the Party Poker 5/10 game, which anyone will agree is significantly tighter than the games being discussed in this thread. Folding it in EP in a game with plenty of calling stations is incredibly dumb.

I challenge you to find anyone who is a significant winner in loose games who is a loser with JTs in EP.

[ QUOTE ]
Does the payoff for this compensate for the bets you are going to lose every single time you miss it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.