SSH-ITH comparison -- pre-flop in late position

[nsidestrate]

In response to suggestions that SSH was dangerously loose pre-flop, I have been analyzing the suggestions in the two books methodically. In EP, ITH was (slightly) looser and in MP, SSH was looser (although it was even closer than EP).

The advantages of ITH's more nuanced "Call 3" type notation is much more clear in this section. So much so, that SSH actually breaks down and resorts to the same idea in late positions "if three players have entered the pot so far, ... also call with any pocket pair and QJs-T9s" (known as call 3 to ITH-ers).

Nevertheless, I think one can see clear differences between the two books here.

1) ITH lists quite a few specific hands that they would advocate raising first-in. These are considerably more hands than SSH suggests raising with, but in the fine print SSH says "in late position, if you are the first player to enter the pot, you should almost always raise." Essentially then, all playable hands are "raise first in" in SSH. I pretty much follow this advice -- I've even been known to raise essentially any hand first-in on the button if I think the blinds are too tight.

2) ITH would call any suited King with 4 players already in. SSH would limit you to K9s and better. I am completely in Hillger's camp on this one. I suspect that if Miller addressed a pot with 4 people in already, he would advocate playing.

3) ITH would call Q8s/J8s/T8s with 4 players already in. SSH will not go below x9s. Intellectually, I think I'd call of these too, but when I look at pokertracker, it appears that T8s is the only one I actually do call with regularly.

4) SSH would call 65s/54s, ITH cuts off at 76s. I don't know why this is, but I don't do well with suited connectors. I draw the line at 76s from habit and sometimes don't call 98s/87s/76s when I'm not feeling like it.

5) SSH simply advocates "raise" for a number of hands that ITH will only raise conditionally. These hands include 99/AT-8s/KTs/AJ/AT/KQ. In essence, I think that Hilger is advocating raising these hands in situations where you can get more favorable conditions (for example KQ or 99 would probably rather be heads-up). I think Miller is more or less advocating a "raise for value." I straddle the line a bit -- I tend to raise the stronger holdings like KQ/ATs/AJ/99 always against limpers and vary my play a bit on the others. Given that I probably don't raise as much as I'd like pre-flop, I'm tending to raise more of these hands. I still can't say that I'm a huge fan of raising something like KTs/A8s against say 2 limpers.

6) ITH would play AQ against a raise, either re-raising or calling. SSH would fold. This is a pretty consistant effect in all positions, ITH values AQ more highly than SSH does. I'm fully in the ITH camp and I almost always re-raise.

7) ITH will cold-call a raise with 98s so long as there are many callers (5). SSH would fold. I fold because suited connectors are not my friends.

ITH will allow a re-raise against a raise with 99/AQs/AJs, SSH would just call. I re-raise AQs and call 99/AJs, unless it was a late first-in raiser. I'll 3 bet all sort of stuff in that situation.

Interestingly, the majority of these situations are in fact somewhat looser in ITH, despite conventional wisdom to the contrary. SSH is more aggressive, essentially raising anything first-in and raising more hands unconditionally than ITH.

[monobrow]

I feel inclined to respond to this - if not just for the fact of the effort you've taken and no one else has. (is this a first?) but anyway..

I think after all these discussion i'm coming to a conclusion on the ITH (and others) vs SSH debate and I think my problem with SSH is that it [generally speaking] advocates agression as a viable alternative over value betting, betting with made hands etc.

does that make sense? what I mean is, that SSH is more, err, agressive in marginal situations. Its like. "you may or may not be ahead, but in the long run, being agressive *gives* you +EV".

I just dont agree with that. (although dont ask me for specific examples!!).

Put simply, ITH (et al) are trying to create agressive players in the right situations. SSH is just trying to create agressive players!?

thats my feelings - not sure if anyone feels the same or not?

Lets put it another way.

"Is being agressive in any situation +EV"?

I personally don't think so. but I think Ed would have us believe so.

Thanks again for the effort tho nisde - v interesting posts.

[JSaw]

[Bugsbunny]

I don't belive that SSH preaches aggression for aggression's sake. SSH is more aggressive preflop, and that I think is correct. With premium hands you want to punish loose players. With drawing type hands, in the correct circumstances, you want to build a large pot, which will help tie opponents to the pot if you hit your hand.

Of course you may also tie yourself to the pot in marginal situations, but if done correctly that's OK as well.

SSH is mostly about post-flop play and finding value in situations where previously you may not have even realized that there was value to be found. Can this be taken too far? Of course. You still have to apply it correctly.

And aggression, even in marginal situations, is often (not always) correct. Protecting hands, pumping strong draws, improving winning chances by folding people out (even with a known 2nd or 3rd best hand at times) are all valid reasons for aggression. In some cases the margins are thin, but not non-existent. It's when you start to see margins where none exist that you get yourself in trouble.

[scandal]

[monobrow]

[nsidestrate]

[nsidestrate]

[Ed Miller]