Morton's Theorem and SSHE

[leykis]

I am wondering if the reccomendations made in SSHE were derived with the paradox introduced by Morton's Theorem in mind?

I also can't seem to find the specific changes in strategy that occur by considering that most SSHE games will have frequent situations where Morton's Theorm comes into play.

If you arent aware of Morton's Theorem please see this:

http://www.concours.org/andymorton/a...#Andy%20Morton,%20Sketches%20and%20Testimonials,%20Part%20II

All I have seen so far is that the importance of being suited becomes paramount in SSHE games becuase in many situations more profit comes from having the best draw rather than having the best hand.

[RobNottsUk]

I doubt it. I had a look through the "Morton's Paradox" and there seem to be some slips.

Basically it's not surprising there's this 'window' between 8 and a bit, and 6 and a bit bets are in the pot, where the made hand prefers the weak draw to fold.

It happens simply because the EV of the call is about 75%, giving 4:3 and hence 8:6. Roughly 20% goes to flush draw, 5% to 2nd pair hand, so it is as if the bet were smaller from the made hands point of view. The Flush draw, loses less money on the turn call, and wants overcalls, whilst the made hand, would prefer to increase it's pot equity, by folding out the 2nd pair hand.

The flush draw, against 2 opponents is still losing money on the turn, the top pair hand would love a semi-bluff raise, in which case suddenly it benefits from the extra bet by the 2nd pair hand, rather than want a fold.

If you go to twodimes.net and try running some multi-way hand matchups, of highly multi-way pots, you'll find that % wise there's very little difference between hands. Therefore the marginal % increase of wins, thanks to flushes or str8's makes a significant difference to hand profitability.

If you regard the best 'made' hand as a draw to non-scare cards, with it strengthening on turn, it might help you figure out how best to play loose, passive and easily intimidate opponents in multi-way pots.

I actually found games where SSHE strategy failed, and yet a passive counter-position strategy was wildly profitable. It was superior, because it meant you won big pots, pressing a huge edge, rather than smaller pots, pressing marginal edges earlier in the hand.

[leykis]

[ QUOTE ]
I actually found games where SSHE strategy failed, and yet a passive counter-position strategy was wildly profitable. It was superior, because it meant you won big pots, pressing a huge edge, rather than smaller pots, pressing marginal edges earlier in the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking that the pf SSHE reccomendations put you in a position to be doing exactly that. (i.e playing suited aces from anwhere and small pairs from anywhere) provided the game is loose enough.

These type of hands will give you either huge hands and huge draws in big multiway pots which is never a bad thing.

Also, I think that you have to be better at playing post flop than you would in a tighter game as you will often flop second rate hands such as ace no kicker and pair and a gutshot type hands when you play as SSHE reccomends.

[RobNottsUk]

Thanks, for your understanding of my post, I was a little worried in the sad circumstances.

SSHE emphasises aggressive play, early in hand pre-flop and on flop, which is usually optimal, but in 'weird' games, may be counter productive. Because you make a great hand, then win a small pot, of intimidated opposition, who just try to suck out as cheap as poss.

So when the games passive pf, then yes I agree play suited aces and small pairs, but I actually prefer them in blinds or in early position, in the sort of game I am thinking of to middle position. Because I am very likely to successfully check/raise the field, or get a cheap flop card, by adopting similar strategy to ideas expressed in Slotboom's PLO book. Usually the player to my left, likes to bet, because I fold on most flops, but will call on weak draws, marginal 'best' hands, or sandbagged very strong hands. Something like nut-flush draw, str8 draw, suspect sets or 2 pair.

The problem, I have found, is that No Fold'em Hold'em FL games have been soured, perhaps because of the prevelant idea that you make your money pre-flop by raising, as 'schooling' or 'caller collusion' is a bad thing post-flop. It isn't I think, but you have to play well post-flop and adapt your game, rather than make opponents poor post-flop play correct.

In my experience of these loose games, fighting against the flow, trying to thin fields and press marginal pre-flop advantages, worked less well than going with the flow, and exploiting the calling stations natural tendencies and inabilities to put hands down, once they see the flop.

With a winning hand, in NFHE I want to have the biggest pot possible on the river. Often against easily intimidated opponents who like 1 bet per round and see what they have rivered, that means deferring raises till the Big Bet round, avoiding the betting lead and becoming the 'target' in a reverse implied odds situation.

In other games, SSHE aggressive strategies, work superbly. Fact remains, in my view it is easier to make lots of money in a loose-passive game (preferably with loose-aggression post-flop), than loose-aggressive pre-flop / passive post-flop (which is what happens, if lots of players make positional 'value' raises).

To me in NFHE, using implied odds rather than pot odds is paramount. So in Morton's paradox, the 'weak draw' is actually an easy call because of expected river bets, so long as the player is not bluff suspicious. If there's an intention of 'bluff catching' or disbelieving in the flush draw, then it's better to fold on turn, than pay off. So knowing where you are, "good post-flop play" is critical to success. The bad players, I have played with, tend to call down on the river, in schools, sometimes with hands as weak as 43 and a 4 str8 (so player was playing the board). This LPP tendency to do as the school (as described by Schoonmaker's Pyschology of Poker), compensates for small theoretical losses of top pair hands.