Bk Rvw: The Complete Book of H 'em by Gary Carson

The Complete Book of Hold ’em Poker (5) by Gary Carson. As hold ’em books go this is more interesting than most. Unfortunately, interesting and accurate are not always the same thing. While the book does contain some worthwhile and thought provoking ideas, it is flawed in other spots.


To be specific, it has excellent discussions on different types of games, how hand values change, and how different concepts come into play in different games. For example, Carson correctly points out that tight games are basically a “struggle for the antes” while aggressive games “add value to very strong draws.” He’s aware that when a multiway pot develops in a tight game it is different from a multiway pot in a loose game and that this can dramatically affect the value of your starting hands. He’s also aware that good draws gain value in loose games and should be played strongly at times, that not all flush draws should be played the same, and that backdoor draws add value to your hands. There are also discussion on other topics such as game dynamics and cheating that some of you may find interesting.


But the book does have its problems. Carson mainly ignores games where people are trying to play have way decently. Once that’s true, many of the hands that he recommends playing are unplayable. Many of the hands he would raise for value are no longer worth raising with, and most importantly he omits opportunities to raise to knock people out since presumably he would claim they won’t call anyway. There is also virtually no discussion on how to play fourth street or the river.


In conclusion, this should be a very dangerous book if you are fairly new to hold ’em. That’s because Carson puts so much emphasis on ideas that can be very expensive once you are up against players who have any idea what they are doing.


On the other hand, if you are an experienced player who is having success, and you like to read poker books, you may want to view this book as supplemental reading. Just make sure that if you incorporate any of the unusual advice, that you have thought it through very carefully.

I have the electronic version of the book, not the latest printed one. Overall, I agree with your assessment of the book.


I do think Gary has a good, simplistic discussion of poker theory (made hand versus drawing hand) and a good discussion of the "Big River Bet". He has a good discussion of Morton's Theorem.


I think his starting hand discussion is novel but difficult to follow and too loose for the games I play in. I take serious issue with his Chapter on Playing The Draw where he wants to pump the pot on a small flush-draw with numerous opponents excited about their hands when a two-flush flops.


Like other authors of the game, I sense that he places a lot of emphasis on computer simulations in arriving at his conclusions.


I recommend buying the book for those who like to collect poker books. For a beginner, I still like Lee Jones or Lou Krieger over anyone else. For an experienced player, HPFAP-New Edition is the only book about holdem worth serious study in my opinion.

I am going to get way in over my head with this but here goes....


I think that his perspective on draws and when to ram and jam the flop is the strongest part of the book. Can you please elaborate why you take serious issue with this aspect?


I think that part of your issue might stem from the fact that the games you frequent in Vegas are much tougher and tighter than games in other limits and locations (as you mentioned), but that doesn't make Carson's advice wrong. It simply means it is less applicable to your specific type of game. HPFAP21 has several concepts that aren't applicable to looser Cali style games (much of the deception concepts are wasted in these game types), but that doesn't make HPFAP21 wrong either.


It is up to the discerning reader to determine how applicable the advice in any book is to his/her "standard" game.


Clark

I don't have any problems with taking a good draw and putting in some extra bets on the flop assuming that you get multiway action. But I do have problems when he has you playing something like JJ passively when the flop is 9 high because you may be against a good draw. He seems to forget that if your raise can knock out players with let's say four and five outs you may be winning more from these players than you are losing to the person with the good draw. Plus drawing hands with 15 or so outs don't have to always be there. I also have problems when he recommends to play any two suited cards in loose/aggressive games because if you flop a draw you can get many bets in on the flop. You will frequently get punished with these hands before the flop and on the turn.


Hope that helps.

