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.