Comparing WLLH 3rd edition to 2nd edition

[GreywolfNYC]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Mason,
I appreciate your advice very much. I've also worked hard to have a good understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of the game, and I continue to study TOP and HEPFAP and refer back to both of those works frequently. In my humble opinion, HEPFAP is the seminal work on limit hold'em and I expect it will be for a long time to come.

I do, in fact, adjust my game all the time. Rather than using a cookbook approach in all situations I will modify my playing style based on who my opponents are and what kind of game I'm in.

I was winning money playing poker before Barry started teaching me. I decided to take lessons from him because I wanted to improve. This I can tell you: rather than using a sort of pro forma approach to the game, Barry's lessons have much more in common with those in Barry Greenstein's book. Yes, we discuss specific hands and different plays, but at the heart of his teaching is the greater importance of position and people than the cards themsleves.
All the best,
GWNYC

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
PokerRoom EV charts. I don't think that's blind loyalty at all; it actually seems quite reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

He tells you to fold a hand that an average player (not an average winning, but one of the pretty steady losers) is making a profit on, and you think following the recommendation is reasonable?

You're paying to be told to fold solidly profitable hands?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Wolf:

I suggest you give Small Stakes Hold 'em a good reading. There are some explanations in there about how and why hands gain positive value that you should find helpful.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi dog:

I have no problem. These are your decisions and you'll have to make them yourself. On the other hand, it's very clear to me that some of this advice is wrong for the games that WLLH is targeted for. Also, it's probably more important for you to get a complete fundamental understanding of the underlying theory of the game if you have not already done so. This will allow you to make the proper adjustments, as opposed to wild plays that I see some regulars make all the time at the poker table.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Rudbaeck:

I have a theory about certain writers and teachers, and it may apply here (but I'm not sure). It is the idea that these people think back on their losing plays, whether they were correct or not, and then conclude that perhaps they shouldn't have played the hand, or called the raise, or made the raise in the first place, etc. So this begins to translate into them giving weak-tight advice which is long term harmful for their students/readers even though it will allow formerly losing players to win a little.

An example is a couple of years ago I went to a luncheon where the speaker gave a little poker talk. Part of it included the following advice (which was suppose to be targeted for beginners):

On the flop, if you don't think you have the best hand or the best draw you should fold.

So from this you should conclude that in a large multiway pot, if you flop an open end straight draw you should fold if there is a two flush on board since obviously there is probably a flush draw out. The fact that you may have six outs to the nuts is not a reason to play.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Rudbaeck]

I think he simply has missed the wealth of empirical data available today.

PokerRoom, players with half a million of their own hands in database, large datamining projects for example.

[tipperdog]

FWIW, Barry generally thinks I play too weakly, and usually, he's advising me to bet and raise more.

Also, you wrote:[ QUOTE ]
It's probably more important for you to get a complete fundamental understanding of the underlying theory of the game if you have not already done so.

[/ QUOTE ]

What can I say? It's a work in progress [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Rudbaeck]

I've now read the entire book. And I can say without hesitation that I gladly lend this to any friend who is a poker newbie wanting to learn more. Almost all the weak-tight advice is gone.

He now pumps draws, folds TPNK only when met with resistance action from multiple opponents etc. (No longer assuming you are beat because your flop bet was called.)

He attributes most of it to Barry, but it reads as if a crew from the SS forum here had revised the book! Many of the loose game concepts hashed out here over the last few years are included.

The play isn't always optimal, and it has some very bizarre errors, like the part about calling based on Game Theory. But I no longer have to hold a 30 minute sermon on what is wrong with the introductory text!

Anyone who learns to play this style will beat the Party 2/4 for a fair amount. More can be won, but I don't think teaching that complex a style in one single book is even remotely possible.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

A small disagreement, Mr. Miller, but shouldn't variance play some role in these recommendations as well. I think it might be a mistake to instruct beginners to play small +EV but high variance hands for a few reasons.

First, no matter how much you tell them that poker is a long term game, short term results will matter. If they are lucky and are big winners up front with QTs, then all of a sudden, J9s, 65s and QTo start to look pretty good, with predictable results. On the other hand, if they get rocked with these trouble hands by always having to say "nice kicker" and such, then they might just say "to hell with it" about the whole thing and either start playing wild and crazy or not playing at all.

Second, I think it is incredibly likely that many, many new players are underbankrolled, and variance is the enemy.

Now, not many of the players who can use a WLLH-type book will really understand either of those caveats, so instead of getting them in 'trouble' with marginally proftiable hands, why not sacrifice a tiny bit of EV for the sake of low variance, clarity and to drive home the point (as you do in GSIH) that tight play is required.

Note, I'm not expressing an opinion on the specific recommendations made but any of the works mentioned in this thread, I just wanted to make the point that focusing *solely* on EV is not always appropriate when dealing with new players.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

A small disagreement, Mr. Miller, but shouldn't variance play some role in these recommendations as well. I think it might be a mistake to instruct beginners to play small +EV but high variance hands for a few reasons.


[/ QUOTE ]
First, the hands being discussed are not "small +EV." Second, I think Ed disagrees about variance:

[ QUOTE ]
I consider myself a teacher first, TStone, not a theorist. I teach novice and intermediate limit hold 'em cash game players to whoop up on small and medium stakes games. And I believe that the overwhelming majority of players whom I am trying to teach would be better off if they pretended variance didn't have anything to do with any decision they make at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]