Ramming and jamming with a small flush-draw against a large field who are all excited about their hands once a two-flush flops is highly problematic. The reason is because the likelihood of at least one other opponent also being on a flush-draw becomes quite high. Once the flop comes, we are out of the realm of random probability and into the realm of conditional probability. Players don't play random cards. They play cards that fit that flop. One way is for someone else besides yourself to also be on a flush-draw when a two-flush flops. When this happens, you set yourself up to lose a lot of money if you just blindly raise. Not only do the chances of you making a flush go down but the risk of drawing dead is quite real. When you happen to make your flush and lose, you lose a ton.


In Chapter 29 - Playing The Draw, Gary dismisses the concern about being up against a higher flush-draw. It has nothing to do with "made hand versus a draw perspective" as Gary contends. In a community card game, one flush frequently loses to a bigger flush when a lot of players want to take off cards once the flop comes. Gary makes the same mistake a number of other intelligent guys with computer simulation experience make. They merely look at their own chances of making the hand they want and set aside what other players figure to have given the particulars of the situation. It is like they assume thier opponents hold random cards which is flat-out wrong. His statement: "If you have a flush then the chances of someone else having a flush are fairly small" is ludicrous given the situation he has outlined. You have four or five opponents paying multiple bets to take off cards and see the turn when a two-flush flops. The likelihood of more than one player being on a flush-draw is quite high.


In fact, there are many situations in holdem where you should dump a baby flush-draw when a large field is betting and raising. Here is an example from a $20-$40 game. You are in the big blind with the 8h-5h. Two early players, two middle players, the button, and the small blind limp. You take a free play. There is $140 in the pot and seven players. The flop is: Ks-Qh-3h, giving you a tiny flush-draw. The small blind checks. You check. An early player bets. Another early player raises. A middle player cold-calls. The button cold-calls. The small blind cold-calls. What do you do? You should fold. You have six opponents who took this flop. Five of them are willing to pay two bets to see the turn. In many cases you are drawing dead and will lose big bucks when you make your flush only to lose to a higher flush. On the hand in question, the player called. It got raised again and capped back to him. He called all that as well. He made his flush on the turn, only to be shown the nut flush by the small blind when a blank came at the river. He complained that he had taken a "bad beat". But this was a "bad beat" he did not have to take.

Overall I agree with your review of the book....


I wholeheartedly agree that he seems to have problems distinguishing between when it is appropriate to raise on the flop with top pair/overpairs and when it is better to raise on the turn. If you can raise the flop and make people call 2 or more cold (presumably dropping one or more of them), then it should be correct regardless of the draw against you. I tend to wait until the turn (ala HEPFAP21) when the callers on the flop are already on the "installment plan" and my raise can't knock anyone out.


However, it was my observation in some loose/aggressive games in Cali it seems correct to call with any 2 suited on the button or cutoff in unraised family pot situations. The implied odds are simply too large to pass up. With pots frequently in excess of 20BB, calling 1SB on the button is a reasonable price. This of course would be suicide in the games we see here in Vegas.

In HPFAP we do explain when it is correct to call with a hand like Q5s. You may want to take a look at that.

Still in over my head here, but here goes....


No doubt sometimes you will be drawing dead. But aren't you getting compensated for this possibility by the massive overlay you are getting on your draw? Assuming the board isn't paired, if you are getting 5 or 6-1 for each addittional bet on your 1.86-1 shot, can't you afford to lose to a better flush part of the time?


If the flush comes and excessive action continues, you can still get away from the hand. In addition, shouldn't checking and calling rather than raising blindly once it comes should keep the cost of the losing flushes within the realm where the winning ones compensate?


I can't seem to get past the idea that the overlay on the draw overcomes the times when you are second best. Also, sometimes an 8-9s will be the big flush in these types of games with frequent 5 and 6 way action on the flop.


Regarding your example....I agree that this seems to be a situation where a bigger flush draw is highly (>70%) likely to be out against you. What if instead of bet-raise and 3 cold calls, it was bet and 4 calls before it gets to the hero? To me, this situation is a raising spot with huge overlay potential. The VERY scary 3 cold callers are simply calling one bet and they could have a range of holdings, including a naked flush Ace, and several gutshots given that 2 of the cards are right in the playing zone.


