The Making of a Poker Player

[jacksup]

For those who are interested, my book, The Making of a Poker Player, has hit the shelves and amazon.com is shipping it. It's poker strategy told through a narrative of my experience playing the game. The book was finished before my run in the 2004 WPT Championship, but I added an extra chapter that is essentially a detailed trip report of that event.

I hope everyone enjoys the book.

Matt Matros

[nate1729]

Thanks for the heads-up; I'll be sure to check it out. Would you say it's more strategy or narrative?

Boola Boola.

--Nate

[jacksup]

Well, it's almost entirely narrative, but the narrative strives to teach strategy throughout the book. I guess I'm saying it's not an either/or situation. It's a strategy book, presented through a narrative.

Bulldog, bulldog, bow wow wow.

Matt

[WalkAmongUs]

I'm at the very end of the book. I picked it up from Borders about 4 days ago. I liked it a lot. I'd say its more narrative than strategy, but there is definitely strategy and tips in there. Definitely a good read and worth the money.

[nate1729]

Sounds good. Exactly what I was hoping for. (Except insofar as the idea isn't original now if I try to do it.)

...the shortest, gladdest years of life...

--Nate

[-Skeme-]

Is it more of a Limit book?

[jacksup]

On the whole it's pretty equally balanced between Limit and No Limit Hold 'Em--there's probably slightly more No Limit overall.

My book is not meant to revolutionize poker theory; it's meant to make existing poker theory more accessible, entertaining, interesting, and fun. But there should be a few strategic ideas in there that few have written about.

Matt

[cwsiggy]

Looks good. BTW are you the jacksup I see on FTP occasionally???

[jacksup]

Yes indeed.

Matt

[Gabe DV]

Matt,
I about halfway through your book, and I think it is excellent so far. Very well-written and informative.

Here is my one question for you. I noticed that you talk about bunching and how that should be considered as a factor when entering a pot. I was always under the impression that bunching was not really statistically significant. I know that you are the math guy, and I am just a lawyer, who are notoriously bad at math, but I was wondering if there is a mathematical basis for you concluding that bunching is a real factor.
In pure laymans terms, it would seem to me that bunching really wouldn't apply because what makes hands valuable is the combination of two cards. For instance, having a J with a 3 is trash, but two jacks is a strong hand. So take for example you are 6th to act. The first guy folded J7, second guy K9, third guy 26, forth guy A7, and 5th guy K8. Even though those all bad hands, a fair amount of high cards are out of the deck. Now I understand that it is probably slightly more likely that more "bad" cards have been folded, and that there is a percent of the time where these cards will be combined, but to me it doesn't seem statistically relevant enough to matter.

I am curious as to your thoughts on this.

[jacksup]

Hi Gabe,

You're right, bunching is not all that significant. But you should be slightly more inclined to open with, say, A7o in the cutoff in a five-handed game where one person has passed than you would be in a ten-handed game where six people have passed. That said, bunching is indeed a very small factor. I would open in the cutoff with A7o in either situation /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Best,
Matt

[maurile]

From this freebie (http://www.barrygreenstein.com/aceking.txt) Barry Greenstein has given us (results here (http://www.barrygreenstein.com/out-aktestpair.htm)), it looks like bunching can have an effect of a few percentage points.

In a two-player game, 22 is about a 52.65-47.35 favorite over AKo.

But in a full game where everybody folds to the blinds, there are generally more aces and kings still in the deck, so AKo becomes a 52.71-47.29 favorite over 22.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi maurile:

I haven't look at what Barry has, and I'm not going to bother. These percentages depend upon the assumptions that you make about exactly what hands your opponents will play.

I suspect that in a low limit game filled with many unskilled players the percentages would be different than in a very high limit game where almost everyone plays at least well.

best wishes,
Mason

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi maurile:

I haven't look at what Barry has, and I'm not going to bother. These percentages depend upon the assumptions that you make about exactly what hands your opponents will play.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, of course. Barry's program assumes a fairly typical range of starting hand standards (see below), which may or may not accurately reflect any particular lineup of opponents. So the "exact" percentages in his output aren't really exact. But they do show that there is some kind of effect in a hypothetical typical game, even if it's impossible to quantify in a real game without knowing your particular opponents' ranges of hands they consider playable.

These are Barry's assumptions for early, middle, and late position. I got tired of typing them out, so I didn't include the additional hands that are playable only from the button or the small blind.

Hands playable from any position:

AA-77, AK-AJ, Axs, KQs-KJs.

Additional hands playable from middle position:

66-22, AT, KQ-KJ, KTs-K9s, QJ-QT, Q9s, JT-J9, T9

Additional hands playable from late position (one or two off the button):

Ax, K9, Q9, Kxs, Qxs, J8s-J7s, T8s-T7s, 98s-97s, 87s

Overall, it looks fairly standard to me . . .