Poker: Small Stakes Hold'em

[Bama Gambler]

Just ordered this book from http://www.twoplustwo.com/. I will give a review after I read it.

[MountainHawk]

What? We have to wait until AFTER you read it to hear the review?


Edit: :D (In case it wasn't obvious to Cheeto)

[Matty]

Looks good. I assume it's limit only like the other Sklansky/Malmuth book?

[win diesel]

I have read it. It is good, but I find it very similar to Gary Carson's book. They give the normal 2+2 commentary, "...most of these ideas have never appeared in print before.."; but alot of what is discussed is what I read in Carson's book.

Some examples are making sure you are counting backdoor flush and straight draws as outs and raising draws for value.

It is very good, but if you have already read Carson's book and play that style, this is nothing new.

Anyone else read both and feel this way?

[minus790]

I read it and devoured it. I give it 10 out of 10.

Great quiz secion, great blend of theory with practice, and a lot of cross-referencing to the Theory of Poker.

[win diesel]

I would give it a 7 out of 10.

Loses 2 points due to somewhat mediocre starting requirements section. Any starting chart which does not account for the # of people already in the pot is very incomplete. Due to the # of people in a hand can varyt from a fold to a raise. KT for example in late. First in raise. Couple of late limpers, call. Couple of early limpers or 6 or 7 in pot, fold. 44 on button, first in raise, 1 or 2 fold, 3-5 call, 6-7 value raise etc.

Hilger's book attempts this and is good for higher limits. But maybe too tight for low limits, leaving too much money on table.

Loses another point for plagiarizing Carson and exposing these ideas to a much broader audience lol

But in general, I did enjoy reading it and did learn many new things.

[Expunge]

Trying not to start new threads. I have a SSH hand for discussion. Do you play this hand any differently?

PokerStars 0.25/0.50 Hold'em (9 handed)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with As, 9s. MP3 posts a blind of $0.25.
Hero calls, UTG+1 calls, MP1 folds, MP2 folds, MP3 (poster) checks, CO folds, Button folds, SB completes, BB checks.

Flop: (5 SB) 2s, 9h, 8d (5 players)
SB checks, BB bets, Hero raises, UTG+1 calls, MP3 folds, SB folds, BB calls.

Turn: (5.50 BB) 7s (3 players)
BB bets, Hero raises, UTG+1 folds, BB calls.

River: (9.50 BB) 5c (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets, BB folds.

Final Pot: 10.50 BB
Main Pot: 9.50 BB, won by Hero.
Pot 2: 1 BB, returned to Hero.

[Hummer]

Only that I check the river.

[Sotally Tober]

Only thing I might not do is bet the river. If he has the 6, you'll be raised, you'll be beat. If he checks behind you, you likely have him beat anyway, IMO. So why bet it? You only get called if beaten.

[lipman]

You only get called if beaten.

I don't think this is necessarily the case. A hand like 9-10 might call him down, and you have to remember this is .25/.50, so a hand like 44 might also call him down.

That being said...I would check the river :D

[Sotally Tober]

You only get called if beaten.

I don't think this is necessarily the case. A hand like 9-10 might call him down, and you have to remember this is .25/.50, so a hand like 44 might also call him down.

That being said...I would check the river :D

True. Make that a 5/10, 8/16 or 10/20, then I think I'm definitely right. This hand falls under Micro-Limits.

[lipman]

I think that also depends on where you are playing. I have been playing 10-20 on Bodog lately and I 3 bet preflop with KK, flop comes Qxx, I raise the intial raiser (I am behind him), turn is a K, I bet, river is a blank, I bet (with the nuts, no flush or straights). I get called by 99.

I don't think the 5-10 through 15-30 games are as hard as people make them out to be. The average flops seen on the 10-20 tables at Bodog is usually well over 40%. I haven't checked what they are at party, but was thinking about taking my game over there for a while

[MNBridge]

First I agree with lipman ... people overrate the skills of the 15/30 players online. You just have to watch more carefully because some players are VERY good other than that it's the same game.

