Comparing WLLH 3rd edition to 2nd edition

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Shandrax:

[ 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 ]

Low limit games typically feature many players who not only play too many hands but automatically go to far with them. This is typical of many players who are new to poker and is well described in Jones' book (both 1st and 2nd editions).

If the game is as you describe, then I can accept your argument.

Best wishes,
mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Rudbaeck:

The absolutely correct answer to this question is what is your game like. But in general, low limit games feature many players who play too many hands and go too far with them. But if you're in some particular game and that is not the case, then adjust your strategy accordingly.

best wishes,
mason

[pokerbear]

Hi. A lot to cover here.

1 - Open limping: I do tell many students not to open limp. This is a function of the games they play in, the image they are trying to project, and the fact that forcing peopple to open raise keeps them from playing a number of hands that they should not play when first in. Of course hands have value that rises and falls with the number of players, the typical aggression level and the ability of the players to play post-flop. And yes, if a game is overwhelmingly loose-passive, I will open-limp with pocket pairs and some large suited connectors, among others.

2 - I am nevertheless more sensitive to position than many others seem to be. Even if you feel your game is loose and passive, some one may pick up a big pair behind you and raise, cutting down on the typical size of the field. If there are five limpers, I caertainly advocate (at least) limping on the button with JTs. Does that still give novices problems when they flop top pair? Yes. Might they still misplay? Yes. But at least they have made a definite correct play, and get to act last on all streets, giving them an incrementally better chance to play decently if not optimally. A novice limping up front might find himself in a number of far less desirable situations than the one described.

3 - I want to thank my students in this thread for leaping to my defense, and for their endorsements (and hi to Tina, too). I beg them to remember that each student gets different advice geared to his style, ability, goals, and the games they are playing in. I do not give generic advice in a one-size-fits-all fashion.

BarryT

[Rudbaeck]

2: It doesn't matter that occasionally the person on your left raises and isolates you. Overall you still remain a winner limping JTs UTG in a somewhat passive game.

The average player is turning a profit with JTs UTG in loose games. Recommending someone who is even remotely skilled to fold here is giving up alot! (Somewhere around 0.25BB or so.)

[GreywolfNYC]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Mason,
Actually I have looked at SSHE, closely in fact. I believe that the style of play that Barry has helped me develop is better suited to the games that I regularly play, mostly in NYC and sometimes in AC at the 10-20 & 15-30 limits. The games tend to be either tight-aggressive or somewhat loose-aggressive. A hand involving six or seven limpers is a rarity. On average, three to five players are seeing the flop for three bets. From what I've seen of the 10-20 at the Mirage (I'm in Vegas about 30 days a year), it is far more loose-passive than the games I'm accustomed to.

On a side note, when I first met Barry in Las Vegas, he specifically asked me what limits I played, how much experience I had, and what I wanted to accomplish in poker. I told him I wanted to consistently beat the lower middle limit, live cash games for now and move up when my bankroll could handle it. Eventually I'd like to play full time in Las Vegas. The advice he has given me has been directed specifically to my level of experience and my personal goals. I think that he has been working not only to help me at the limits I play now, but also prepare me to move up when I'm ready to do so.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Wolf:

Okay. I would suggest that you try to understand the underlying theory of the game. That way you will be able to adjust your play depending on the game that you are in. Right now it looks like you have a cookbook approach that may be working well in the one specific game that you are playing, but it certainly won't work well for the games that WLLH are targeted for, and that's what this thread is about.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

I'm sorry but I thought this thread was about WLLH, a book that is targeted towards specific games which generally feature players who play too many hands and go to far with them. It appears that you have mixed in your advice (in the book) which is not targeted towards these games. (I say appears since I have not yet read the third edition.) It now sounds like WLLH advice is more in line with our book HPFAP. I guess that's okay if you're playing those games which HPFAP is targeted for, but if you're playing low limit games the specific advice that we are looking at, is, as Ed Miller has stated, too conservative and will not allow your readers to win at the optimum.

Now this doesn't mean they won't win, and it also doesn't mean that your loyal students don't win. It also doesn't mean that you don't win. But it does mean that the words on the pages need to be examined t see if they are the best that can be produced, and I suspect from what I have read in this thread that they are not.

One other point. Over the years I have noticed a number of poker students who are very loyal to their instructors. They feel that if it wasn't for their instructors they wouldn't be winners, and perhaps that is the case. But that doesn't mean that they were given the absolutely best information. In most poker games, and this is particularly true today with all the new players, if you just get typical players to tighten up substantially, they will begin to win. See my book Poker Essays, Volume III for more discussion.


Best wishes,
Mason

[Ed Miller]

[ 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. 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course these hands can give people kicker problems. And they give everyone kicker problems, not just beginners, though beginners will get into a few more bad situations than better players.

But whether the hands give kicker problems or not isn't really the issue. The issue is whether these hands are PROFITABLE or not. Merely asserting that they are problem hands doesn't make your case.

These are my points:

1. Hands should be recommended based on whether they are profitable or not.

2. The profitability of certain hands from certain positions can be fairly well surmised from the Pokerroom.com stats stats available for free on the web.

3. Trying to argue this point without looking at the available data is more than a little silly.

In GSiH, I recommend that beginners fold QTs and JTs up front as well. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about some of your other UTG recommendations.

I've personally heard you recommend, not just to beginners, but to experienced players that they fold stuff like ace-jack offsuit and ace-ten suited UTG. I've even heard you recommend folding pocket nines up front.

Forgive me if I've misheard or misremembered your advice, but one look at the Pokerroom stats should convince you that folding ATs or 99 up front is just plain silly. And it should bring the prudence of folding AJ into serious question.

Yes, they are beginners. Yes, they should get tighter recommendations than good players. But please don't get carried away.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Ed:

[ QUOTE ]
Forgive me if I've misheard or misremembered your advice, but one look at the Pokerroom stats should convince you that folding ATs or 99 up front is just plain silly. And it should bring the prudence of folding AJ into serious question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to carry this a little further my understanding is that the pokerroom stats are based on everyone's play. This includes both good and bad players. So if a hand there is profitable for everyone, it should be even more profitable for someone who plays well.

Best wishes,
Mason

[tipperdog]

Mason,

I think you make some fair points here. You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
One other point. Over the years I have noticed a number of poker students who are very loyal to their instructors. They feel that if it wasn't for their instructors they wouldn't be winners, and perhaps that is the case. But that doesn't mean that they were given the absolutely best information.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am loyal to Barry, as I do believe his advice has substantially increased my win rate. Of course, it's impossible to know if his advice is the "absolute best" (though I'd be immediately suspicious of anyone who claimed to know the "absolute best" answer in all circumstances).

However, Barry bases his advice for me on my playing style and the hands and games we've discussed. Accordingly, I'm much more willing to give his advice the benefit of the doubt, even if that advice contradicts the guidance in SSHE, HEFAP, or PokerRoom EV charts. I don't think that's blind loyalty at all; it actually seems quite reasonable.