Re: Gary Carson's Book

I just started reading his book. After I got through the first few pages I thought there were some aspects that needed to be discussed, since it is a problem that I see frequently.


It seems that he has the same problem as I felt Lee Jones' Book has, namely that his advice for beginners is just mistaken and not well thought out.


For example, Carson makes no distinction in his initial opening tables between passive and aggressive games. Just like lee Jones, he makes an arbitrary distinction that allows the play of 77 utg, but not 66 or smaller pairs. This distinction can only be right if the game conditions are right. WOuld you fold 66 in a loose passive game utg or first in in one after UTG just because his opening tables say so?


As another example, right when he first discusses what to consider when playing your hand, he includes position, number of callers and whether the pot has been raised. What about the type of game or the strength of your hand? What about whether the game is loose or tight, or passive or aggressive.


The problem I have with this, as is the problem I have with Lee Jones book, is that this type of advice is probably worse for beginners than it is for advanced players. It is worse, in my opinion, to teach beginners how to play incorrectly, even if it may be simpler for them to understand. Why give them bad advice merely because it is easier? In my opinion the best way to get them started is to tell them what considerations need to be thought about rather than opening rules that do not take into account the relevant factors.


As another example, he says UTG that you should play only hands that "figure to be good enough to beat eight or nine random hands." This is very bad advice in my opinion, although to his credit he does describe such hands as "your best hands." Given the looseness of most beginners games, and even many medium limit games, this advice is virtually worthless. Similarly his advice on what hands to play when you are first to act in late position is just incomplete, and therefore cannot be considered as good advice. mOst of the discussion of the first round and most of his playing tables just do not take into account the necessary relevant factors.


Another example is his admonition that you want more callers when you open early, so it is often best to limp in early position with strong hands and then try to reraise. He discusses this in a general way as a strong basic strategy without any discussion of the conditions that make this play correct.


I cant say that I have high hopes for the rest of the book but will continue on. I have no doubt that he was earnest inhis advice, and he may be a very good player, I have no idea. I just think that the advice he gives is incomplete or just wrong in many places.


Pat

Some quotes from the book:


Page 50: "You will often see pots won with very weak starting hands, particularly in very loose games. Don't pay any attention to this and don't draw any conclusions about it."


Page 121: "Before you take any action on a hand, have a reason."


Page 134: "When the game gets short-handed, play it as a short-handed game. Play aggressively, but be cautious."


Page 260: "When I play poker ever day, I just start losing perspective on life. Things like money and relationships start to lose value for me. . . to be a tough ppoker player you either have to have so much money that it doesn't matter or just not care about the money."


Page 300: "The twoplustwo forum. . . is. . . censored. You won't find much discussion about the drawbacks of the perspectives suggested in books published by Two Plus Two. You also won't find much discussion of the benefits of perspectives suggested in books that are published by mainstream publishers. . . the perspectives that dominate the discussion threads on this forum are limited. . ."


Also see pages 258-9 for Carson's discussion of intuition, about which I posted on the Hold'em General forum.

As I read on I found numerous other "gems of wisdom." It is apparent in reading the book that he has very little understanding of the way hands change in multiway pots. My personal favorite is on pg 136: "There is a common misconception that unsuited hands lose value in a loose game. This just isnt true."


the other, and perhaps worst, piece of "advice" is his discussion of raising to thin the field. Apparently he is not a big fan of thinning the field since it does not, in his estimation, "make you money."


I am sure that he will just attribute the books shortcomings, in the estimation of 2+2'ers as just more bashing from 2+2. Also, perhaps Mason can comment on this, but didnt he and others ask that their posts be removed from 2+2?And, what exactly are the "benefits" of other perspectives on poker strategy that differ from 2+2? Silly me, I just thought the other perspectives were wrong.


Pat

You are flat mistaken.Two chpaters in the book dicuss thorouhly that no set of "openers" can be deermined without considering game type. Another chapter discusses personality types in different games and how to play them. YOu certainly are overly critical. Before you write a scathing review, you might actually read the book.

I haven't read Gary's book. Nor do I intend to. Why?