Isn't the difference between your example and my hypothetical an example of where a player has to use his/her hand reading skills to make the situationally correct decision? Are you giving up anything by raising in the hypothetical? I don't think so.....


Thanks alot in advance for the thoughts and feedback Jim. I think this is a topic and situation that is fairly common and I'm sure I am not the only one who would like to explore this situation further.


Dave Clark

"Assuming the board isn't paired, if you are getting 5 or 6-1 for each additional bet on your 1.86-1 shot, can't you afford to lose to a better flush part of the time?"


Let me just address this one point. Yes, you are correct. But there is more to this than what Carson addresses.


I agree that if you are there on the flop and you know that you will get five or six way action and that it will go two or three bets you have just played a theoretically profitable round. But Carson describes games where it also may go two or three (and sometimes more) bets before the flop, and he completely ignores play on the turn where it can also go two or three bets where you uncompleted flush draw is now getting severely punished.


What this means is that you need to think through the whole package of playing rounds before you decide to play any two suited cards. If you can get in cheaply, can anticipate several players if you do flop a flush draw, and can also anticipate a moderately passive turn most of the time assuming you miss your draw on the flop, then I agree that you can play more suited hands than normal. But that is not what this book describes.


I hope this helps.

It really comes down to how often you are drawing dead versus how much of an overlay you are getting. My example may be one extreme. Clearly throwing a flush-draw away just because someone bets and someone else raises would be wrong and represents another extreme. But in jammed pots with lots of players, drawing to the nuts becomes increasingly important. This is why a hand like ace-little suited can be very profitable in these kinds of games whereas a hand like ten-five suited may not always be. In Gary's example, I am not saying that the Mason should throw his hand away. But I don't believe just raising willy-nilly is right either. I don't agree with Gary's logic in these kinds of games and in this situation.


You are correct in believing that an overlay on the draw can sometimes cover the times you hit and lose but it depends. With a suited connector and lots of opponents, you want good implied odds which means passive betting on the flop or turn until you make your hand. In your example, I have no problem pursuing a baby flush-draw with a lot of players when there is no raising present. It only costs me one small bet to take off a card and there is a good chance no else is on a flush-draw. The absence of raising gives me more confidence that my hand will be good if I hit. One could then argue - why not raise? The reason that raising is bad is because it drives out players you want in if you hit. When I am drawing to a flush, I want bottom pairs, middle pairs, gutshots, and so forth to call not fold.


When nine-eight suited makes a flush and another flush is present, the nine-eight rates to lose. If another guy is on a flush-draw it will usually be higher than nine-high. Players come in with ace-little suited, king-little suited, queen-little suited, jack-ten suited, ten-nine suited, and jack-nine suited a lot more often than a hand like seven-deuce suited.

Jim,


I haven't read about Carson's book. I am not really commenting on that. I want to clear some things up about your statements here on simulators. (i don't know what carson uses).


Gary makes the same mistake a number of other intelligent guys with computer simulation experience make. They merely look at their own chances of making the hand they want and set aside what other players figure to have given the particulars of the situation. It is like they assume thier opponents hold random cards which is flat-out wrong.


This is incorrect. Using TTHE, the sim profiles will play whatever hand they have been programmed to play. This includes preprogrammed profiles, and user created profiles. One can also program the flop, the turn, and the river. Properly run simulations (and these are by no means easy to do without experience), are, essentially EV equations.


For example, you are concerned here with flush over flush. This would be fully accounted for in a properly done sim. The profiles would hold the whatever hands they have been programmed to play. Or, if you wish to test a special circumstance, you can give them individual hands of your choosing. To help ensure accuracy, you can test certain boards, and see if the profiles are playing properly. You can simulate, if you choose, say, five different situations, find the results, then weight them mathematically as you would in an EV equation. There are lots of advanced, accurate ways to use simulations.


