Winning in Tough Hold 'em Games

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I know that the book is wonderful, but it is useless in games most people play, as very few players play at the level this book is written for.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think this book has relevance all the way down to 3/6 limit 6-max online.
Perhaps even down to 1/2 limit.

Can also be applied to many limit full-ring games online down to 3/6 or even 1/2 which seem to be tighter than ever. Not necessarily THAT tough. But you don't have nearly as many people practically trying to give their money away by playing 100% of their hands as you did just a few years ago.
You do have a bunch of players who fall anywhere between 11/2 to 20/12 though and you have tables that get folded around to late-position or the blinds an awful lot.

Lots of these games don't really fall under Ed Miller's SSHE as much imo. It can constantly get folded around to the HJ or CO and you are either going to be attempting to steal the blinds with your 55 or K8s or whatever or you are going to be defending your BB with those hands.
Those heads-up "should I steal or attempt to defend with this hand and how do I go about playing it post-flop?" type of situations are addressed extremely well in Stox's book.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Lots of these games don't really fall under Ed Miller's SSHE as much imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, really? hee hee The most misapplied book in all the universe? A table full of players ranging from 11/2 to 20/12, and you don't think it works well with a book where "tight" is described as 5 players seeing the flop? You're making quite an understatement.

[amulet]

i play limit at very high stakes, and often shorthanded. as i wrote, the book made me think, however, there was a lot i disagreed with.

i would like to hear why you, mason, and maybe jfk thought it was so wonderful, and what parts all of you thought improved your game.

[steamboatin]

I will confess. I have avoided buying this book because I avoid tough lmit games. I know I will eventually buy it because when the NL boom runs its course, I need to be ready.

[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]
i play limit at very high stakes, and often shorthanded. as i wrote, the book made me think, however, there was a lot i disagreed with.

i would like to hear why you, mason, and maybe jfk thought it was so wonderful, and what parts all of you thought improved your game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amulet, I'd be more interested in hearing what you disagree with in the book, than why Mason likes it ... pls share [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi amulet:

It's very helpful in games where players are very agressive, much more so than they use to be. This relates to not only starting hands including attacking and defending the blinds, but in play against this kind of player from the flop on.

Best wishes,
Mason

[DrSavage]

I think the book is pretty bad fwiw.

[Blue Lagoon]

wow, ok.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the book is pretty bad fwiw.

[/ QUOTE ]


drsavage - I would particularly interested in why you think this. If you wanted to just PM some of your reasoning to me I would be cool with that but I'm sure others on here would be curious as well.

[DrSavage]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the book is pretty bad fwiw.

[/ QUOTE ]


drsavage - I would particularly interested in why you think this. If you wanted to just PM some of your reasoning to me I would be cool with that but I'm sure others on here would be curious as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, there was a lot of stuff that i didn't like. Some logical thinking is backwards and inconsistent, some advice is not based or backed up by anything, some advice i think is wrong, meaningless PT stats occupy a lot of space, some EV calculations are wrong (stox was called out on that in some MHSH post i think). I cannot go into the details as i read it long time ago and don't remember what exactly i thought was wrong and everything i said is just my opinion. The book didn't make me a better player, if there are people who improved after reading it, good for them.