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