I am speaking from experience, as I have run many of these simulations. I can, and sometimes do, simulate hands that have been discussed on this forum as the basis for some of my opinions. This option is superior to EV equations in my opinion, as it takes much less time and is not subject to simple math errors.


To be specific, to test whether flush draws can be profitably raised in these situations, I can set it up with any assumptions you choose. What hands do you want your oppoents to have? What board? How many bets in? Now, these things can't easily be programmed, and take some serious profile manipulation, but it can be done. At the very least, one can get good baselines. These things are not easy to do with TTHE, and it takes some trickery to get this them work.


Quite honestly, proper use of simulations is the only way many hold'em questions can be answered, other than extremely tedious mathematical models. These sims are one of the most powerful tools available today.


For example, there is a post on JJ in the small blind on the medium stakes forum. Sklansky, in his book, reckoned its better to call with this holding with 8 limpers, rather than raise.

Simulations of various types show this to be incorrect thinking, under most almost all circumstances. (I haven't bothered with the thread because I prefer that it be widely held that calling is the better play. Only a handful will read this thread.) You can change the opponents hands to whatever you want, change the board to whatever you want. have the JJ checkraise the flop, whatever. Only extreme circumstances make calling better. So what does this mean? It means that you should look closer at the "math and logic" that Sklansky uses. You will find that it hinges on some assumptions that are different. So, in this case, at the very least, you will educate yourself in the matter, and determine what is more correct: The assumptions the sim used, or the assumptions the expert used? Right or wrong, as long as you are thinking and not following blindly, thats gotta be good. Only dimwits would not benefit from such examination.


Back to the flush draw. If the sims show (the advanced sims I am talking about....not just the garden variety out of the box ones), that raising is more profitable than calling, than maybe we need to look at the math closer. Maybe, for example [;)], there is benefits to raising that have something to do with one of the advanced (fairly unknown) inferences of Morton's theorem. Or maybe not.


I think this post is long enough. Sorry for the long post, you probably aren't really that interested in a simulator debate.


Take care,


Regards.

one of your very best...you have a cadre of loyal lurkers...keep em coming...gl

"Quite honestly, proper use of simulations is the only way many hold'em questions can be answered, other than extremely tedious mathematical models. These sims are one of the most powerful tools available today.


For example, there is a post on JJ in the small blind on the medium stakes forum. Sklansky, in his book, reckoned its better to call with this holding with 8 limpers, rather than raise.

Simulations of various types show this to be incorrect thinking, under most almost all circumstances"


We have gone over this in detail before and I don't wish to get into another debate, but I strongly disagree. You can only be correct if the TTH sims do a good job of representing real hold 'em. They don't. This must be the case because their playing strategy is so poor and this is easily seen because the program is extremely easy to beat and some of the advisor advice is pathetic. In our opinion it overvalues big pairs and high cards and misses many extra bets the other hands are able to get, especially when they are played from late position.


Since we have gone through this at such detail before this will be my only post on the matter. While I view the program as a good tool for a beginner who is just trying to get a feel for how poker is played, to use it as a serious tool to answer questions should prove to be very costly in the long run.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply about simulations and in all fairness I have never run a simulation so I apologize for unintentionally "maligning" them or any one who runs them. However, I have a few questions and observations to make:


1. In his Chapter on "Playing a Draw", Gary states:


"Five players had called the blind by the time the action got to our here with the 9s-7s. Should he call, fold, or raise? If you are taking an odds perspective to the game, then you need to think about a raise in this situation. There is a popular misconception, repeated in many poker books, that you should only raise if your hand figures to be the best hand. That is not how to get the money in holdem. You should raise whenever your chances of winning are greater than the odds you are getting on the raise. Based on Turbo Texas Hold'Em simulations, 9s-7s from late position against a field of five to seven players, will win over 20% of the time. That makes a hand about a 4-to-1 underdog. With five players already having called, the two blinds yet to act, you will get between 5-to-1 and 7-to-1 on a raise. If you know the blinds will call a raise, then there is profit in a raise and you should take that profit."


