Damning the River

Since I haven’t played any more poker this week, this is a good time to bring up a topic I’ve had on my mind: WLLH v. SSHE.  I want to make a couple points about the differences, leading to a way people might consider transitioning from the former to the latter approach.  Maybe fellow studious newbies will find this useful.

Ed Miller’s main point – that WLLH is too cautious and weak – seems correct. As I’ve said, I fully buy into Miller’s approach.  To point out just two important categories of play, his reasoning seems right in relation to playing overcards and playing the turn.  But, in certain circumstances, Lee actually recommends aggression, but he just doesn’t make his point strongly and clearly.

Consider WLLH p. 77 (2nd edition, of course), “when you flop second or bottom pair.” Miller advocates that in large pots, it’s worth playing certain marginal hands, like second or bottom pair with an overcard kicker and/or backdoor draws, aggressively in order to knock out players.  Jones starts his section by saying “Normally, it’s best to check and fold,” but then goes on to say that you can continue when the pot is large and you have overcard kicker and/or backdoor draws.  But what is large?  Miller defines it; Jones does not.  And how to continue?  Miller describes when and how to knock out players; Jones merely alludes to such actions throughout his post-flop discussions.

Those points of clarity are some of the most important in Miller’s book.  You are not there to win pots; you’re there to win money.  You can win one pot all day and come out ahead, so you need to seize opportunities to win large pots.  Jones says this, but doesn’t clearly tell you how to do so.

Miller does.  So if you’re a beginniner who’s started with Lee Jones and wants to transition out of it, start by focusing on those pieces.  Focus on the chapters on large pots and protecting your hand.  Also, check out the section on partial and hidden outs.  Read the whole thing, but that’s a good way to start making the transition.  Considering a more cautious approach might be more appropriate because you’re (I’m?) just starting out, you can start by becoming more aggressive in the situations that most clearly require it.

A point on why lack of experience might require caution and thus an approach closer to WLLH, consider this Ed Miller statement: “If your opponents have done nothing but check and call so far, assume that they have weak hands and act accordingly. If you have a good hand like top pair or an overpair, that usually means that you should continue betting until you are raised.”

Now, I fully agree with Ed Miller in general.  It’s a good assumption – I’ve seen that with many low-limit players.  But in particular contexts I’ve seen check and call mean many different things.  Not just the typical slowplaying of a set for a raise on the turn. In my short trip to the Palms, I ran into some people who checked and called with excellent hands. For instance, I had AKs and raised pre-flop.  There was a little glint in an older (60s or 70s) gentleman’s eye, calling the raise.  Not sure what to make of it.  Possibly 6 or 7 people call, we’ve got a big pot.  Flop comes with an A and a Q and a rag two clubs out there.  I bet or raise (not sure if someone had bet already), knock out everyone else but the older gentleman.  Non-club falls on the turn.  He checks, I bet.  He calls.  Could be on a draw. When the K of clubs falls on the river, the pot is now pretty big, so I check and call. What does he show? Pocket Qs for a flopped set.  Why did he not raise me on the flop or turn?  Probably he was fearing that I’d draw out of him and then oh god he’d lose more money even though he was way ahead at that point.  Or maybe he feared Aces.  I don’t friggin know. All I do know is that he played a huge set almost as slowly as he possibly could. He was in a perfect space to sucker me, given I had AK and he could probably put me on a big Ace because of the pre-flop raise.  If he’s lucky, I have AQ.

All this to say: in context, a check and a call can mean many things. Miller’s assumption will work most of the time. Adjusting to the times when it is not right, however, will greatly help.  If you cannot identify those contexts, a more cautious approach might be worthwhile – you may just be setting traps for yourself.  In this example, the bets on my part were clearly good; however, with a slightly different hand (say, just top pair without a great kicker, an example Miller notes), maybe Jones’ caution is better if you are just a beginner.

Filed by at 9:48 pm under dtrStories
Comments Off on WLLH v. SSHE (A First Comment)