And I think Sponge was correct to bet the river ...... Miller makes this point very clear. If your opps play hands till the end bet the river even with marginal hands.

[Hummer]

And I think Sponge was correct to bet the river ...... Miller makes this point very clear. If your opps play hands till the end bet the river even with marginal hands.
Really? I'm looking forward to reading SSH. Can you expand on this idea? I've always gone on the rule that if you bet the river, you are usually only going to get called (or raised) by a winning hand.

[Sotally Tober]

And I think Sponge was correct to bet the river ...... Miller makes this point very clear. If your opps play hands till the end bet the river even with marginal hands.
Really? I'm looking forward to reading SSH. Can you expand on this idea? I've always gone on the rule that if you bet the river, you are usually only going to get called (or raised) by a winning hand.

I think he idea is that even if you have a marginal hand, b/c you know they will bet till the river, your marginal hand may well beat theirs (you have middle pair, they have bottom or you outkick them) or you'll chop. I've seen a lot of this on Stars at low-limit tables (1/2 & 2/4). Miller must think you'll get paid off enough times by really loose players to make up for the times you'll lose. From what I've seen, I think he's right. (Disclaimer: I have not read SSH, I'm simply guessing at why he would say this based on my own experience.)

[Cohete009]

Speaking of low limit, Douglan, Lawfive, Matty, Cohete, and Gator were ALL at the same 2/4 table at stars last nite.

Needless to say, some fish thinks 44 is a hand to CAP all the way to the river, even when they did not hit a set, and the other player had the nuts ;)

[lawfish's alter ego]

Since my other account is all F*d up (maybe I got banned?), I have to use this crappy username.

I am confused. WHAT IS SSH? I got BERATED by bama for assuming 15/30 was not a SSH game, but now in this thread we are saying SSH is not 5/10. I know it depends on the game, but come on. There has to be a level where we can assume it is or is not SSH unless stated otherwise:

Reference:
http://actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=734829&highlight=ssh#734829 (lawfish gets yelled at)
http://actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=36198 (this thread)

[douglan]

Speaking of low limit, Douglan, Lawfive, Matty, Cohete, and Gator were ALL at the same 2/4 table at stars last nite.

Needless to say, some fish thinks 44 is a hand to CAP all the way to the river, even when they did not hit a set, and the other player had the nuts ;)

Was it the man they call "Pescado de la Ley" in Spanish? :D

[lawfi5h]

Since my other account is all F*d up (maybe I got banned?), I have to use this crappy username.

I am confused. WHAT IS SSH? I got BERATED by bama for assuming 15/30 was not a SSH game, but now in this thread we are saying SSH is not 5/10. I know it depends on the game, but come on. There has to be a level where we can assume it is or is not SSH unless stated otherwise:

Reference:
http://actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=734829&highlight=ssh#734829 (lawfish gets yelled at) ***
http://actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=36198 (this thread)

No answer? Because (***) this post I am still bitter at.

[IMP]

Speaking of low limit, Douglan, Lawfive, Matty, Cohete, and Gator were ALL at the same 2/4 table at stars last nite.

Needless to say, some fish thinks 44 is a hand to CAP all the way to the river, even when they did not hit a set, and the other player had the nuts ;)

hope you boys are enjoying my hard earned money. :shake:
i know what my downfall is. I really need to work on it. Don't worry, I certainly will. Just keep your pockets full because I will surely be getting my money back with TONS of interest tacked on! :D

[Cohete009]

Speaking of low limit, Douglan, Lawfive, Matty, Cohete, and Gator were ALL at the same 2/4 table at stars last nite.

Needless to say, some fish thinks 44 is a hand to CAP all the way to the river, even when they did not hit a set, and the other player had the nuts ;)

hope you boys are enjoying my hard earned money. :shake:
i know what my downfall is. I really need to work on it. Don't worry, I certainly will. Just keep your pockets full because I will surely be getting my money back with TONS of interest tacked on! :D

Your first downfall was sitting down at the table....
Your second downfall was sitting down at the table a 2nd time!
Your third downfall was, you sat next to Cohete.
Shall Cohete keep going? :D

[Bama Gambler]

Since my other account is all F*d up (maybe I got banned?), I have to use this crappy username.