I have a couple of questions for you:


1. Where does the 20% estimate of winning chances come from? Does it assume your opponents hold random cards? If someone has a hand like Ks-Js they will limp in 100% of the time. If they have a hand like 8c-2h they will virtually never limp in.


2. Does the 20% assume you go all the way to the river? Suppose you flop a backdoor flush-draw and get bet out of the hand? If you flop a straight draw, does it assume you go all the way to the river to maximize your chances of winning regardless of the board and the betting?


Based on Gary's narrative I sense that the 20% is based on you getting to take 9s-7s all the way to the river regardless of what the flop or turn brings and regardless of the betting action. If so, I question the realism of these assumptions.


It is interesting that a person can test whatever assumptions they want but the results you get are a reflection of the realism of those assumptions. Without knowing the assumptions Gary used, I have to question the validity of his results.


Gary thinks calling is okay but raising might be better. But suppose raising drives out the blinds who would call? Suppose raising results in someone deciding to reraise? What happens when you have to pay two or three bets to take a flop instead of one bet? What is the impact on your implied odds? When you make a pot very large like this, it may be harder to get your hand to hold up when you hit your flush since players will go for runner-runner and so forth. A guy with a lone As might well decide to take off a card even if only one spade is flopped since he has a backdoor and the pot is large. In my opinion, raising is a high variance play that adds very little to your expectation if anything. It may even hurt your EV instead of helping it. I think calling is better.


I also had some serious problems with Gary's flop and turn analyses of this particular problem. He seems to think that adding more players makes this a raising hand when it flops a draw. But why would I want to eliminate players in a large field when I am drawing? I will not eliminate anyone with a better hand or a better draw (a better flush-draw that is). I will eliminate players who may have been contributing dead money when I hit. His method of counting "outs" is bizarre. In poker, there is no reward for simply improving. "Outs" than don't win and don't get you out simply burn up more money. How is this considered in a simulation?

"Quite honestly, proper use of simulations is the only way many hold'em questions can be answered, other than extremely tedious mathematical models. These sims are one of the most powerful tools available today."


I'm not sure that the models always have to be extremely tedious (but they can be and often are). Computers can also help with the math models too. With that said I suspect that many use neither models nor sims.

Regarding the issue of being on the button with a pocket pair against eight limpers. Sklansky says to raise with aces and kings because of the strength of your hand. He says to raise with tens or nines because you are getting the right odds to flop a set. He recommends just limping in with queens and jacks.


If you raise with queens or jacks and undercards flop, it may get checked around to you. Many of these guys like to "check to the raiser" since they see other people play this way. You bet with your overpair and now everyone is getting great odds to call. But suppose you just limp with queens and jacks and undercards flop? Now one of your numerous opponents is likely to bet. This allows you the chance to raise thereby forcing everyone else at the table to call two bets cold which may fold some of them. I wonder how the merits of this play could ever be correctly simulated.

We have gone over this in detail before and I don't wish to get into another debate, but I strongly disagree.


I don't either. But don't sell things like that JJ conclusions are based on "math and logic" when the real issues aren't the math and logic but what you are assuming about the opponents, how they play, etc.


You can only be correct if the TTH sims do a good job of representing real hold 'em. They don't.


This is roughly equivalent to stating, "EV equations can only be correct if they represent real hold'em. The don't."


This must be the case because their playing strategy is so poor and this is easily seen because the program is extremely easy to beat and some of the advisor advice is pathetic.


True. This is the source of much of the ignorance on this matter.

I have alluded to some of the reasons for this in my above post. It is true that many simulations are not being run properly, and the basic unmodified sims bring about false conclusions on occassion. but it is incorrect to say they are wrong. What they are doing is simulating bad play. This is no different than assuming such a thing in an EV equation. They are not wrong. The assumptions are wrong. The only way they can be wrong if there is an internal software error, or the operator did something wrong in the setup.


In our opinion it overvalues big pairs and high cards and misses many extra bets the other hands are able to get, especially when they are played from late position.


