Ed MIller's Fundamental Principles

I believe there are two fundamental principles of winning poker:

1. Bet and raise your strong hands for value.
2. Play tightly in small pots, loosely in big ones.

It is the responsibility of any book on poker strategy... particularly any book targetted at beginners... to convey these principles. They lie at the core of every good strategy.

Unfortunately, when I read many (most) poker books, I often see these principles ignored. Some authors recommend limping preflop with very strong hands like AA, AK, and AJs. Some tell you to stop betting your top pair and overpair hands on fourth and fifth street when someone calls your flop bet on a somewhat dangerous-looking board. Some tell you to check and call with monster draws. All of these ideas run counter to the most fundamental principle of winning poker: Bet and raise your strong hands for value.

Some authors tell you to "fit or fold," regardless of the size of the pot. Some tell you to fold top pair and overpairs routinely on the turn if someone raises you, again without mention of the pot size. Some tell you to fold flush draws on paired boards and straight draws on two flush boards. All of these ideas run counter to the second-most fundamental principle of winning poker: Play tightly in small pots, loosely in big ones.

If I question one of these pieces of advice, often I will be told, "Well, the author was just trying to simplify advice for new players." My question is, "Are not the two fundamental principles of winning poker already simple? Is it impossible to forumlate simple ideas that support and reinforce the core principles rather than ignore and undermine them?"

The reason this issue hits home with me is because I see SO MANY players, many of whom think they play well, who could not articulate these two very basic principles of winning poker. They think winning poker is about making laydowns, saving bets, reading tells, wearing sunglasses, or who knows what else. And it seems so silly and frustrating to me... "How can you have played for years and still not have grasped these two extremely simple ideas?"

I think the answer lies largely in the body of available literature. The overwhelming majority of advice - books, magazine articles, internet sites, etc. - ignores and undermines these principles. It's no wonder so few ever figure it out.

So to answer your question, simplifying for beginners is fine for me. But when you simplify, you must do so ACCORDING TO THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF WINNING POKER. You are supposed to play tightly in small pots, so feel free to tell beginners to play even more tightly than "optimal." But DON'T feel free to tell beginners to limp with their strong hands or lay down overpairs in big pots. These ideas are simple, but they run contrary to the core principles.

Final note: I've said it several times before, but I wanted to reiterate it for this conversation. I think ITH is a good book filled with generally solid advice. My final test for any poker book is, "If you read and follow the advice in this book, will you become a solidly winning player?" (Not a BETTER player, a SOLIDLY WINNING one. Better sets the bar far too low.) I think the answer for ITH is definitely yes... and that is something I cannot say for most poker books.

Nevertheless, there is that one area of the book that I'm negative on.. the advice to limp preflop with strong hands like JJ and AJs. Whether it's "simplified for beginners" or not, it runs counter to basic principles, and it teaches people to think about poker the wrong way.