Small Stakes No-Limit Hold’em Excerpt: The Light 3-Bet

Is this excerpt from the ‘Easy Steps’ section?

I think from section “3-Betting Light And The 3-Bet, 4-Bet, 5-Bet Game”.

Ed, I just don’t understand how you can write a book on SSNL online when you cannot beat SSNL games online. Or if you can, you don’t beat them for a very high winrate.

http://tableratings.com/fulltilt-player-search/masaladosa

Isn’t this kind of fraudulent? You should admit it up front.

You deleted this comment before, why not just address it? You’ve played a lot of SSNL poker online in the last 6 months, and you haven’t won money. Not disclosing this to people who would learn from you is shady.

Ed, I just don’t understand how you can write a book on SSNL online when you cannot beat SSNL games online.

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

I just don’t understand how we let people get away with fallacious arguments.

I don’t care how good anyone is or isn’t if what they say is true.

Poker is a game that is beaten with logical thinking. Ted’s thinking is inconsistent with logical thought.

I have to disagree with the last comment. I got the top mark in 20 years in the final year logic course of my maths degree, but i still make awful mistakes at poker, a game in which often conflicting considerations need to be taken into account and balanced. Ted has brought into question Ed’s ability to apply his own ideas, and reasonably so given the evidence he has provided. I am 100% sure Ed has poker tracker and could dispel any doubts. I ask him to do so please.

I don’t think Ed needs to prove anything regarding his abilities to play poker. Even if he was totally incapable of executing his own concepts what would that prove? What football coach can play on an NFL level??? Yet his tactics may still be excellent!

Case dismissed…

wow, now that is a logical fallacy… in order to teach poker it is a necessary condition to understand it, my friend, and if you do, you should be able to play it to a decent standard. cf any other ‘mind’ game such as chess or bridge… go and look at ICC and tell me how many of the coaches have ratings below national master

What next? Are we going to whip out the rulers?

I’ve learned so much that’s improved my game from Ed’s videos on Stoxpoker, I feel like I’m ripping him off regardless of how much the ebook costs. His video series on Simple Aggression alone really helped clear up some of my subtle misunderstandings about the game.

Here’s my 00000010 cents. I will purchase the book, review it, and make recommendations to friends based on the quality. I know some people get a kick out of one-upping each other on forums.. more power to them. For me, I play poker to make money.. that’s it.

Ed’s articles and videos have improved my game, that’s the metric I use.

(1) One may believe Ed’s advice is useful, but there’s really no way to objectively measure how it has affected one’s game. (I suppose one could design an experiment…play 200k hands, watch only Ed Miller videos for a week, play another 200k hands, compare win rates. But I don’t think there’s a way to objectively measure his affect in real world conditions.) So using the simple metric that Ed has objectively improved your game is, well, impossible.

(2) Whether an instructor can beat the game he is teaching is relevant when evaluating the value of his instruction. It may not be the only factor (IMO it certainly is not), but I don’t see any reasonable argument that it should not be a consideration.

(3) I’ve been a big Ed Miller fan since SSHE, but his response to a reasonable question (a very out of character “WTF”) followed by his subsequent deafening silence on the issue, is a little bit disturbing to me.

Um, did anyone realize that the link “ted” posted shows a total sample size of 25k hands?

LOL @ gleaning anything from winrate over 25k hands. I played over 250k hands at 1-2 6-max, beat the snot out of the game, and had everything from 40 buy-in downswings to 80k hand breakeven streaks to 75 buy-in upswings. If you guys don’t regularly play in these games, you might be pretty clueless about variance norms. 25k hands is a blip. Show a graph of 1M hands, or post stats other than winrate, then we can have a real conversation.

And as for this nonsense about whether a teacher should be able to play, here is the bottom line. You should be studying a strategy that INCREASES YOUR EXPECTATION. Period. That’s all that matters.

Is it conceivable that someone can teach a strategy that increases your expectation but yet not implement it himself? Abso-fcking-lutely. Any number of reasons could exist ranging from attention deficit problems, lack of interest, lack of financial motivation, lack of time to straight up laziness. It doesn’t matter. All that matters is that the strategy helps you win.

Now, should you be more likely to trust (and therefore, learn and implement) strategies by someone who can personally show evidence of them working? Sure. But to that I say,

1) Evidence of a strategy working is not limited to the teacher’s personal poker stats. In fact, his students’ progresses and developments are even more indicative.