As it stands with the unmodified sims, I believe you have landed on the right answer. I might at a later date if I am so inclined detail why this is so and how to account for it.


When Sklansky posted his UTG EV estimate, mine was almost identical. My estimates were based mainly on modified simulators.


This debate will end soon enough, as many of us are collecting and processing online documentation.


Since we have gone through this at such detail before this will be my only post on the matter.


Yes, it is tedious. I don't blame you.


While I view the program as a good tool for a beginner who is just trying to get a feel for how poker is played


It has limited use in that regard.


to use it as a serious tool to answer questions should prove to be very costly in the long run.


Quite the opposite. Those who use it, and understand it, will have a growing edge in the years to come.

Jim,


It would be inappropriate to attempt to tell you what Gary Carson did. But I will try to answer with that caveat. It is unfortunate that he doesn't post here. (why not post this on RGP?)


I have a couple of questions for you:


1. Where does the 20% estimate of winning chances come from? Does it assume your opponents hold random cards? If someone has a hand like Ks-Js they will limp in 100% of the time. If they have a hand like 8c-2h they will virtually never limp in.


He also, from your post, uses the term, "from 5 to 7 players". Suffice to say, that there's a big difference between five and seven players. I just ran a quick showdown sim that has 97s winning 18% of the time against random hands. (7 handed)


Again, it would be wrong to comment on what Carson did, and what context those statements are in without knowing more.


I don't like challenging him (or anyone else) unfairly knowing he can't respond here.


2. Does the 20% assume you go all the way to the river?


If its a showdown sim, it would just run the cards to the end without betting.


TTHE has both showdown sims and full action sims. The full action sims play out the hand according to their programming. This includes betting/raising/folding and the whole gamut of poker moves that can occur. Most of the generic sims don't play that well. this is the cause of some of the naysayers' incorrect conclusions.


It is interesting that a person can test whatever assumptions they want but the results you get are a reflection of the realism of those assumptions


You understand this well. Its exactly what the assumptions are. The other day you posted a hand (JTs vs Q9s), and you had many responders. Coilean, for example, used some Ev equations for part of the analysis. Does that mean that analysis is infallible? Certainly not. IF the assumptions were wrong (like how often you would be raised on the turn, or how often the turn would get checked behind with a better hand, for starters, this could change things). But those EV equations provide solid baselines. So, too, can TTHE sims.


Now, don't let me leave you with the idea that you can test all your assumptions easily. Many you can't, with the present design of the simulator. Often we are forced to set up it in ways that are quite creative and time consuming to get the desired results. I just wanted to express that just because in some situations the sim profiles play badly, doesn't mean they play badly in controlled situations. It also doesn't mean we can't intelligently account for this mathematically.


In my opinion, raising is a high variance play that adds very little to your expectation if anything. It may even hurt your EV instead of helping it. I think calling is better.


To be honest, I am not quite sure. I am not prepared to give an opinion on this without doing the whole series of controlled sims that I would be comfortable drawing conclusions from. Online hand data can't answer this question because you almost never get that type of limping online (nor live, really).


But why would I want to eliminate players in a large field when I am drawing? I will not eliminate anyone with a better hand or a better draw (a better flush-draw that is). I will eliminate players who may have been contributing dead money when I hit.


I haven't read the book, as I said. I don't want to be unfair to Carson or to the truth of the matter.


There may be some value in eliminate dependant higher flush draws(I.e. backdoor aces/kings) (there was a great obscure post about similar issues by "small caps scott" ages ago). This may have some application here.


How is this considered in a simulation?


In the showdown sim (no betting) it wouldn't exactly, although higher flush draws would be accounted for in the %. I agree that there is problems with this.


But in a full action simulations the players have regular hands suited to what their position is. It doesn't simulate perfectly or even close to perfectly what real play is (without controlling the sim), but it provides useful baselines.


