SSH/ITH comparison -- pre-flop in early position

[nsidestrate]

Someone posted that they thought that SSH was too loose pre-flop in one of my other threads. They didn't provide specific examples, so I thought I'd take a look at it. This is part one, addressing pre-flop play from EP. I'm just going to consider the "Tight Games" chart from SSH, because I personally don't play in the "Loose Games" and I think the first chart is more of an apples to apples comparison. I'm also going to ignore the "Call 1" designation of ITH in this post, because it makes it harder to do this and in early position it doesn't really affect anything. Besides, the advanced chapter just waives the "Call 1" and converts all of those hands to "Call" anyhow.

1. Miller says to raise JJ/TT, Hilger says to call. This one is actually not really a difference, since ITH also says you can raise pairs down to 77 from early position in the advanced section. My personal approach is usually to raise JJ/TT/99, depending on how tight they think I am. I'm not sure where the default line should be, but I prefer raising JJ/TT/99 because I'm hoping to fold out the weak Ax/Kx hands. I'm unwilling to raise 88/77.

2. Miller says to limp with KTs/QTs/JTs/KQ, Hilger says to fold. In the advanced section, ITH is OK with limping with KTs/QTs/JTs if someone else is already in and the table is generally loose-passive. ITH never endorses limping with KQ. I personally limp with all of these hands unless I judge it to be very likely that there will be a raise behind me.

3. Miller says to re-raise a raiser with TT/JJ, Hilger folds TT and calls JJ. In the advanced section, ITH discusses re-rasing JJ if you think you might isolate. It says you might re-raise/call or fold with TT. Probably accurate, but not easy for the purposes of this list. I actually play more like Matthew's three options, it all depends on what I think of the raiser and what kind of game it is.

4. Miller says to call a raise with KQs, Hilger says to fold. The advanced section calls this a borderline re-raise/call/fold. I either call or fold, I can only imagine very rare situations where I'd re-raise.

5. Hilger says to call a raise with AQ, Miller says to fold. This is also an advanced bordeline re-raise/call/fold. I almost always call.

6. Hilger says to limp with A9s/A8s/A7s and in the advanced section implies that he would limp with most any Axs. Miller folds everything A9s and below. I usually limp with these hands too.

So, I'm not sure that for early position, it is entirely true that SSH is much looser than ITH. 1-4 are generally looser for SSH and 5-6 are looser for ITH. When you factor in the advanced chapter, ITH is actually probably looser. The only place SSH is absolutely looser is KQ, which it wants to limp and ITH wants to fold. Every other suggestion could be justified by at least something in the advanced section. ITH limps with A9s/A8s/A7s without qualification and this is looser. If you add the advanced idea of limping with all Axs, it is much looser.

The one thing that is clear is that I almost always take the looser choice. Probably because I think too highly of my post-flop play.

[monobrow]

Nside,

OK, so.. if we:

Ignore the loose section of SSH
Ignore the "Call 1" designation of ITH
Use the examples you have specified

It turns out to be fairly similar? - fancy that.....

I will summarise my feelings for you:

ITH has clear, fundamental explanations for how to play Holdem
SSH has razzamataz, "Crushing", and "Finger Crossing"

Hilger appears to be a genuinely nice bloke, with an ego to match.
Miller is (in my opinion) conceited, arrogant and blinkered (and so are his cronies on 2+2).

I play poker to make money, i've said it before and i'll say it again, SSH will make the rich richer (the 20% of people who actually make money out of this industry) and it will clear out the 80% of hobby/amatuers quicker than you can say - reraise - it basically should be called "LAG Holdem".

The winners, will as ever, be the pros who put the hours in. I thoroughly enjoy discussing holdem, but as you know EVERYTHING is situational/positional/player dependent etc and we will never be able to say x is better than y - which is why I will not willingly get involved in individual hand discussions etc. New players to holdem who play to millers starting charts will get broken into pieces once they miss flops and start check/calling etc - at least they will at the 15/30 level.

[nsidestrate]

[mchilger]

KTs/QTs/JTs/KQ...

My position on these hands is changing given the weak preflop and post flop play of opponents nowadays. A couple of years ago when I wrote the book play was much tougher. I wouldn't play those hands against a generally strong field but against a weak field they can be played. I'm going to take a more thorough look at this next year when I prepare the 2nd edition as I might tweak the starting hand guidance some.

I am also surprised that Small Stakes isn't more fond of Axs. This is an excellent hand in low limit games and I find it profitable in even tight games. There was a thread where both Ed Miller and I discussed this hand some.

Matthew

[Ed Miller]

[nsidestrate]

[Ed Miller]

[Ed Miller]

[Ed Miller]

Not to spam this thread, but I wanted to point out that I still think the charts in my book are good. I think that if you follow them TO THE LETTER (they aren't intended to be used that way, but they will be by some), you will have a generally profitable preflop strategy, and you will get the large majority of your preflop decisions correct.

I would not feel bad if a rank beginner told me, "I memorized your charts and play them perfectly." He wouldn't play optimally, but he'd play a lot better than he would on his own. It's unreasonable to expect a rank beginner to play optimally anyway, no matter how good your chart is.

(Obviously, I don't want more experienced players memorizing the charts.)

So I basically think the charts do their job. But that doesn't mean that they aren't worth criticizing in some spots.

[nsidestrate]

[nsidestrate]

[Ed Miller]

[fep]

These are the two books (ITH and SSH) that I continue to read and reread.

They have helped me immensely and I do think they compliment each other. I'd recommend reading ITH first though.

Thank you Ed for your participation in this forum. I believe you've been both a good teacher, a gentleman, and a "good neighbor".

[Ed Miller]

[Wynton]

For what it's worth, I think people dramatically overuse starting hand charts.

One of the most sensible bits of advice I recall reading on the internet (though I don't recall where exactly unfortunately) was someone's statement that the charts in general (not Matthew's or anyone else's specifically) can easily become crutches, and that it much more important to grasp the concepts and adjust to the individual games. Sure, charts are helpful at first, but should not be adhered to so strictly that the underlying concepts are ignored.

Anyway, this discussion is interesting because it reveals that the preflop standards for most authors (when discussing similar games) really are not substantially different, for the most part.

My personal project is to identify the significant conceptual differences articulated by the various authors and experts, so I love threads like these.