I am confused. WHAT IS SSH? I got BERATED by bama for assuming 15/30 was not a SSH game, but now in this thread we are saying SSH is not 5/10. I know it depends on the game, but come on. There has to be a level where we can assume it is or is not SSH unless stated otherwise:

Reference:
http://actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=734829&highlight=ssh#734829 (lawfish gets yelled at) ***
http://actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=36198 (this thread)

No answer? Because (***) this post I am still bitter at.Hope you aren't bitter towards me. I wasn't trying to yell at you, but rather enlighten you. :D

[lawfi5h]

Since my other account is all F*d up (maybe I got banned?), I have to use this crappy username.

I am confused. WHAT IS SSH? I got BERATED by bama for assuming 15/30 was not a SSH game, but now in this thread we are saying SSH is not 5/10. I know it depends on the game, but come on. There has to be a level where we can assume it is or is not SSH unless stated otherwise:

Reference:
http://actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=734829&highlight=ssh#734829 (lawfish gets yelled at) ***
http://actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=36198 (this thread)

No answer? Because (***) this post I am still bitter at.Hope you aren't bitter towards me. I wasn't trying to yell at you, but rather enlighten you. :D

no...bitter at the group because I got ganged up on. And I never really got an answer since the question clearly stated "You are playing in a typical $10-20 limit hold-em game, fairly tight and aggressive".

And the begs the question of where does one draw the line for SSH? Because in this thread, we stated 5/10 isn't (with generalization, I assume), but the question stated "...a typical 10/20...."

(I know it's not a line...it's a continuum with probabilities, or gray areas. )

[Bama Gambler]

SSH is a valuable read for a player of any limit IMO. I believe it contains concepts that can applied to any limits.

[MNBridge]

I think he idea is that even if you have a marginal hand, b/c you know they will bet till the river, your marginal hand may well beat theirs (you have middle pair, they have bottom or you outkick them) or you'll chop. I've seen a lot of this on Stars at low-limit tables (1/2 & 2/4). Miller must think you'll get paid off enough times by really loose players to make up for the times you'll lose. From what I've seen, I think he's right. (Disclaimer: I have not read SSH, I'm simply guessing at why he would say this based on my own experience.)

For not reading the book that is right on.

To Lawfish --

I believe people get to worked up by what the limits are and assume a game based on that.
I have played $15/$30 games that range from family pots every time to a table full of maniacs to almost all semi-pros.
The game size says little about how the game will play IMO.

Also SSH works for just about any type of game as well.

A loose game according to the author is: 6 to 8 players in each pot with little preflop raising.

But the book also covers playing in 'tight' games with 3 to 5 players in an average hand and some preflop raising.

So in this SSH covers a very large range of games and how to adjust for each, This is part of the beauty of the book as I find most games I'm in are not as passive as his loose games or as tight as his tight games.
So I try to play somewhere in the middle.

[BeanCounter]

I found a couple of links to starting hand charts based on SSH:

Link 1 (http://www.jade-dragon.net/poker/preflop.xls)

Link 2 (http://www.gravity-interactive.com/limit.pdf)

The first is from a poster at 2+2 by who goes by the ID OhGeeTee. Here's a link to a good thread over there:

Discussion Thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=micro&Number=999097&Forum=All_Forums&Words=ssh&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=999097&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=12292&daterange=1&newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post999097)

[Not Mike]

Well, I bought this last week based on the advice here and have already found a few (other) holes in my game...

The biggest would be playing otherwise good starting hands after a raise (hands like AJ, Ax suited, KQ, etc)... so far, so good, it has a nice summary of starting hands (and when to raise, fold, call, etc) and breaks it down by position, which is key. In my first 2/4 action since reading the first 50ish pages, I was up around 200 on 2/4 last night... granted, was getting pretty decent cards, but was also playing them a lot better.

