My Review of Gary Carson's Book

[MEbenhoe]

It was about a week ago. I had strolled into my local bookstore looking to pick up another poker book or two. I’m a huge student of the game, and my constant quest for poker knowledge has led to ever improving results that have grown to be very solid over the last year. My mission this day was to pick up a couple books I hadn’t read yet and hopefully add some more to my knowledge base. While browsing through the expanded poker section of the store I happened upon Gary Carson’s book, The Complete Book of Hold em Poker. I recognized the name immediately from his frequent posts on RGP. The name recognition and the fact that it was relatively cheap at $14.95 sold me to give this book a shot. After all, even if it turned out to be a bad book, you can learn something from reading a bad book in my opinion. Funny enough Gary Carson expresses my exact opinion near the end of his book when previewing his reviews of other books.

The book begins with a section for beginners. I have to admit I was very disappointed in this section. In my opinion he advocates too loose of a strategy, especially for a beginning Hold em player. An example is that he recommends calling with J-Ts, Q-Ts, K-Ts, and A-9s UTG. My opinion of his recommendations of play from starting hand requirements and play of the entire hand is that they would hurt beginning players more than they would help them. If you are a beginning Hold em player there are books much better suited to your needs such as Winning Low Limit Hold em by Lee Jones. If you are an experienced player I recommend skipping this section or merely skimming it just to see what Carson has to say. The one bright spot I have to comment on from this first section is the final chapter titled “Somewhat Overrated Concepts”. I believe that this should be required reading for all beginning Hold em players as it would greatly help them to see many of the common mistakes that they make unknowingly when first playing the game. Even experienced players should read this section as a good brush up on stearing clear of far too common errors.

Section two mostly involves Carson taking a look at the theoretical side of poker, more than purely talking about hand selection and how to play a hand and other such mechanical processes. This section is all about poker thought rather than telling you specifically how to play the game. I believe that this is the definite strength of Carson’s writing. In this section he talks about a lot of theories that other authors often won’t touch upon. One example is Morton’s theorem which states that in certain game situations it is the best draw, not the best current hand which has the most value and thus gains the most by raising. A lot of his topics run contrary to common thought on poker theory and are great food for thought. His discussions of table selection, seat selection, table image, and player stereotypes are all quite good and interesting.

The last three sections are all short sections dealing with topics that don’t really fit anywhere else in this book. They’re decent chapters and relative to the rest of the writing, but honestly there’s nothing really here that isn’t in almost every other poker book.

Overall, I liked this book. While I disagree with some of Carson’s playing strategy, I found a lot of his theoretical writings quite interesting, including some good things that I haven’t seen discussed in other books. Also, I must note that my disagreement with some of his playing strategy isn’t a terrible thing considering I’ve never read a book who’s playing strategy I agree with completely, and I don’t believe I ever will. I’d say this book is definitely worth picking up for some good and interesting poker thought and its low cover price is a good bonus as well.

[tiltboy]

[ QUOTE ]
An example is that he recommends calling with J-Ts, Q-Ts, K-Ts, and A-9s UTG. My opinion of his recommendations of play from starting hand requirements and play of the entire hand is that they would hurt beginning players more than they would help them. If you are a beginning Hold em player there are books much better suited to your needs such as Winning Low Limit Hold em by Lee Jones.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jones' early position recommendations are not that much different than Carson's. Of the hands you list above, Jones says play the JTs and the A9s for example and they agree on pairs down the the 7s. Heck, Sklansky even rates JTs a group 3 hand and all of the above are at least group 4, except A9s which is group 5, and consequently playable in early position. He even adds that in a loose, non-aggressive game you can add the group 5 hands. In that kind of game, I know I'd play all those hands and would recommend even a beginner to do the same.

[MEbenhoe]

If you're gonna play all those hands UTG I want you at my table anytime.

[Ed Miller]

If you're gonna play all those hands UTG I want you at my table anytime.

This comment is both rude and ridiculous.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]

This comment is both rude and ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain Ed. I made an honest statement. If he'd play all those UTG I'd love to have him at my table. I don't believe those are hands that are strong enough to open a pot UTG with. They're the type of hands a player plays in that position when they're looking for a reason to play. They're out of position, are almost assuredly dominated by at least one hand if not more, and most times their only hope of winning is hitting a monster draw which won't get paid off by smart players. Also, since when is expressing an opinion rude and ridiculous?

[Ed Miller]

Please explain Ed.

Why it's rude:

You made the comment unneccessarily personal. You think playing A9s, KTs-JTs is too loose UTG. Fine. Say that: "I think playing A9s and KTs-JTs is too loose from UTG." Don't make your comment personal by essentially calling the guy a sucker. I know you didn't mean to imply that the guy is a sucker, but that's what, "I want to play at your table," implies, whether you meant it or not. It means, "You play badly, and I could take your money no problem." That's rude.

Why it's ridiculous:

It's ridiculous essentially because it's totally wrong. In a typical or soft game, I play each of those hands from UTG. So does Clarkmeister. (He plays A9s and KTs in almost all games from UTG.) So does Dynasty. So do David and Mason for that matter. So do many other very strong players (though I don't want to put words into mouths, so I won't continue naming... those four I know for sure). How well do you think you'd fare at a game with Clarkmeister, Dynasty, David, and Mason? The implication that playing those hands UTG makes you a sucker is just plain false.

Saying that A9s and KTs-JTs are slightly too loose UTG is at least kind of debatable. Implying that playing them makes you a sucker is flat-out absurd.

[Barry_G]

I wouldn't consider you or those guys beginning players either.
A new player could lose easily playing those hands from UTG.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't consider you or those guys beginning players either.
A new player could lose easily playing those hands from UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]

A total novice, maybe. But anyone who is reading these forums is probabaly incapable of losing money with them.

[Ed Miller]

I wouldn't consider you or those guys beginning players either.
A new player could lose easily playing those hands from UTG.

Dude, read what the guy said:

[ QUOTE ]
If you're gonna play all those hands UTG I want you at my table anytime.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't say anything about beginning players. He didn't say, "Maybe you can win with those hands, but I wouldn't advise a beginner to play them." He said, "Come play in my game, fish." BIG DIFFERENCE.

[Syntax]

Damn, then you'd really want me at your table, cause I'll even play A8s UTG.