Carson's "Complete Book of Hold 'em Poker"

Having read TOP and HEP many times, I was amazed at how Carson's book supplemented the information in these classics- especially the constant stressing of adjusting strategy according to the table conditions. As a beginning low-limit player in CO, I'm nearly always facing "calling stations" which can be nerve-wracking without the nuts. Carson has given me new insights into these and other playing conditions that often confound me. I'm simply wondering what other players think of this book and what warnings they may have about its content. Thanks.

Here's my review.


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.

"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"


Should this be, "since presumably he would claim

they would call anyway"?

The biggest flaw I've seen so far (I haven't finished the book) is the failure to acknowledge that knocking players out is important. His book seems geared toward the low limits where people do tend to call more often. He would probably suggest rasing for value more often because you are often getting good odds, but I find the raise to knock your opponent out a worthwhile play.


Now my question for Malmuth. Carson says that draws benefit more from raises than do made hands. In other words, if a flush is out, it benefits more from the raises in multiway hands than does a hand that while best at that time has little chance of improvment.


I think that the made hand benefits more when the draw is, lets say 1.86 to one, the made hand is getting great odds on every bet.


What's your opinion?

Until MM replies, check out the following link.

I think the different perspectives that he suggests looking at a holdem game is a very help idea, especially as regards the value of hands pre-flop. I think often when he suggests certain idea/strategies he has a certain game in mind, or certain opponents, but doesn't necessarily make that clear in his comments, so the remarks can be misunderstood.


MM's comment about Carson's often assuming the opponent doesn't know what he's doing seems to be on point. For example, he recomends "unrelenting aggression" as the way to shorthanded success. This is a very dangerous statement if misunderstood. Unless one is very skilled and able to manipulate/read opponents, playing this way is likely to lead to ruin very quickly.

Thanks, but the math sort of screws me up. Let me see if I have it right.


Carson says those additional outs don't hurt you that much, because you're not going to get the most dangerous draw out. You want the calls from the weak draws to give you more money when the best draw doesn't hit.


You say that those extra few outs are enough to cause you to lose expectation value sufficiently to justify raising to knock the weak opponent out.


One consideration is that while a big draw may be out there, it might not. If you play like Carson suggests, you become a calling station allowing everyone and anyone to outdraw you.


I guess I'm still a little confused.

i) First off, it's not "me"...Andy Morton was killed in a motorcycle accident some years ago. I only provided the link, because Carson's book is geared more towards loose games with frequent multiway action, and he cited Morton's Theory in his book. Believe me, I'm only a reader, not a theoretician! /images/smile.gif


ii) The way I read both Carson's book and Morton's post is that when you have a multiway situation, there is going to be "the made hand", "the best draw", and one or more people hanging around with second-best hands, second-best draws, and even drawing dead.


Conventional wisdom would dictate that the made hand wants to get the money in at the expense of everyone who is chasing him. However, with a sufficient number of callers (who will stay in) there is a threshhold where the best draw starts to benefit more than the made hand.


I don't think Carson's idea is to completely go limp with the best hand when there are several draws against you, but rather not to go crazy with aggression when you are likely against multiple drawing hands.


Also, I think the more important point he stresses is to not be afraid to jam it up when _you_ have the big draw (again, in the multiway situations the book focuses on).


Of course, I could be totally wrong, but that's my interpretation.