One problem i am having here is that it took me over a year to figure this out. I often would run sims as I was playing online, so it was not costing me time. Over this time, I learned how to work the sims to maximize their value, not just accept the dogma of the naysayers.


Hey, I hope you realize I got into a big kuffuffle (sp?) about defending a weak unsuited king in the big blind, because of an article by a certain long time twoplustwo poster/writer.


Regards.

I'm not sure that the models always have to be extremely tedious (but they can be and often are). Computers can also help with the math models too. With that said I suspect that many use neither models nor sims.


Tom,


Yes, I suppose those math models are what they are, and its just my opinion that they are tedious. I am not fully aware of the extent computers can assist with math modelling, so I would decline to comment. I, too, suspect, that many people don't use sims (which are essentially applied math anyway), or other mathematics. If they follow good general principles and have a good feel for the game, I don't think they will suffer that much, really. But I like to push the envelope of theoretical knowledge. Otherwise poker wouldn't be as interesting to me.


Regards.

scalf,


Thanks. (Erin too).


Bear in mind that much of what I like to discuss is pushing the envelope. Using the tried and true methods of S&M will serve us all well.


On the forum, we have a safe place to speculate, discuss, get opinions of excellent thinkers. Where else can one get this type of directed thinking ability?


regards.

Of course he may be. I think very highly of Sklansky and his opinions. I regard him as the foremost poker theorist in the world.


But he isn't always right. Remember T9s? (im not saying this is wrong, i haven't done that suite of sims needed). But I think we all benefited from those discussions. At least I did. If we come away with a better understanding of the game, its worth the process. Would a newbie be beter off just blindly following advice? in the beginning, and maybe in the middle, probably. But after that I don't agree.


Regards.

(n/t)

He seems to think that adding more players makes this a raising hand when it flops a draw. But why would I want to eliminate players in a large field when I am drawing?


i got the impression he was discussing pot-building raises, not raises to eliminate players.


for example if the small blind bets and all call, then i raise. or in early position, check raising a bettor on my left, and the like.

You are probably right. Raising makes sense IF you know that you are drawing live AND you know that you will not drive out players. These two factors are not always as present as we would hope especially in middle limit games. On the other hand, if you are playing in a low limit home game, maybe Gary's idea about raising is right.

i am not blindly agreeing with any challengers of mason , brier or anyone else. i have just made the change of thinking of myself as a 10-20 15-30 player who occasionally plays down lower than a 6-12 player who takes higher shots... i have been somewhat successful due to the 2+2 books and in particular vol.III, which either luck or something i have booked mostly winners since studying...


however...i also am a huge believer in the power of computer play, particularly as it has affected backgammon over the last 2 decades...clearly with jellyfish, snowie..other expert systems...even with (finite and small number of) opening moves, they have changed...clearly the consensus of expert opinion was incorrect before these expert programs were used...consider the opening moves of 5-3 or 6-4..for example...relatively simple


now, i understand there are huge differences between poker and backgammon, but my opinion is that there is, or shortly will be a revolution in better sims which will change some cherished ideas and dogmas of poker...gl

Jim,


You said,"For a beginner, I still like Lee Jones or Lou Krieger over anyone else."


After hearing all the complaints about these books and don't see how anyone can recommend it. If beginners want to learn how to win, I don't think they should read either of them.


I think a beginner is better off with Fundamentals of Poker by Mason Malmuth and Lynne Loomis. This book covers correct strategy for a beginning player. After they are finished with that read Sklansky's Hold'em Poker. Then buy the HPFAP and read the loose games and wild game sections.


Mark

You may be right in that if a really good computer program can be produced that it might change some our thinking. I won't dispute that. But what I'm saying is that the tools available today are too inaccurate for us to be foolish enough to change our thinking.

scalf,


I didn't mean to imply that you were blindly agreeing with anybody.


now, i understand there are huge differences between poker and backgammon, but my opinion is that there is, or shortly will be a revolution in better sims which will change some cherished ideas and dogmas of poker...gl


It's already happening. There are only a handful of simulator operators with the requisite background and ability to do properly modified simulations. In the future, better technology will exist. This will allow the general public better access to good information.