Everytime I go to RGP to read some posts all I see is Gary bashing someone or arguing with someone about stupid things. He is so FULL OF SH!T, IMO.


No one like that can write anything intelligent enough for me to go out and buy his book to read.


Gary was even childish enough to get into a argument with Daniel the kid and they were going to play head's up for $100,000 (or something like that). They were going to play each other to see who was better but I read in a post that someone backed out (lol, I wonder who chickened out). In my opinion who is Gary Carson to challenge Daniel in a head's up match. Daniel has won numerous tournaments and is a well know top player. Gary has won JACK ALL!


Just my opinion of Gary Carson!

Daniel backed out. Carson also published 2 e-mail letters that Daniel sent him. They were not only childish, but criminal in that there were physical threats mentioned.

Actually I could not disagree more. Carson discusses these as "advanced" concepts. NOWHERE in the initial chapters does he adjust his opening tables for the style of game, which might be a minor flaw in a book meant for advance players, but is a terrible flaw in my opinion when giving advice for beginners, who need very good advice and not incomplete advice.


I have completed the book and there are many parts that are either careless or incomplete. for example his assertion that unsuited hands do not lose value in a loose game is just wrong and there is no two ways about it.Also some of the discussion is just crazy, and if you followed it you would go broke very quickly. An example of this is the advice that you should not raise to thin the field preflop with many strong hands. Another example is the ludicrous advice to beginners to "play hands that add up to 21 if evaluated as blackjack hands." Personally I do not want 8 callers with JJ or TT, and the idea to play hands that add up to 21 is just ludicrous. I guess you cannot play JTs with 8 callers on the button since his rule only includes high pairs and "21" hands. Andy fox cited some other examples above, and an exhaustive list would be well beyond the scope of this forum.


Another glaring flaw is the assertion that there is no underlying general theory of poker. He apparently does not believe in the Fundamental Theorem of Poker set forth by Sklansky. I also think his advice on playing draws is too tight as he does not see the real value of overcards and semibluffing with such hands.


There are some parts that do have good discussion of general principles, such as the discussion of choosing games, and the fact that slowplaying is often an Overrated strategy,but the fact is that many do not. I do not think I am being overly critical, but I do have high standards for the poker books I read.


Pat

Ray:


While I agree that Daniel may have some growing up to do, Gary Carson has proven over and over again that he is an extremely nasty person.


An interesting side note is that I have quickly thumbed through Carson's book and what struck me the most is that it appears his publisher editied out all the insults. That must have been very tough for Carson.

"Another glaring flaw is the assertion that there is no underlying general theory of poker."


I think what happens is that these new authors want to carve out a place for themselves. If they mimic our work too closely they will become known as someone with no original ideas. So they try to come up with things that are different and unique. The problem is that they often do this by sacrificing the quality and accuracy of their information.


Again I haven't read Carson's book so I can't comment on whether this is the case here, but it is certainly something that he does on the RGP forum. In addition, Carson likes to misquote what someone else has said and then explain why it is wrong. Does he do that in the book?

not that I saw specifically, although I think there are times when he is referring to particular authors and principles without referring to them by name. This is not necessarily in a negative way in the book. For example he has a section on book reviews, and I will give you three guesses where he probably got the idea from. :-)


Also, he says that he does not post to 2+2, as if it was just a decision he made because he does not agree with the quality of the posts. This is understandable, but from what I know it ignores an awful lot of history, although I will admit that I wasnt even playing poker when this history happened.


Pat

Carson (along with Badger) demanded that all of his posts be removed from our archives. Chuck did this but since it required a fair amount of additional work Carson (and Badger) are barred from posting on these forums.

Unfortunately Carson can still Spam under a different name. Just look at the blatant post by him under the "Where to buy Championship book by McEvoy" thread. He even used "GCRGP" as the name on it.


This guy never ceases to amaze me....


TDK

From his chapter on Table Image:


"One thing you can do is just be nice. Players appreciate it. A nice guy image is probably the most important image you can have, and it is one you can cultivate." [page 196]

Actually, I think it depends on the game. For example, when playing razz, which is hardly ever spread anymore, it seemed like the best players were very annoying and obnoxious. By the way, on a completely unrelated note, the largest pot I ever won occured in a razz game.