Also, was looking at 2+2 forums a bit, and saw a GREAT piece of advice about being less passive in post-flop play (which I'm sure has been stated here before). Basically, the advice was, if you're going to check/call, then instead of checking, you should bet.

Anyway, for those that haven't read the book, I highly recommend it (even though I'm just getting into it).

To go off on a bit of a tangent, here's a question I'll pose.... interested in comments: If I get AK, AQ, KQs, etc, and the flop comes rags, I will bet the flop, the turn, and the river even if I don't hit my pair (as long as I'm not being re-raised)... is this the correct play?

I think it is the correct play, but my follow-up is this... say you get "caught" doing this (i.e. you get called the river and lose), do you continue to play like this in every situation or do you change gears? For instance, if you get AQ three hands later and have the same situation, do you bet out again?

[Sotally Tober]

I found a couple of links to starting hand charts based on SSH:

Link 1 (http://www.jade-dragon.net/poker/preflop.xls)

Link 2 (http://www.gravity-interactive.com/limit.pdf)

The first is from a poster at 2+2 by who goes by the ID OhGeeTee. Here's a link to a good thread over there:

Discussion Thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=micro&Number=999097&Forum=All_Forums&Words=ssh&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=999097&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=12292&daterange=1&newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post999097)

Has anyone looked at these links in much detail yet? I have not, but wondered what those who read SSH thought as to the "accuracy" of them. It does seem like some real thought and effort went into them. Sponge, didn't you do something similar to this for your own benefit a while back based on what you'd read up to that point, when you first began playing?

[BeanCounter]

I found a couple of links to starting hand charts based on SSH:

Link 1 (http://www.jade-dragon.net/poker/preflop.xls)

Link 2 (http://www.gravity-interactive.com/limit.pdf)

The first is from a poster at 2+2 by who goes by the ID OhGeeTee. Here's a link to a good thread over there:

Discussion Thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=micro&Number=999097&Forum=All_Forums&Words=ssh&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=999097&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=12292&daterange=1&newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post999097)

Has anyone looked at these links in much detail yet? I have not, but wondered what those who read SSH thought as to the "accuracy" of them. It does seem like some real thought and effort went into them. Sponge, didn't you do something similar to this for your own benefit a while back based on what you'd read up to that point, when you first began playing?

I've checked every cell against the recommendations in the book. Link 1 (http://www.jade-dragon.net/poker/preflop.xls) is VERY accurate, Link 2 (http://www.gravity-interactive.com/limit.pdf) is prettier but has many errors which the author claims he will be correcting.

In the final link to the 2+2 thread, there were a couple of very minor errors found in Link 1 (http://www.jade-dragon.net/poker/preflop.xls), but they've been corrected and re-posted in that thread (http://www.geocities.com/nilloc1204/OhGeeTee_SSH_Chart.xls).

These charts should have been included with the book.

[MNBridge]

To go off on a bit of a tangent, here's a question I'll pose.... interested in comments: If I get AK, AQ, KQs, etc, and the flop comes rags, I will bet the flop, the turn, and the river even if I don't hit my pair (as long as I'm not being re-raised)... is this the correct play?

I think it is the correct play, but my follow-up is this... say you get "caught" doing this (i.e. you get called the river and lose), do you continue to play like this in every situation or do you change gears? For instance, if you get AQ three hands later and have the same situation, do you bet out again?

I hope you get discussion on this as I would consider it the weakest area of my game.

But here's my shot at it.

If you are in position things to consider--
Cons to betting -- The P(You win with High card ace and He calls) < P(He calls and wins)
He can check raise and you could lose 2 Big Bets on the river instead of 0.
Or if you will fold to a check raise -- He could be bluffing
Pros to betting --
P(You bet he folds a hand that would have won)
He may call with an even worse hand

If you are out of position --
Pros to betting --
P(You bet he folds a hand that would have won)
He may call with an even worse hand
He may call with a hand he would have bet with normally -- i.e. you don't lose anything if you would have bet anyway
Cons to betting --
The P(You win with High card ace and He calls) < P(He calls and wins)
Now having him raise here doesn't make your bet as dangerous as you aren't 'reopening' the betting.
He won't try to bluff and give you an extra bet you may have gotten had you checked.

