Steve-O posted a 2+2 quote from Ed Miller, even though he said it was not from the book, a lot of misrepresenting comments were made related to Ed and the book.

The starting hand requirements in SSH are pretty rigorous, and are broken out between tightish (3-5 players avg to the flop) and loose (6-8 players average to the flop - boy would I like to find more of those).

His tight game EP requirements are 77+, two suited broadway, AJo+ and KQ.


It is only in the loose (6-8 players to the flop) that Q9s or J9s become playable.

The quote steve posted was related to people stating that JTs is playable or QTs is playable, but not J9s or Q9s. Ed's point is that there really isn't much difference between the two.

Steve-O has a good point that newer players should avoid hands like Q9s and J9s - but Ed's point is if you are making mistakes with J9s or Q9s post-flop, you are making them with QTs and JTs too, and probably other hands. You are making those same mistakes on each street with a variety of hands. You could remove J9s from you starting hand list, but you are still leaking money making the same post flop mistakes on all the other hands.

I have never played a game with 6-8 seeing a flop regulary, so I cannot say how profitable J9s is from EP. I know I do well with it in LP after 3 or 4 limpers have joined.

I am not sure how J6s, and T4s came up, but the book calls these "Suited Junk Hands" and states "These hands simply do not win enough. Avoid them" even from the button.

The whole point of the book is to teach people how to properly value the strength of their hand vs the size of the pot.

Tight games were 5 players see the flop are sweet. I have no real meat to add though

__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann

I said "tightish".

Typical games I play are 3-6. I use the tight strategy, but add some pairs.

That is why I am looking forward to the book Beav. I only know of Ed Miller through his 2+2 threads. I went out of my way to say it had nothing to do with his book since I only perused it.

And as I said my issue was not a specific example of his, it was his quantifying of mistakes based on later play.

If Ed can assume that a player making mistakes with J6s also makes them with JTs why can I not assume that a player making the mistake of playing J6s is also going to make more mistakes with it on later streets?

__________________
For poker news, strategy, and more, check out my daily column at Examiner.com

I completely agree with this statement.

I think it is a fair assumption. I still am not sure where J6s comes from, but I think he was assuming that if a player thinks he can play JTs profitably, he could also play J9s. And if he can't play J9s profitably, he should focus on why, because just eliminating J9s from his hands will not end his problem, he is still make the mistakes with other hands. I don't think he ever said everyone can play J9s profitiably from UTG, just that that the difference betweeen J9s and JTs is small.

He said and I quote "Calling after 2 limpers with J8s would be correct, and J7s is probably correct" and then he said that J6s would be a very small mistake

That is horrible advice

__________________
For poker news, strategy, and more, check out my daily column at Examiner.com

not sure of the game he is talking about.

but, yeah, I will agree with you, when he gets into that kind of hand analysis, I know I doesn't have 1000s of hands of PT data to back it up.

"If" you can say that calling with J8s is correct, then the other logic may be true, but I have no idea of J8s is correct.

but, and you made this clear but others haven't, he advocates no such plays in SSH.

rofl - this must be Limit... I've not seen a NL game this loose online this millenium...

__________________
See me playing $10/$20NL like it was play money

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...405&q=xxdemexx

Doberman: "but Sarge, isn't poker gambling and just luck?"
Sgt. Bilko:" not the way I play it"