Yes, the excerpts which Carson provided on his web site were filled witbut his book is thought provoking.h insults which seriously detracted from the goal of teaching poker.


I've finished reading his book and removing the insults has made for an interesting book. I never thought I could read something by Carson without an immediate need to wash my hands, but his book is thought provoking. I liked his discussion on the different models of poker and how they relate to different game conditions.


What a shame that Carson doesn't have an editor for his day to day dealings in life and the internet.

I looked on his website and did not see any insults in the excerpts from the book. have they been removed, or am I looking in the wrong place?

There were delays in in getting Carson's book out. I suspect it might have had something to do with his publisher insisting that he rewrite it without the insults.

I've now read pretty much the whole thing and the only thing close to an insult was directed at, surprise, you. In taling about one of your books he said it got good reviews but he didn't think it was very good. (I think it was Gambling Theory and Other Topics.) I guess this is not really an insult, just an opinion. There was no elaboration. He did say HEFAP is required reading.


Also there was a (mis?)-spelling of your name as Mason Malmouth. A subtle insult?

Hi,


I read RGP for 2 years. One is sure - it was not Carson's post. Definitely not his style.


Zbych,

I read and respect your books more than Gary Carson's. When he posted here, I traded barbs with him. He does strike me as Crusty the clown from the Simpsons. I was simply surprised that his book showed so much thought.

Patrick DiCaprio wrote:


"I guess you cannot play JTs with 8 callers on the button since his rule only includes high pairs and '21' hands."


From page 53 of Gary Carson's book:


"From middle or late position, you should expand the hands to include those that give you a blackjack count of 20--any two 10-valued cards or an Ace and a nine.


Take it a step at a time. Don't try to do it all at once."


I believe this would include JTs.

you are right, but his principle is still very bad advice. Just change the JTs to 89s. would you fold? Also in most loose games I would not fold JTs in early position even if it is not a "21" hand.


Pat

Pat DiCaprio wrote:


"[Y]ou are right, but his principle is still very bad advice. Just change the JTs to 89s. would you fold? Also in most loose games I would not fold JTs in early position even if it is not a '21' hand."


I don't know about VERY bad advice. It's not optimal, but some would argue that hand groups aren't the best way to go about learning poker, either.


If you had a friend who had NEVER played hold'em before in his life, but was intent on sitting down in a casino HE game, and you only had about 5 minutes to "teach" him the game, then Carson's advice is not so bad. If your friend is still using this model at the table at his next session, then THAT would be VERY bad.


BTW It's okay to be biased. Just don't pretend not to be, or worse, delude yourself that you aren't. "The Theory of Poker" is probably the most important poker book ever written. But if a total newbie asked me what poker book he should read first, I would not suggest TOP. The same could be said of HEPFAP. If my newbie friend wanted me to suggest the FIRST HE book he should read, I would say Carson's. If he was only going to read one HE book in his entire life, then I would say he should read HEPFAP. But most people don't just read one book.


If you don't like Carson's book, fine. But the passage you referred to was short and contained no complex concepts. You're a smart guy, you didn't need me to point out what I pointed out. I suspect you just don't want to like the book and are reading it looking for things to disagree with. That can be useful, but make sure you're at least reading it.

Actually I had no opinion on carson. I dont read rgp and was not posting here when carson was, nor was I privy to the contentions between carson and 2+2 when I posted this thread. I knew there was some bad blood between him and 2+2 but had no idea what it was or why it existed. It was only after I posted this thread that I found out about what transpired, so to say that I might be biased by the bad blood between him and 2+2 is just wrong.


My main bone of contention with his book, and with others, such as lee jones' book, is the advice to beginners. I used to play stud exclusively, and only started playing holdem the last year so i read every book I could find. In my opinion books such as Jones' and carson's hurt beginners more than they help. There is some good discussion in his book, but it is far outweighed by the bad advice.


