Comparing WLLH 3rd edition to 2nd edition

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, 50k/year ain't nothing to laugh about.

If I get it correctly the goal is to play like a "Blackjack-dealer". You have a script you run through and cash in on all the guys who play with more leaks over the long run than you do.

Now if it is indeed that easy, a bot should be able to to it, so I predict that the small stakes game will be dead the moment someone manages to get an interface going with Partypoker [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Btw, I wonder how 5 SSH-bots would do against 5 WLLH-bots in a ring game over 1000000 hands. Basically the ultimate proof which book is superior.

[LozColbert]

Mason, for once I wish you would tell us what you really think. Your total lack of candor is amazing.

[LozColbert]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have King Yao's book anywhere in there? I do.

[daveymck]

[ QUOTE ]

Btw, I wonder how 5 SSH-bots would do against 5 WLLH-bots in a ring game over 1000000 hands. Basically the ultimate proof which book is superior.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would go no way to prove which book is superior, if you sat one bot against 9 typical party .5/1 players that would be the test, otherwise the conditions of 10 tagish type players would not be realistic to the conditions each of the two systems need to be profitable.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't have King Yao's book anywhere in there? I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

King Yao's book is quite good, agreed, but in the last few months, a number of my friends have gotten into poker and wanted to get the basics down first. King Yao's is good additional info after the basics, but not worth adding a 4th book to an already daunting curriculum ... Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players undoubtedly would come AFTER Weighing the Odds, but 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.

And, to keep this on subject, even though WLLH 3rd > 2nd, I still wouldn't put it into the rotation. Not in 2005 and the madness that is the current metagame.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[tipperdog]

[ 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.

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
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 think you mischaracterize the sorts of games SSH was written for, and I also think you are making a big mistake when you say "A9s (or any AXs)," lumping the two together. A9s is a VERY different hand than A2s. And if you fold it UTG in a "typical" online low-limit game, you are missing the boat. I know Barry says different, but this is one scenario that I think he's just plain wrong about.

As modest evidence, I present Pokerroom.com stats that are the results of average players with hands in various positions. If you look up A9s, and set position to ANY, players to ANY, and table limit to whatever you want, you'll see that A9s is profitable TO THE AVERAGE PLAYER in any position.

Then do the same for A2s, and you'll see a BIG difference. A9s is nothing but black, but A2s has red all over.

Barry's recommendations for play UTG are too conservative for all but the toughest games.

[Albert Silver]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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 think you mischaracterize the sorts of games SSH was written for, and I also think you are making a big mistake when you say "A9s (or any AXs)," lumping the two together. A9s is a VERY different hand than A2s. And if you fold it UTG in a "typical" online low-limit game, you are missing the boat. I know Barry says different, but this is one scenario that I think he's just plain wrong about.

As modest evidence, I present Pokerroom.com stats that are the results of average players with hands in various positions. If you look up A9s, and set position to ANY, players to ANY, and table limit to whatever you want, you'll see that A9s is profitable TO THE AVERAGE PLAYER in any position.

Then do the same for A2s, and you'll see a BIG difference. A9s is nothing but black, but A2s has red all over.

Barry's recommendations for play UTG are too conservative for all but the toughest games.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a really interesting resource I didn't know about. Thanks.

I entered A2s for $1/$2, 10 players and any position and got a grand total average of 0.00 wins and losses in BBs. It's true that each and every higher kicker with that ace got a steadily higher result though. One interesting item was the result on Ace with a non-suited card: ANY combination that wasn't at least an ATo yielded a negative result overall no matter the position (even the button). Since the button would be the most likely candidate for an A9o to yield a profit, I checked also the different limits. It remains a losing proposition (all positions) up to and including $5/$10 limits. At $10/$20 it becomes profitable only at the button. A8o, just to compare, still remains a loser though. All in all, interesting stuff.

Albert

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a really interesting resource I didn't know about. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it's cool. But you should definitely be aware that their sample sizes aren't always maybe what they should be... especially for the higher limits like $25-$50. The numbers are unbolded if the sample size is particularly inadequate, but if you look at almost any data, you'll see significant noise.

Having said that, it's often safe to draw conclusions because the data is overwhelming, and A9s is one hand for which I believe the data is overwhelming.

[playersare]

way way back even before I had read or completely understood any of the major poker books, I compiled and sorted the pokerroom hand EV's in order, and taped the useful portion to my wall. helped to reduce the bleeding until I actually figured out what the hell I was doing.

A-A 2.32
K-K 1.67
Q-Q 1.22
J-J 0.86
A-K s 0.77
A-Q s 0.59
T-T 0.58
A-K 0.51
A-J s 0.43
K-Q s 0.39
9-9 0.38
A-T s 0.33
A-Q 0.31
K-J s 0.29
8-8 0.25
Q-J s 0.23
K-T s 0.20
A-J 0.19
A-9 s 0.18
Q-T s 0.17
K-Q 0.16
7-7 0.16
J-T s 0.15
A-8 s 0.10
K-9 s 0.09
A-T 0.08
A-7 s 0.08
A-5 s 0.08
K-J 0.07
6-6 0.07
A-4 s 0.06
Q-9 s 0.06
T-9 s 0.05
J-9 s 0.04
A-6 s 0.03
Q-J 0.03
5-5 0.02
A-3 s 0.02
K-8 s 0.01
K-T 0.01
A-2 s 0.00
9-8 s 0.00

K-7 s -0.00
T-8 s -0.00
Q-T -0.02
Q-8 s -0.02
8-7 s -0.02
A-9 -0.03
J-T -0.03
J-8 s -0.03
7-6 s -0.03
4-4 -0.03
K-6 s -0.04
9-7 s -0.04
K-5 s -0.05
K-4 s -0.05
T-7 s -0.05
Q-7 s -0.06
A-8 -0.07
K-9 -0.07
J-7 s -0.07
8-6 s -0.07
3-3 -0.07
K-3 s -0.08
K-2 s -0.08
Q-9 -0.08
J-9 -0.08
T-9 -0.08
Q-6 s -0.08
5-4 s -0.08
2-2 -0.09