Comparing WLLH 3rd edition to 2nd edition

[binions]

I have read through the early, middle and late preflop sections in the 3rd edition. My observations of the changes:

3rd edition is 76 pages longer. Here are the additions:
Introduction + 5 pages
Limit sections +16 pages
Barry Tannenbaum's 10 common errors + 2 pages

The rest of the additional material resides in the 62 page SNG section, which contains some material ("Poker & Computers" and "Tournaments") that was in the Miscellaneous section of the 2nd edition.

Early Position
As for starting hands, Jones has tightened up and recommends more passive play in early position.

Tighter:
In early position unraised pots, he now says to fold QJs, JTs, A9s and 88/77 (these were calling hands in the 2nd edition). He now says to fold ATs and KQo until you are 3rd to act, and then he tells you to call with them.

In raised pots, he now recommends folding AJs and TT, where he recommended calling these in the 2nd edition.

More Passive:
In unraised pots, he recommends calling with KQs instead of raising (like he did before). Also, the text of the 3rd edition recommends calling with AJs, although the summary chart at the end of the chapter says to raise with AJs.

Changes in loose, passive games:
Borrowing a page from SSHE, he says if you expect 5-6 players to see the flop, then he now says you can call with any pair, even if the pot might be raised.

Middle Position
In middle position, Jones has a new section on a raise or fold philosophy when the pot hasn't been opened. He reiterates the "play any pair" philosophy if you expect 4-5 people to see the flop.

With big cards in middle position in an unraised pot, he now says to raise JTs. First, in he says to raise KJo and JTo (these were calling hands in the first edition). If limpers in front of you, he says call with KQo, AJo, ATo, KJo and JTo. Apparently, QJo is a folding hand since it is not mentioned.

For suited 1-gappers, J9s is the lowest playable (only with 4+ limpers). Compare T8s in the 2nd edition.

For suited kings, he now says KTs is as low as you go. In the second edition, K9-K7s were recommended in middle position.

When facing 3 bets cold, he now says to fold JJ.

When facing 1-3 limpers, he now says raise TT and above, and call 99-88. Earlier, it was raise 88 and above, and call 77-55. (Note, with 3 limpers + 2 blinds, you are getting 4.5 or 5:1 on your call. I would call with any pair after 3 limpers).

You are now supposed to fold J9s, T9s, 98s, KQo, KJo, QJo with 1-3 limpers in front.

QJs is totally missing from the middle position, 1-3 limper summary chart, while JTs is listed as both a raising and a calling hand. Me suspects a typo.

Against a raise, he now says to fold TT-99, except that you can play any pair in a raised pot if you are the 5th one in.

Late Position
He eliminates 65s, 54s, 86s, 75s, 96s, T7s, J8s, and Q9s.

He now recommends raising with medium pairs if you are the 6th one in.

Typo in the summary chart: says to raise 1-3 limpers with AA-TT, but call with 77. Text makes clear that he says raise with AA-88 in this case.

With 1-3 callers, you are supposed to now fold 66-55. These were calling hands in the previous edition.

With 1-3 callers, you are now not supposed to raise A9s, A9o and A8s, but you are supposed to raise JTs.

With 1-3 callers, you are now supposed to fold 87s-54s, T8s-75s, and K8s-K2s.

With 4 or more callers in front, you are now supposed to 65s-54s, 86s-53s, K8-K2s, and Qxs.

With a raise in front, you are now supposed to fold QJs and KJs unless it is going to be multiway.

[jemeisterman]

Thanks for the comparison to the 2nd Edition. I read about Lee Jones update for WLLH in The Intelligent Gambler, and was wondering what he modified specfically.

Nice outline of changes. Thanks.

[binions]

One pet peeve in the Odds chapter that persists in edition after edition.

He says it's 7.5:1 to flop a set with a pocket pair. It's actually 7.5:1 to flop a set or better (ie set, boat, quads).

Just flopping a set is 8.3:1.

[Shandrax]

I think I will never understand recipe-books like that one...

One should be reminded from the comparison to the dealer in Black Jack that a pure strategy will never work. Once people know what you are doing, you will lose (Fundamental Theorem of Poker). Poker is all about mixed strategies and adapting them specifically to the unique situation on your table.

How long will it take people to realize (or remember) this?

[SamG]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I will never understand recipe-books like that one...

[/ QUOTE ]
What's not to understand? They teach people not to play any two face cards and any two sooted. Someone who reads this book will play much better than your average low limit player and should be able to beat that game.

[ QUOTE ]
One should be reminded from the comparison to the dealer in Black Jack that a pure strategy will never work. Once people know what you are doing, you will lose (Fundamental Theorem of Poker).

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think the typical .5/1 player will even notice how you're playing?

Obviously, if you want to advance, you have to go beyond recipes, but this book will get you to the point where you stop hemorrhaging money.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
One should be reminded from the comparison to the dealer in Black Jack that a pure strategy will never work. Once people know what you are doing, you will lose (Fundamental Theorem of Poker).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, given that your opponents are actually sophonts. That's often in doubt in the smaller games. (Smaller being up to 2/4 inclusive on Party, and probably 10/20-15/30 something live.)

As long as the opponents think that the fact I am a Leo will have a bigger impact on how they do against me than the fact that I have read alot of poker books and spend a fair amount of effort on improving my game formulaic play is the best play.

A pure strategy, as long as it's actually close to the correct strategy against a table of amnesiacs, is what works best against morons.

I wonder how long it will take people to realize this. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[BarronVangorToth]

3rd > 2nd

but

SSH is still > 3rd

and it's FAR from close.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[Farfenugen]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I will never understand recipe-books like that one...

One should be reminded from the comparison to the dealer in Black Jack that a pure strategy will never work. Once people know what you are doing, you will lose (Fundamental Theorem of Poker). Poker is all about mixed strategies and adapting them specifically to the unique situation on your table.

How long will it take people to realize (or remember) this?

[/ QUOTE ]

When I first started playing limit poker my only experience with poker at all had been NL bar poker and NL home games with my friends. I was a total beginner at limit poker and my father told me to read WLLHE before I played any 3/6.

I would have been completely lost without formulaic books like WLLHE. I had no experience with small stakes hold'em. I was still struggling with concepts such as position(something I had to learn the hard way). WLLHE got me through the initial stages of learning to play limit hold'em. I have since graduated from WLLHE play and moved on to SSHE. Now I understand the concepts behind the actions and I can make intelligent decisions.

But, I cannot underestimate the importance that WLLHE played in my development as a poker player. The formulaic play kept me playing long enough to become comfortable with, and seek to continue learning about the game.

[vulturesrow]

Barron,

You are comparing apples and oranges here. SSH is simply not a beginner's book, no matter how generous you are with the term. I see WLLH as a beginner's book and as such it is just fine. I think a more valid comparison is GSIH and WLLH. Personally, I think it is great that Lee was able to incorporate some changes to improve it. It takes some guts to do something like this. I am sure profit was motivator too of course. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] But there is no question that this book can turn a beginning player into a winning one at the low limit games. SSH is most likely going to lead a beginner to spewing chips all over the table and wondering where he went wrong, unless he is one of the rare breed that just "gets it".

[Steve00007]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I will never understand recipe-books like that one...

One should be reminded from the comparison to the dealer in Black Jack that a pure strategy will never work. Once people know what you are doing, you will lose (Fundamental Theorem of Poker). Poker is all about mixed strategies and adapting them specifically to the unique situation on your table.


[/ QUOTE ]

Beginners don't care what you are doing. Many of them don't even try to read your hands.