Thoughts on Small Stakes Holdem by Sklansky

[JaredBC]

I have been a winning player for awhile but I recently picked up my copy of this book that I've had for awhile but never read. I have got to say that I think Sklansky and his collaborators have a very warped view of small stakes holdem. They seem to act like there are no good players. They assume that all players are terrible and loose and call cold bets with any hand. That being said, my main question is regarding the recommended preflop starting hands. The guide seems to me to be extremely loose. They recommend opening with a raise with KJs even under the gun. Same thing with AT and other hands. They recommend calling 2 bets cold with suited connectors in very loose games because it will PROBABLY be a multiway pot that can earn you some big bets on later streets. Personally, I think that the starting requirements are WAY too loose. I toss KJ even from middle position and I toss it for a raise even in late position. What is the general consensus on this books validity? I personally have some problems with it.

[the_hawk]

In some respects it is probably somewhat obsolete as regards online play, especially with respect to starting hand recommendations. However it wasn't so long ago that it would have been pretty close to the money even in those respects, and it probably still does have plenty to offer in terms of postflop aspects.

It most definitely is not a beginners' book, as playing profitably with that preflop strategy assumes that you have a very good handle on the game postflop.

My understanding is that much small stakes B&M limit would often appropriately fall under the radar of SSH even nowadays. But online you're unlikely to get games of quite that sort even as low as .25/.50.

[taz115]

The concepts are very applicable to loose games, there simply arent that many loose games on the internet anymore. But there are plenty live, even in the middle stakes games.

[JaredBC]

I guess I can understand those points. I still don't think that opening under the gun w/ KJ suited is a strong play. I can't imagine it being profitable over time. A huge portion of the hands that call you will have you dominated. The others wise be suited connectors (in loose games) or pocket pairs. The only hand that you're really comfortable against is the suited connectors. If a hand is dominating you, you're likely to face a 3rd bet which you must call. Even if you don't, you'll be forced to lead out on the flop by staying the aggressor unless so many ppl have called that its pointless. If you flop a pair and are dominated with the kicker, you're going to lose alot because you're forced to play to the showdown in most situations. Conversely, if a pocket pair calls you and you flop a pair, your opponent will often fold. Against a suited connector, if your opponent doesn't flop a big draw he, too, will probably fold. If he does flop a big draw, he will have the odds to call with 5 bets already in and only one to call. If their call is correct, you are losing on the play. It seems like a quick way to lose alot and win a little. The odds of making a monster hand like a straight or flush are decent with KJs, but I'd be surprised if it was enough to make the play profitable. What is your take on this play?

[Fast Eddy]

There's a pretty relevant starting hand chart in a book by some guy named Hilger...at least I think that's his name.

[Willem]

[therivierakid]

Wasn't Ed Miller the principal author of SSH?

[nukeduke]

Jared I agree with most everything you are saying but the book is adressing loose games and not tight games like those that you use in your examples. Live games are certainly tighter than they were when this book was published but even today they are not nearly as tight or aggressive as those you will find online. I don't remember the book implying that all live players were loose donks but I do seem to recall that it often says that if certain table conditions don't exist then the concepts of the book may not apply. If it doesn't say that then it should.

As a rule, live games are full of calling station donks compared to online games. Of course, there are going to be exceptions to that rule because there are some very good low limit players and when many of them are sitting at a table together you don't have good game conditions for this style of play.

[the_hawk]

Reading between the lines of the preface / introduction it was clear that Sklansky and Malmuth had rarely if ever played in such games themselves and were addressing the issue from an essentially theoretical perspective.

Miller (who was the first author of the book) was involved in the project precisely because he did have such low-limit (B&M) experience.

I echo Willem's comment above. Some of the postflop sections are extremely valuable even for online play today.

[Piscivorous]

I spent a lot of time with Ed Miller at the last ITH Convention in Atlantic City. That book was geared towards the exceptionally loose live $3/$/6, $5/$10 and $6/$12 games that are spread, according to him. Less so than online. Although if you haven't played Cake lately, it could easily apply there.

These are the types of games that are prevalent here in California. Believe me, SSH is a welcome addition to my live play. 7-10 player pots with lots of limping and cold-calling of raises.

Stick with ITH for online, but keep a copy of the starting hands nearby for the few loos games you run across online.

[taz115]

FWIW the book shouldn't be geared towards a specific limit… I’ve played in 10/20 and 20/40 games that are as crazy as a 3/6 game. I think loose/applicable middle games can be found in Cali, Vegas and AC from what I’ve heard.

[nukeduke]

[JaredBC]

Great feedback guys. I really appreciate it. I think MH's starting hands chart is far more profitable in the typical limit game whether it be B&M or online.