Should I buy the original Super System?

[Blarg]

Bah, wrote a good response but my system screwed up and I lost it.

Mason kind of copped out by responding to two posters that competitors products would just leave you getting trapped for all your money without elucidating at all. That would be at least questionable from a pure theorist, but Mason is also a publisher in direct competition with the products he criticizes, so his pretty flat denial of the worth of other products is expectable, but hardly commendable.

Chip Reese's 7-stud section is excellent. So is Ray Zee's 7-stud book. By intensely studying both of them, I was able to walk into the Southern California casinos after having only played for literally nickels and dimes as a kid and within a few months be a winning player at 10/20 and not long after at 15/30. I wouldn't dream of slighting either of those books except in one way, and even that is not terribly fair. They make two huge assumptions: that your opponents can think and that they choose to do so. Because of this, their ideas apply very readily to the mid-level and higher games they are meant for, but must be highly adapted, to the point of sometimes even being ignored, if they're not to make you a loser at the lowest limits.

Fair is fair, though -- neither of those books were aimed at the 2/4 and 3/6 crowd, where probably most of us start our poker tutelage.

And both are excellent when taken on their own terms.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
marginally okay

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my new favorite adjective.

[1p0kerb0y]

[ QUOTE ]
Mason kind of copped out by responding to two posters that competitors products would just leave you getting trapped for all your money without elucidating at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

The overagressive style as described in the no-limit section worked in many games where the opponents played weak-tight. Today's games feature much smarter players (albeit not everyone) who would use this overagressive style to their advantage by trapping the aggressor.


[ QUOTE ]
That would be at least questionable from a pure theorist, but Mason is also a publisher in direct competition with the products he criticizes, so his pretty flat denial of the worth of other products is expectable, but hardly commendable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see you haven't been participating in these forums for very long. Do a search and you will see SEVERAL books/software products that Mason recommends that aren't associated with 2+2. To make a blank statement as you have is just plain ignorant.

[ QUOTE ]
Chip Reese's 7-stud section is excellent.

[/ QUOTE ]

The poster said he plays hold 'em, and was looking for information on the hold 'em sections.

[CurryLover]

I think you should buy SS1, even though SS2 is out pretty soon.

The NL Hold'em section is a good read. You'll enjoy it and you're bound to learn at least something from it even if Mason says it will not work any more. You may, once in your life, come across a game where for one evening Doyle's method will be the most effective one. If that ever happens then you'll get your money back on the book immediately.

Even if you don't use Doyle's system in it's entirety in your game, you will still find some things that will be of use.

You also need to read the book precisely because this style of play won't work any more. In order to understand the modern style of play you need to understand what went before it. All chess masters have studied games from 100 years ago featuring antiquated openings and unsound gambits. They don't play these dashing, but unsound, moves themselves. However, at some point in their study they will have looked at many games of this ilk in order to broaden their horizons, add depth to their understanding of the game, and so they know what to do if anyone else ever plays such moves against them. Surely poker is the same - if you understand Doyle's system then you will be better placed to understand what came after it, and also better placed to deal with an opponent who plays like Doyle recommends. To master any discipline you must study it's heritage.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
The poster said he plays hold 'em, and was looking for information on the hold 'em sections.


[/ QUOTE ]

One of the posters he was responding to was asking about stud, and Mason was also responding to that poster specifically about stud.

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mason kind of copped out by responding to two posters that competitors products would just leave you getting trapped for all your money without elucidating at all.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The overagressive style as described in the no-limit section worked in many games where the opponents played weak-tight. Today's games feature much smarter players (albeit not everyone) who would use this overagressive style to their advantage by trapping the aggressor.


[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt anyone's I.Q. has gone up in the past 20 or 30 years. Good players by definition aren't going to be easily trapped anyway, and Mason did not comment on no-limit alone.

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That would be at least questionable from a pure theorist, but Mason is also a publisher in direct competition with the products he criticizes, so his pretty flat denial of the worth of other products is expectable, but hardly commendable.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I see you haven't been participating in these forums for very long. Do a search and you will see SEVERAL books/software products that Mason recommends that aren't associated with 2+2. To make a blank statement as you have is just plain ignorant.


[/ QUOTE ]

I see you haven't been perusing this forum for long or you would have developed better reading comprehension, and even perhaps an understanding that insults don't usefully advance an argument. Do a search of the very post you are commenting on and you will see that your response in no way negates what it said. Mason's comments were indeed lacking in this instance. As a competitive theorist, as noted this is to be expected, but as a competitive publisher, a less slack response is more in order. It is neither incorrect nor unfair to point this out.

