Comparing WLLH 3rd edition to 2nd edition

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi binions:

I won't get into many specifics but I do disagree with much of this. Here's one example:

[ QUOTE ]
In early position unraised pots, he now says to fold QJs, JTs, A9s and 88/77

[/ QUOTE ]

As we have pointed out for years, WLLH is targeted for low limit games which usually feature many players who play too many hands and go too far with them. I can't see how any of these hands won't show a profit in games like this when you can initially come in for a limp.

But I have another problem with all of this that i want to address here. From what I read Edition Two needed a lot of fixing. From The Intelligent Gambler:

[ QUOTE ]
I asked Barry [Tannebaum] to grab a copy of WLLH and a pen and start marking. And mark he did, leaving red ink on most of the pages. ... And in some cases: "I hate this -- it produces leaks." I listened, contemplated, argued, and (usually) eventually agreed with his recommendations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I remember Jones over the years getting pretty upset with me because I said this book had a lot of errors, and I remember Jones getting even more upset with Ed Miller for being very specific about much of the advice in Edition 2.

Now Lee, you can't have it both ways. You need to admit that we were right and your book needed a lot of fixing. I haven't read the third edition yet, but I hope you realize that I was absolutely correct in not publishing your first edition years ago. I also hope that your third edition is now finally a top notch guide to the new player, but I will withhold any judgement until I have read it thoroughly (and it will be a while before I can get to it).

Best wishes,
Mason

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, my background comes from chess and in chess there are countless "Winning with..."-books. Some beginner will buy it, memorize the lines and then start wondering why he keeps losing to guys who don't even know (this) theory.

Yes agreed, books like that may be a good way to start, but people should not expect to make a fortune in online play with it, simply because it ain't that easy.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes agreed, books like that may be a good way to start, but people should not expect to make a fortune in online play with it, simply because it ain't that easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, a player who plays exactly as Jones suggests will most likely not be able to make much more than $50/hr.

[Rob-L]

I think you need to remember the audience of the book. It's aimed at beginners, and formula's are a good way for a beginner to learn, and hopefully they'll be playing other beginners and/or uniformed players.

At the low limits, I think you'll find both beginners and the uninformed. So in that regard, the book's advice is good. But to advance your skill and play at higher limits, I agree, you need to think outside the formulas.

But, for you to say WLLHE is no good because you won't beat better players or make a lot of money is like saying a Ford Festiva is no good because it will never win a NASCAR Race. It won't, but of course, that is not what it was designed to do. Just like a Festiva is designed for basic transportation, WLLHE is designed to help beginners and low-limit players beat, or at least not get crushed, at the games they are playing.

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes agreed, books like that may be a good way to start, but people should not expect to make a fortune in online play with it, simply because it ain't that easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a book for small stakes games. In that context, you're entirely wrong. Fancy moves in these games will only make you lose money. Making fomulaic, correct plays will bring in the dough.

SSH is similarly formulaic in its approach to the same subject. Sklansky claims that using the formulaic approach outlined in SSH, many people are making >$50,000 per year and that it is relatively easy to do so. I will grant you that $50,000 isn't a fortune, but it is an above-average salary and a lot of money to make playing a game.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi binions:

I won't get into many specifics but I do disagree with much of this. Here's one example:

[ QUOTE ]
In early position unraised pots, he now says to fold QJs, JTs, A9s and 88/77

[/ QUOTE ]

As we have pointed out for years, WLLH is targeted for low limit games which usually feature many players who play too many hands and go too far with them. I can't see how any of these hands won't show a profit in games like this when you can initially come in for a limp.


[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree.

In low limit games where 4-6 people see the flop, I don't see how you can fold middle pairs and suited cards that add to 20 in unraised pots.

I like Barry T, but does he play low limit holdem? These new starting hand guidelines seem more appropriate for tighter, tougher games.

[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.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]


If you don't consider SSH a beginner's book (and I'm fine with not thinking that it is) then wouldn't you recommend Getting Started in Hold 'em?

Soooo many of my friends are getting into poker with this whole craze and all of them have been through the Triple Threat Tutorial of Getting Started in Hold 'em, Theory of Poker, and Small Stakes Hold 'em ... are we missing something here, because, from here, we have Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players and, if you're looking for tournament action, Dan Harrington's fine books, and, why not, getting your head into the game with Dr. Al's Psychology of Poker.

While 3rd > 2nd ... I'm not sure most need 3rd ... and there is still advice that I think is hurtful. And, as David Sklansky advised, much like with doctors, poker books should "do no harm" -- and I believe 3rd still has some advice that may be harmful ... maybe it won't lose you money in some spots, but places you should make money, you won't.

It's better ... but I don't think it's part of the necessary lexicon for most players.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[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.