I agree that I would not recommend TOP to a total newbie, but nor would I recommend carson either. I also agree that hand groups are not perfect either, but they are easier to understand and more importantly to adjust, once you learn the principles of poker. Any reasonably motivated beginner can grasp the necessary concepts such as multiway vs. shorthanded pot play. They may struggle with it, as I did at first, but after a few playing sessions and study it comes together. This in my mind is a far better approach.


I could see why you would think that I was biased against him, and I suspect that some are. If I had known about what happened, or about carsons apparent nasty reputation, then maybe I would have been biased against him.


Pat

Fair enough. I'm not expert enough to really analyze the specific advice in the books I read. I mainly go by "Does it make sense, and is it clearly articulated?" If Osama Bin Laden wrote a poker book, I'd read it if I thought it would increase my hourly rate, so I hate to see anyone neglect his book because he can be a jerk. We obviously can agree to disagree on the merits of his book.


FWIW I wasn't trying to pick a fight. I post here very infrequently, but you've given me good advice almost every single time I have.


Take care,


Jeff

This thread is a bit old but I can't let this go. You've posted some of this nonsensical criticism multiple times in this thread without a scintilla of evidence to back up your claims. For starters:


for example his assertion that unsuited hands do not lose value in a loose game is just wrong and there is no two ways about it.


Um, unsuited hands don't lose value in loose games. Abdul has debunked this several times. I have no idea why people think unsuited hands lose value in loose games because that idea doesn't even make sense to me conceptually. Consider that you have AQ UTG in a 10 handed game. (I.e. AQ against 9 hands.) In an "average" game, you might play that AQ against 3 of the hands. In a looser game, you'll play it against 5 of the hands. The 2 additional hands will be something like T4s and K5o--how the hell do the guys who decide to play T4s and K5o cost you money??? They're donating!


It's true that unsuited hands don't go up in value as much as suited hands do in loose games. You might only make an extra $2 with your AQ, while someone with a hand like KJs might make an extra $3. But that doesn't mean your unsuited hand somehow "lost value." Just because someone with KJs profits more than you do with AQ, doesn't mean that you didn't profit also.


Also some of the discussion is just crazy, and if you followed it you would go broke very quickly. An example of this is the advice that you should not raise to thin the field preflop with many strong hands.


I've only skimmed Carson's book so I can't fully comment, but raising to "thin the field" is highly overrated. Carson's point is probably that you should be concerned with raising for value instead of "thinning the field," which is typically correct for a loose game. (Especially since you usually can't "thin the field" in the first place.)


Another example is the ludicrous advice to beginners to "play

hands that add up to 21 if evaluated as blackjack hands."


What's ludicrous about it? If someone can't be bothered to learn a preflop strategy that takes more than a couple minutes to learn, sticking to "21" hands is a fine introductory strategy. It's a far better strategy than most beginners use.


Personally I do not want 8 callers with JJ or TT


Well, those of us who like to win money want 8 callers with JJ or TT. You could argue that 1 or 2 callers is better than 8 (that depends on how poorly they play), but 8 callers is almost certainly better than 4-7, and you're never going to have the choice of calling to against 8 but raising to play against 1 or 2.


and the idea to play hands that add up to 21 is just ludicrous.


Again, can you suggest a better way to sum up a basic preflop strategy in a sentence or two?


Another glaring flaw is the assertion that there is no underlying general theory of poker. He apparently does not believe in the Fundamental Theorem of Poker set forth by Sklansky.


Huh? The FTOP isn't an "underlying general theory," because there isn't anything very "theoretical" about it. It's only called the "fundamental theorem" as a bit of a joke. Yeah, if your opponents do something they wouldn't do if they could see your cards, you profit. It's a truism, but the idea that "You want your opponents to make mistakes" isn't exactly an "underlying general theory."


I also think his advice on playing draws is too tight as he does not see the real value of overcards and semibluffing with such hands.


You'd have to specify the section to which you refer, but folding overcards on the flop in a loose game is typically correct (esp when your call doesn't close the action.) See Cooke's recent column in Card Player where he has AQ and (correctly) folds on a J8x flop when the pot is a bit large. There's also almost no value in semibluffing in a loose game. You need to be concerned with betting for value rather than semibluffing.


-Sean