Please, if your hero worship isn't going to ascend above this level, keep it to yourself. I have nothing against Mason, have praised and recommended the 2+2 books times beyond counting, and specifically praise Ray Zee's 2+2 stud boook in the very post you reacted to. Oops forgot again that you you didn't notice Mason or mikimaus talking about stud in the first place.

By the way, I have seen Mason's book reviews, though for some foolish reason you presumed I had not. In that regard, I do not agree Mason gives all books a fair shake. His review of Internet Hold'em by Hilger spends so much time emphasizing the credit 2+2 should have gotten for the ideas in the book that the review comes out notably biased and so unbalanced it's lopsided. Mason's review turns out to be at least as much about 2+2 as the book he supposedly is reviewing, and isn't overall a very good or useful one.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
Mason kind of copped out by responding to two posters that competitors products would just leave you getting trapped for all your money without elucidating at all. That would be at least questionable from a pure theorist, but Mason is also a publisher in direct competition with the products he criticizes, so his pretty flat denial of the worth of other products is expectable, but hardly commendable.


[/ QUOTE ]

I always find it interesting how I get accused of this every now and then. My reviews and comments have the reputation of being very accurate. You can see all my reviews by looking at the Appendix in my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics. (Make sure you look at the 2004 edition.) One of the things that you will notice is that there are a number of books which I'm not associated with in any way that do get very good reviews.

In no limit cash games at full tables, against opponents who are playing conservatively, if you use an overly aggressive style that is frequently making large raises, you will simply lose all your money. That's true today, it was true yesterday, and it was true many years ago.

MM

[Mason Malmuth]

If you have seen many of my book reviews you would know that I have always stated that the stud section in Super System is excellent. As for Ray Zee's stud book, I happened to think that it too is pretty good. By the way, Ray had two co-authors on that book, they were David Sklansky and myself.

Ray is the sole author on High-Low-Split Poker for Advanced Players.

MM

[Nick_Foxx]

hell yeah you should buy super system... and you should read the whole thing not just baldwins and brunsons chapters... because even in games you don't play, you will learn something about POKER

joey hawthorne's chapter is brilliant

mike

[1p0kerb0y]

Well then, allow me to retort..



[ QUOTE ]
One of the posters he was responding to was asking about stud, and Mason was also responding to that poster specifically about stud.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the posters he was responding to commented on the stud section, saying that the "basics were there" and that Ray Zee's 7 card stud book was just a replica. Mason responded to that. What I am saying here is that the original poster was wondering if he should buy the book, as he is primarily just a hold 'em player right now. On that basis, over 300 pages in the book will be USELESS to him, WHETHER IT IS GOOD OR NOT. I happen to think that the stud section is very good, but that point is irrelevant to what the poster is looking for! [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt anyone's I.Q. has gone up in the past 20 or 30 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

The game and players have definitely changed. There is much material out there now to study and learn to play better that wasn't previously available when Supersystem came out.

[ QUOTE ]
Mason did not comment on no-limit alone.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes he did...

[ QUOTE ]
if you were to play no limit as SS describes in full ring games (for which it was written for) the best players should eventually trap you for all your money

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I see you haven't been perusing this forum for long or you would have developed better reading comprehension

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on your replies, I'm beginning to wonder if this is not true of yourself...

[ QUOTE ]
Mason's comments were indeed lacking in this instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

He could have elaborated a little bit, but then again you could have just asked him to. Instead you accused him of trying to get people to not purchase the Supersystem and purchase more 2+2 books instead. This was simply not the case.

[ QUOTE ]
Oops forgot again that you you didn't notice Mason or mikimaus talking about stud in the first place.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure I did. This was just irrelevant to what the original poster was looking for.

[ QUOTE ]
perhaps an understanding that insults don't usefully advance an argument

[/ QUOTE ]

This I apologize for. I was just bothered that you would accuse Mason of something that was unjustified.

BTW... I am looking forward to seeing what Supersystem 2 has to offer... and I'm sure Mason really doesn't care if I buy the book or not!

[lwbecker2]

[ QUOTE ]

You can see all my reviews by looking at the Appendix in my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics. (Make sure you look at the 2004 edition.)
MM

[/ QUOTE ]

I looked at the book list on the twoplustwo site and it shows copyrights up to 1994, but not 2004. I looked at Amazon.com and it shows the 4th edition.. where can I find the "2004 version"?

thanks.