Poker Essays 3

IMHO this may go down in poker history as one of the all time great poker books.


Two of the best chapters are "The Ciaffone Quiz" and "Cardroom Problems".


Page after page of wisdom from a world class poker player, a world class thinker.


If you are serious abot improving your poker, you have got to get this book!


Good Luck


Howard

sometimes i do not appreciate m's essays about cardrooms and the business of poker, but will state that every serious player has to have this book and agree the quiz at the end is new fresh and stimulating...gl

I actually don't like the essays on cardrooms and the business of poker either. But I write them because I feel that they are a necessary evil and hope that my small voice will be heard by important members of the poker industry even thoug I do recognize that they can be boring reading, especially if strategy is what you are interested in.

Mason,


I have Poker Essays and Poker Essays 2. Even though I have had them for quite some time I still read them a few times a week. I agree that the to have success at this game, a player must constantly think about the game. I am fortunate that I have a few friends to discuss your theorys with. The experience I have gained just from reading you books, I cannot put a price on. One of the Essays is about players who get angry at the dealers. I find your outlook on this to have so much truth. I also agree with you that all in rule must change. I feel that if a player goes all in, the player must leave the table and get his or her name on the board again. I witness to many players who will sit down with just enough money to enter one pot. This is a pet peeve of mine. Thanks mg in nj

Mg: I just want to point out that this is something which you are advocating and that it is not something I advocate or talk about in any of my books.


"I feel that if a player goes all in, the player must leave the table and get his or her name on the board again."


Best wishes, Mason

Mason:


Since your newest book is steadily receiving high praises, I am quite interested to get ma a copy as well.


When do you project it will finally be shelved in the Borders/Barns & Nobles books stores?


Thanks!


Ivan

My guess is two to three months. That's how long it normally takes to work through their systems. But you can order it right now from this website or ConJelCo, and I think that Amazon.com will have it available within ten days. Also, the gambling stores including Gambler's General Store and Gambler's Book Club currently have it.

Mason, I didnt mean to confuse anyone. I took your ideas about all in players and took it a step further to include my own ideas. I hope I didnt give anyone the wrong message. Pick up Poker Essays II and you can read Masons ideas for two more rules that need to be changed. Foxwoods and Mohegan sun use your idea about chip denomination. Both use 3 dollar chips for their 3-6 game and 2 dollar chips for their 2-4 game. I get frustrated when players go all in, because I witness several players in my card room who will only sit with $100 at the table. I usually play 5-10 hold em. I feel that they should only be allowed to go in all in only one time. They use going all in as a strategy, so they can chase their hands cheaply. How would you stop a situation like this from occuring? mg

You are right in that there is an advantage to keeping a small amount of chips on the table and to frequently go all-in. The way you stop this is to increase the minimum buy-in and not to allow short rebuys.

Thanks, Mason!


From what I have observed at my local Borders in the Midwest, your earlier Poker Essays I and II are still moving well.

"I feel that if a player goes all in, the player must leave the table and get his or her name on the board again. I witness to many players who will sit down with just enough money to enter one pot. This is a pet peeve of mine. "


I would have to strongly disagree with a couple of your opinions here.


In my usual cardrooms, many players buy in for a rack, then, when they go bust, they buy another rack. Forcing these players to quit and get on the list again would often times let a rock or otherwise tough player take the place of a mega-fish, where the opposite would rarely be true (because most tough players have enough money when they sit down, and don't go bust very often). Only the fish go bust often, and forcing them to leave the table every time they do so would be detrimental to the quality of the games.


While I do agree that players who consistently buy-in for the minimum are VERY annoying, a better solution would be to simply raise the minimum buy-in. Another solution would be to eliminate the "one short buy" rule, which to me is even MORE annoying! In my opinion, the 30$ minimum, (which is standard for 3-6 games in virtually every place I have ever played), is too low for the stakes, and allowing a short buy-in is ludicrous. I would advocate a 40$ minimum for 3-6, plus no short buy-ins. for 4-8, I would advocate a 50$ minimum.


Dave in Cali

"They use going all in as a strategy, so they can chase their hands cheaply. How would you stop a situation like this from occuring? mg "


I agree fully that this is VERY annoying, and I for one hate it. Therefore I would still advocate forcing them to buy-in for more money, with no short buy-ins allowed. Unfortunately, there isn't much you can do to prevent this from happening as long as the minimum buy-in is so small.


I LOVE the idea about the chip denominations, and have consistently advocated it at the cardrooms around me, which all use the following tremendously annoying system:


3-6 kill and 4-8 kill games use ONLY 1$ chips 8-16 kill games use ONLY 2$ chips


I think they should at LEAST use 1 and 5$ chips, but Mason's ideas on chip denomination are terrific, I wish they would all use his ideas. There is nothing more annoying than playing 4-8 kill with ONLY 1$ chips. You have to put in nearly a whole stack to bet the turn in a kill pot, and nearly two stacks to raise. Since I feel the minimum reasonable buy-in for 4-8 kill is 200$, I have to buy TWO racks just to play at all. Very annoying.


Dave in Cali

Dave, How is surfing? Thanks for the feedback on the all in rule. Last night I was playing 5-10 hold em at the Taj in AC and I witnessed a player at my table go all in at least three times. After the third time, he went to the cash machine and sat back down. My theory of putting his name back on the board went out the window. I wanted that guy to stay, he called with garbage right to the river. When I play at the Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun in Ct they use chips called turtles which are three dollar chips that are used in the 3-6 hold em game.

"How is surfing?"


Glad to see someone read my essay, and understood its tremendous social significance! Anyone who isn't reading the "Vince" forum is missing out on all kinds of highly important stuff! Actually, I will probably go surfing again this week, that lovely little chickadee certainly has my attention, especially with that skimpy little purple bikini! So what if I get eaten by a shark?


No problem on the comments on all-in. I thought you might appreciate a different point of view. You just have to separate the different types of all-in situations, some are far less irritating than others.


I sure wish they would play 3-6 with 3$ chips here!


Dave in Cali

Dave,


Enjoy the tubes brah !!! Not bad for an east coast guy...hahaha


Talk to you soon


mg

Why do you want to play $3/6 with $3 chips? The physically larger pots created by using multiple chips help generate action, which means fun and profit. The room where I play changed the $10/20 Hold'em game played with $5 chips to an $8/16 game played with $2 chips. It went from being the tightest, most boring game in the room to the wildest, most exciting, and most dangerous game in the room.

There are simply too many chips on the table when you are playing 4-8 full kill with 1$ chips or 8-16 full kill with 2$ chips. It's overkill. Perhaps use 2$ chips on the 4-8 kill games, and 4$ chips on the 8-16 kill games. Too many chips is a nusance, people are constantly stacking gigantic pots that really aren't half as big as they look. But you do have a point. However, I still hate having too many chips for the size of the game, it's a nusance.


Dave in Cali

I completely agree with this phenomina!


The example that convinced me was the 30-60 that goes about once a week or so at Turning Stone, (and with a weak enough line-up for me about once a month. ;-) ) Whenever someone decides to make the pots "more manageable" by buying a couple stacks of green, the pots get small, you can easily see exactly how much is in there, and we tighten right up.


As the players "in the know" of this phenomina send their reds into action and hoard the greens, the pots bloat up again and the game gets better.


Aren't humans nifty?


zooey

I will admit that I was taken aback when you talked about your $8/16 game with a full kill. That would be a ridiculous number of chips. But for a regular $8/16 game, $2 chips are the way to go. I suppose that if you're going to have a $3/6 game with a kill, you should use $3 chips, or maybe play $4/8 with $2 chips. I favor not having the kill myself.