2) Give me a fcking break if you think Ed Miller’s readers haven’t increased their expectations from reading his body of work. If you believed that you wouldn’t even be on this website.

3) Ed didn’t write this book alone, nor did he write his last book alone, nor did he write the book before that alone. And in fact, in all of those books Ed’s primary role was NOT to provide strategy. (Though I can personally say Ed’s contributions to strategy in this book were invaluable.)

“So using the simple metric that Ed has objectively improved your game is, well, impossible.”

(1)I see your point, however, would have to respectfully disagree. If I take a look at similar situations in my database, I’m able to determine how different lines effect EV. My river play is a great example. After the videos, I look for thinner spots (ex: very dry boards) to squeeze out a bit more value. In the past, I’d usually check it down as many live players frequently do.

Now, I also understand the idea of statistically significant. For example, how many hands would I have to review to be x confident within a given deviation would be a relevant question. Maybe beyond the mathematics, mentally, I feel my approach to the game is more aligned with my learning style.

(2) Another solid point. There are a number of considerations to take into effect. For me, I’ll buy the product, review it and draw my own conclusions. Poker training is much like a buffet. I take what I want and leave the rest.

(3) However Ed wants to address it, that’s his business. Personally, I try not to look too deep into online posts. I’m excited about his product and look forward to seeing how it translates at the tables.

Nothing worse than an anonymous internet lynch mob.

Well, Ted’s inflammatory post accomplished his goal. It probably got Ed pretty upset and his response had some emotion to it but it was nowhere near out of line. And it got all you guys jumping on the bandwagon to criticize him. The question I have is what was the real purpose of your post Ted? If you don’t think Ed has won enough money and doesn’t deserve your 40 bucks then why take the time to research and post it?

For those wondering why Ed hasn’t made another posting, he probably decided that he couldn’t respond unemotionally; so, he wisely decided not to post anything else on the subject. Moreover, he shouldn’t have to defend himself because its a red herring and in my opinion it is not relevant or important to whether the concepts and ideas are valuable.

The online games are nothing like they were several years ago. They are tougher, filled with more controlled aggression, and are much higher variance. It is quite possible for a great player to go on a 50k break even streak or more in the online games. The edges are thinner and the win rates are smaller.

I believe Ed’s love has shifted from playing the game to teaching the game because he spends a ridiculous amount of time researching, writing, and preparing lessons. I am positive he is not doing it for the fabulous riches he is getting from his Stox videos or that he will even make off the e-book.

Also, when exactly do you guys think Ed has been putting in all these hands? He has been killing himself trying to finish this book, creating hours and hours of Stox videos, and his other endeavors. And now he is now supposed to have been proving that he can apply it all, when it does not really matter if he can or can’t.

Instead of wanting to see Ed’s winnings, isn’t the better question how have people who have studied under Ed for the past year done? For example, although I must admit that I play live more than online, Ed’s Poker Made Simple series helped my understanding of the game take quantum leaps forward. I have gone from being a marginal thinking player to a strong thinking and analytical player.

Although I can’t objectively prove it was Ed’s material, I started studying Ed’s material about 9 months ago. Since then, I have won more than I have in the prior 6 years put together. I am certain that I have made 10′s of thousands of dollars over thanks to Ed’s lessons!

HOWEVER, one thing I have learned about poker is that POKER isn’t about the RESULTS. BUT it is about the PROCESS! Thus, the REAL question is whether the concepts and ideas are solid.

Ed loves to teach others about the game. It is his thoughts about the game at an abstracted level that are GOLD. Don’t sit here and anonymously criticize him for something that is not really relevant. Instead, question the substance of his article or books. If you disagree with his position then say so and EXPLAIN why. If his ideas make sense then incorporate them into your game.

If we are ALL logical thinkers then let’s think logically about the substance of what Ed is teaching and not about the less relevant stuff. I can tell you there are plenty of coaches and instructors out there that I and others disagree with. However, I don’t believe you show your disagreement by attacking their integrity or dedication to helping others become better at the game. Instead, you look at an evaluate their methods and question the PROCESS and ideas they are teaching because that is part of learning.