Keep in mind Copernicus wrote the beginnings of his theory in about 1513 (from memory so forgive). The naysayers (especially the churches) fought that battle for over a century. It seems to us now so obvious that the sun is the center of the solar system. Not so then. (Although even many ancients had theories like Copernicus' although not as well developed, to my knowledge.)


It will be interesting to see what the future brings us in the way of new poker theory. I still think there is some undiscovered country, although I doubt anything as dramatic as Copernicus.


Regards.

Many of us know that Gary repeatedly attacked other writers. He trashed my book, "The Psychology of Poker," (Two Plus Two, 2000)at least ten times.


But his attacks did not stop him from plagiarizing it. If you read his discussion of categories of players on page 197 or so, you will see it was copied from pages 73-78 of my book. The dimensions and terms describing each extreme type are identical. He even used the term "Stone Killer" in exactly the way I had used it, and I believe that term does not appear in any other poker book.


I don't know whether to be flattered or offended. In my world plagiarism is taken very seriously. Legitimate writers don't steal other people's work. If he wanted to use my material, he should have asked permission. At the very least he should have stated that he was copying from me.

I am constantly amazed by the virulence of Gary's personal attacks on Mason, David and others, and yet Mason writes a fair, even partially positive review, ignoring the author.


Gary could learn how to be a human being from people like Mason.


If I were you, I would quietly contact the publisher..


Mark

Thanks for your comments and for the emails I've gotten. Unlike Gary, I don't enjoy battles. I just want to play poker, write about it, and enjoy life. To date all I've done is post here and at RGP.


Someone on RGP asked Gary about the plagiarism. Here is his reply. The material directly relating to plagiarism was cut and pasted exactly as he wrote it, including the numerous typos.


"There is a paragrpah on pages 197-198 of my book where I introduce the sclaes of loose/tight and passive aggresive and also weak/tough straightforward/tricky.


"In the last edit, my editor added a bunch of stuff to the middle of that paragraph where he used the terms rock, maniac, calling station, stone killer to describe the exremes of the loose/tight and passive/aggresive scales. I didn't really like that usage, in fact elseqhere in the book I define maniac very specically as something that's more than just loose/aggresive. But, I didn't want to argue about it, so I left it in." END OF QUOTED MATERIAL


I've made the following post to RGP.


YOU'RE COPPING OUT, GARY

You've admitted that material in your book was lifted directly from mine, but you blame your editor. You also state that you didn't like some of it. You read the final version of the text, and you approved it.

Mature adults do not avoid responsibility. If my words appear in your book, it is your responsibility. Plagiarism is theft, and serious writers don't do it.

You should also note that Mason did not attack your book or you personally, even though you have repeatedly attacked him, David, me, and dozens of other people. Personal integrity and maturity are far more important than poker. The bottom line is that you attacked me many times, then stole my work, and even now refuse to accept responsibility for doing so.

There is nothing in Carson's nor your posts that indicates he "stole" your work. What exactly did he steal that isn't common usage anyway?

I believe that part of the reason that you cannot profitably play any two suited cards is because that is what everyone else is doing. So your T5s will often run up against a larger flush draw.

What is your evaluation of this (short) chapter, and what do you think about the given starting hand recommendations?


ThanX Mason!

This is a misconception that many people have. Suppose you are in a game where everyone plays 100 percent of their hands, but you only play 90 percent of your hands. I think we can agree that since you are playing better than the others you should win in this game.


Let's look at the worse hands that you play. Let's call them hands 81 percent to 90 percent. Now answer this question. Do any of these hands produce a positive EV? If you think about it I believe the answer that you will come up with is no they don't. So even though you are playing winning poker in this particular game, you are still playing some hands that are costing you money. (There is a concept which we refer to as the "Horse Race Concept" that comes into play here. We have a discussion of it in SCSFAP-21.)