One area the book is not clear --
Checking the river (or turn) will often induce bluffs heads up.
But if you bet the other player will fold (or only call with hands that beat you).

So this can be a case where it is clearly correct to check / call. And it is very common.

So there are 2 things working against each other:
1) The advantage of checking and having the opp bet into you with a hand that he would not have called with.
(This also avoids having to put in an extra bet if he would have raised the river)

2) If your opp has a hand that is worse than yours and would have called your bet but instead checks -- you left a bet out there.

The book seems to concentrate on #2.

[Sotally Tober]

To go off on a bit of a tangent, here's a question I'll pose.... interested in comments: If I get AK, AQ, KQs, etc, and the flop comes rags, I will bet the flop, the turn, and the river even if I don't hit my pair (as long as I'm not being re-raised)... is this the correct play?

I think it is the correct play, but my follow-up is this... say you get "caught" doing this (i.e. you get called the river and lose), do you continue to play like this in every situation or do you change gears? For instance, if you get AQ three hands later and have the same situation, do you bet out again?

I do the same thing, although I can't claim it to be the "right" play. It just seems that what people will continue to call with is amazing, so if I have 2 over cards, I'll bet it and make it seem like I might have a PP or maybe they even know I have 2 overs. When a big card hits on turn or river, unless it makes them 2 pair, you get paid b/c they fold, or more often that not, they call to the river.

[Not Mike]

I hope you get discussion on this as I would consider it the weakest area of my game.

But here's my shot at it.

If you are in position things to consider--
Cons to betting -- The P(You win with High card ace and He calls) < P(He calls and wins)
He can check raise and you could lose 2 Big Bets on the river instead of 0.
Or if you will fold to a check raise -- He could be bluffing
I think I'd probably lay down to a re-raise, unless the pot was huge. In fact, I think one of the bigger holes in my game was/is the unwillingness to laydown hands... it's like you get so far into the hand that you convince yourself "it's only $4 more" even if you know you have virtually no shot.

Pros to betting --
P(You bet he folds a hand that would have won)
He may call with an even worse hand
In position, I may just check, as most calling stations will call their bottom pair even with 4 overs.

If you are out of position --
Pros to betting --
P(You bet he folds a hand that would have won)
He may call with an even worse hand
He may call with a hand he would have bet with normally -- i.e. you don't lose anything if you would have bet anyway
Plus, if you check and he bets, what do you do? You've shown your weakness.

Cons to betting --
The P(You win with High card ace and He calls) < P(He calls and wins)
Now having him raise here doesn't make your bet as dangerous as you aren't 'reopening' the betting.
He won't try to bluff and give you an extra bet you may have gotten had you checked.
Out of position, I have to bet here... I can't allow him to win the pot without calling a bet. Even though he will usually beat you when he calls, (obviously) he never beats you if you bluff him out.

One area the book is not clear --
Checking the river (or turn) will often induce bluffs heads up.
But if you bet the other player will fold (or only call with hands that beat you).

So this can be a case where it is clearly correct to check / call. And it is very common.
Good point... but then the question becomes is my bluff (check/call) stronger than his bluff? Maybe he would have folded his AK to my AQ if I bet, but now I've given him control.

So there are 2 things working against each other:
1) The advantage of checking and having the opp bet into you with a hand that he would not have called with.
(This also avoids having to put in an extra bet if he would have raised the river)

2) If your opp has a hand that is worse than yours and would have called your bet but instead checks -- you left a bet out there.

The book seems to concentrate on #2.
The only thing with #1 is that you now have to put the bet in anyway, but there's a 0% chance of him folding.