Bk Rvw: The Complete Book of H 'em by Gary Carson

I'm not sure that the models always have to be extremely tedious (but they can be and often are). Computers can also help with the math models too. With that said I suspect that many use neither models nor sims.


Tom,


Yes, I suppose those math models are what they are, and its just my opinion that they are tedious. I am not fully aware of the extent computers can assist with math modelling, so I would decline to comment. I, too, suspect, that many people don't use sims (which are essentially applied math anyway), or other mathematics. If they follow good general principles and have a good feel for the game, I don't think they will suffer that much, really. But I like to push the envelope of theoretical knowledge. Otherwise poker wouldn't be as interesting to me.


Regards.

scalf,


Thanks. (Erin too).


Bear in mind that much of what I like to discuss is pushing the envelope. Using the tried and true methods of S&M will serve us all well.


On the forum, we have a safe place to speculate, discuss, get opinions of excellent thinkers. Where else can one get this type of directed thinking ability?


regards.

Of course he may be. I think very highly of Sklansky and his opinions. I regard him as the foremost poker theorist in the world.


But he isn't always right. Remember T9s? (im not saying this is wrong, i haven't done that suite of sims needed). But I think we all benefited from those discussions. At least I did. If we come away with a better understanding of the game, its worth the process. Would a newbie be beter off just blindly following advice? in the beginning, and maybe in the middle, probably. But after that I don't agree.


Regards.

(n/t)

He seems to think that adding more players makes this a raising hand when it flops a draw. But why would I want to eliminate players in a large field when I am drawing?


i got the impression he was discussing pot-building raises, not raises to eliminate players.


for example if the small blind bets and all call, then i raise. or in early position, check raising a bettor on my left, and the like.

You are probably right. Raising makes sense IF you know that you are drawing live AND you know that you will not drive out players. These two factors are not always as present as we would hope especially in middle limit games. On the other hand, if you are playing in a low limit home game, maybe Gary's idea about raising is right.

i am not blindly agreeing with any challengers of mason , brier or anyone else. i have just made the change of thinking of myself as a 10-20 15-30 player who occasionally plays down lower than a 6-12 player who takes higher shots... i have been somewhat successful due to the 2+2 books and in particular vol.III, which either luck or something i have booked mostly winners since studying...


however...i also am a huge believer in the power of computer play, particularly as it has affected backgammon over the last 2 decades...clearly with jellyfish, snowie..other expert systems...even with (finite and small number of) opening moves, they have changed...clearly the consensus of expert opinion was incorrect before these expert programs were used...consider the opening moves of 5-3 or 6-4..for example...relatively simple


now, i understand there are huge differences between poker and backgammon, but my opinion is that there is, or shortly will be a revolution in better sims which will change some cherished ideas and dogmas of poker...gl

Jim,


You said,"For a beginner, I still like Lee Jones or Lou Krieger over anyone else."


After hearing all the complaints about these books and don't see how anyone can recommend it. If beginners want to learn how to win, I don't think they should read either of them.


I think a beginner is better off with Fundamentals of Poker by Mason Malmuth and Lynne Loomis. This book covers correct strategy for a beginning player. After they are finished with that read Sklansky's Hold'em Poker. Then buy the HPFAP and read the loose games and wild game sections.


Mark

You may be right in that if a really good computer program can be produced that it might change some our thinking. I won't dispute that. But what I'm saying is that the tools available today are too inaccurate for us to be foolish enough to change our thinking.

scalf,


I didn't mean to imply that you were blindly agreeing with anybody.


now, i understand there are huge differences between poker and backgammon, but my opinion is that there is, or shortly will be a revolution in better sims which will change some cherished ideas and dogmas of poker...gl


It's already happening. There are only a handful of simulator operators with the requisite background and ability to do properly modified simulations. In the future, better technology will exist. This will allow the general public better access to good information.


Keep in mind Copernicus wrote the beginnings of his theory in about 1513 (from memory so forgive). The naysayers (especially the churches) fought that battle for over a century. It seems to us now so obvious that the sun is the center of the solar system. Not so then. (Although even many ancients had theories like Copernicus' although not as well developed, to my knowledge.)


It will be interesting to see what the future brings us in the way of new poker theory. I still think there is some undiscovered country, although I doubt anything as dramatic as Copernicus.


Regards.