If you looked at a small snapshot of Ed’s online play and decide that he can’t teach it because over a few thousand hands he lost some money then don’t buy the book. However, I believe this would be for the wrong reasons. Look at the substance of what Ed teaches, if it is logical, makes since, and you will study it then it will help you become a better player. Even if you disagree with the ideas, just by thinking about the substance of the concepts and voicing your disagreement with them will make you a better player in the long run.

Is it OK if I interrupt your flame war with a question about light 3-betting? I was playing 1-2 live, UTG straddled for 4, several people limped, and the button raised to 22. I felt like he was stealing, but I was in the SB with J2o, so I just folded. Do my cards even matter there? I expect the button to fold most of the time to my reraise, but I couldn’t find the heart with J2o. Am I better off not even looking? Later, without a straddle, someone opened from middle position for 6, got two callers, the same button raised to 26. I had 10-9s in the SB, a much more robust bluffing hand, so I 4-bet to 91 which took it down. The opener for 6 said he folded QQ because of the action behind (it’s a soft game)

Ok, if Y’all think wtf is Non-Edward, then I’ll say it, WTF?

I saw Ted’s post and I thought I had inadvertentlty clicked on the 2+2 bookmark.

And as far you guys that think it’s out-of-line to get upset, Ted has legitimate concerns, blah-blah-bullshit.

I hate that accusatory type of crap. And the most legitimate proposition in the world can be stated in a truly inquisitive manner or it can be with inflammatory language and/or an overall asshole approach. If anyone doesn’t understand language choices and button-pushing terminology, i guess you’ve never known someone desperate for attention.

I guarantee everyone here if we were all together in a face-to-face forum that would have never been expressed in that manner.

Besides these type of incitings being annoying they misdirect attention and energy. And yes, I just fell victim to it myself. But heh, I’ve been doing stuff for my family last couple weeks and haven’t been able to play live, which I prefer, so been playing a lot on the net and that makes me pissy.

As an ex-teacher and wrestling-coach, I could elaborate on some of the above debated points ad nauseum, but for what? I have many friends I once coached, several in my once a month home game, who can’t coach like I can but can kick my ass. so? they would still try and learn from anything I told them and vice versa.

Whew. Ed, please run silient and use that time to get that book out. Nice to know Ted won’t be cloggin up the pre-order software because I can’t wait.

Ps. Seth, your post wasn’t up yet when I wrote and posted, but, thank you.

Pre-ordering Ed?

Jamleeco>”I saw Ted’s post and I thought I had inadvertentlty clicked on the 2+2 bookmark.”

LOL, I felt the same. And I agree with everything you said in your post.

A lot of people pay lip service to the word “variance” but don’t really understand it. I’ve said this before, but I’ll repeat it for the benefit of new readers. Imagine two absolutely identical poker players, playing absolutely identical games, full time, 40 hrs/week. One player can earn twice as much as the other even after -two full years-, just due to variance.

So, a 25K hand sample proves nothing at all about a players skill. Plenty of top players run bad for much longer than that.

Ed,
I’m confused about the new e- book & Professional No Limit Holdem Vol II. Are there going to be 2 publications or has the e-book replaced Vol. II?
Thanks,
Bill

Bill

I’m fairly sure Ed has escaped the evil clutches of Malmuth & Sklansky and is going it alone (with firends). So no Vol 2.

Best

Jmes

fwiw, i just think that when a guy (we’ll call him ted) does something like this, he’s just pointing the finger and playing the “blame game.” what he fails to recognize is that when we point the finger, 3 point back at us.

i’d bet he’s a bit desperate, desperate for attention because he wants help. i’d go as far to say that he’s probably struggling to beat the games, and since he can’t, he’s calling everyone else out to build his ego – “look, the great ed miller lost $1k in 25k hands, and i’ve [finally] won $1k over my last 25k hands!” – forgetting that it’s been quite a struggle, and failing to realize he’s deluding himself about his results, selectively remembering samples here and there to support his belief that indeed, he is a winning player.

nonetheless, i feel this gentleman is, as i said, desperate. he’s so desperate for a win, but he just can’t bring himself to do the work that some of us have, particularly Ed and Sunny because they are on a bit of a stage. And because he lacks the understanding of the fundamentals of success, namely hard work!, he’s on a mission to bring everyone else down, to point the finger and play the blame game, because that’s what he’s got to do to keep on living, to keep his belief/value system balanced and his reality in line so that his interpretation of the world still makes sense to him. so, instead of really working harder at getting better at poker, he works harder at deluding himself and goes out of his way to tear everyone else down so that in his world he still feels like he has control.

