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