but he still wants to win, just like the rest of us, i suppose, and in that effect, all ted really meant to say was, “please help me!” “i’m so stuck in my world and my ways of thinking and i can’t bring myself to change and be what/who i want to be and do what i want to do, and now, instead of actually doing the work, i’m going to be childish and throw a temper-tantrum and try [desperately] to get one of you folks to pick my ass up and carry me because i can’t find and inherently lack the drive to do it on my own. humph! ”

we’re all human, quite fallible at that. although extraordinarily complex, yet our language fails to keep up with our multimodal means of layered communication, and sometimes our intentions remain hidden even to ourselves.

or maybe i’m the one that’s dellusional? hope i didn’t waste anyone’s time…

oh yeah, Ed Miller is the shizniz (whatever that means, we’ll understand it to mean great)! i wouldn’t say that i wouldn’t be here without him or anything, but his work is excellent and reading his books and watching his videos has definitely helped my game, to say the least. i even bought his book, Getting Started in Hold’em for my girlfriend to read just because, and she doesn’t even like poker. i can also say that he was the main reason i joined stoxpoker. and even though i play almost entirely HU, i’ll buy his new e-book for small stakes just because i can be absolutely sure that i will learn something, even if i too, would like to envision myself as an expert.

maybe this isn’t really related and not quite logical, but i grew up pretty poor and didn’t even finish college. meanwhile, this guy goes to MIT and like quadruple majors and probably finished early. he’s probably got more brain power than any of us can fathom. i think it’s a lock that he can beat the games, and quite a safe bet that he’s going to succeed in anything he does in life, be it regular genius shit, poker, porn, whatever!

GO ED! i support you and bow to your greatness.

while i agree that the “bad guys” views were presented in an ugly manner, they did bring out the fact that a 25k flat or losing streak by a very good player in a $1-2 6 max game should not be considerred uncommon. that saves me a lot of effort in the wrong direction. i’m not “very” good and that kind of variance will not work for me personally.

i have asked on this site a couple of times how to decrease variance with no responses. i guess the answer is simple enuf- fold in cases where expectation is even or close to even and DO NOT play in games against players who are at your same level.you bypass some profit but it is not just thrown away, it is “spent” to decrease variance and keep you in the game. i think trying to squeeze that last penny out of the game is not worth the swings.

i don’t know much about him but a couple times i have browsed Stoxpoker and read posts by and about “leatherass” and some huge number (100k+) of hands where he did not win and suspected he was playing others with his own ability.

also consider a teacher learning a new format will push the envelope and not just play for max profit.

Anonymous>i have asked on this site a couple of times how to decrease variance with no responses.

Before I answer I will point out that I am not an expert poker player, I am just looking at this from the theoretical point of view.

Even if you do the things that people usually talk about to decrease variance (play TAG instead of LAG etc.) the fact is, poker depends on randomness and because of this there is no way to really get away from variance.

In my work I deal with random number generators. I use both the “pseudo-random” type (which generates random numbers based upon a mathematical formula) and “real” generators based on some hardware assist (i.e. using A/D converters or some similar thing). And I can tell you, it is possible to see sequences of random numbers go “against you” for jaw-dropping lengths of time.

It’s kind of strange when you see this happen. You start to feel like the universe is “out to get you” somehow. But I have an advantage over poker players – I know where the numbers come from, so I know the deck is not stacked against me. That’s just the nature of randomness. That’s how it works.

So to succeed in poker in the long run, yes you need to work hard – but you also need a little luck. At the very least, you need to avoid extreme bad luck. Ed’s “Going Pro” series talks about how to maximize your chances, and he shows a real understanding of randomness. But even if you follow those articles you are not guaranteed to succeed. They just give you a better chance.

Dear Mr. Miller,

I have read with some amusement the recent posts. I first heard of you when I read your small stakes “Red” book and I loved it. I have also been watching your videos on Stoxpoker. I want to thank you for all of your support and help in making me a much better player. As I now see, your advise is not for everyone, thank God. I beg all of you who question Ed’s advice and approach to the game to not read it, definitely. I shall maintain my illusion that his advise has helped me and I look forward to getting more from you.

Nice site too.

Thank you Ed, keep up the good work.

Frank