for the record.. more info on mason

a woman sitting on my left at 40-80 commerce the other night somehow started talking to me about poker books and authors while we raced to see who could lose the most money the quickest.


she informed me that mason is a terrible poker player who certainly cant be a winning player (he must make all his money off his books was her reasoning). the reason why he cant win (and, mind you, she used to play with him all the time) is that he doesnt play any hands. i also learned that he never plays higher than 30-60 because he would get eaten alive, he never ever bluffs, he would not be able to overcome the rake if he ever came and played with us at commerce, and he would be devestated by our loose raising standards and not know how to play against us. oh, one more thing: he's very arrogant. and all the same holds true for that david sklansky guy as well. but ray zee is okay, he's a friend of her husband (who was having a hard time of it over at the 20-40 table).


when i asked her if she had ever read any of mason's or david's books she said no. after all, she reasoned, you cant learn this game by reading a book. she left when she had lost about 3 racks.


nice lady, i plan to see her again soon.

"but ray zee is okay"


I always find it amazing, but they always make this statement.


By the way, I've had the exact same conversation a couple of times myself at the table. After a few minutes someone will usually say, "Is that true mason?"

ray zee is indeed okay. now you have heard it from the horses mouth.

I was playing 30-60 at Commerce, and a player said that Sklansky is a farce. He said something along the lines of


"Sklansky only wins because he doesn't play in tough games".


My opponent thought that was an insult. I didn't.


Josh

With game selection being a significant factor in long term profitability for a skilled player, would it not make sense to seek the softest games available?

The ability to judge the level of skill of the players at any given game is critical. Why make the game harder than it need be?

The other day I was in a 20-40 game with a player who was losing to most of the field. This same player had been in a 30-60 the day before and got slaughtered by it. When I asked him about his experience in playing in that game (which was a tough line-up) he said something which I really liked. "The stronger the wind, the stronger the tree". Simply put, if you don't play against people who are stronger than you, how do you improve? How do you know you can't DO BETTER? One thing I'm sure of -- if this guy is serious about learning to play better and against tougher competition than he's used to, he will become a "stronger tree". If he simply stays at his current level, he will remain a twig. Now I don't advocate going out to be crucified by players you cannot beat. I'm simply suggesting that it's good to test that strong wind to see if you can stand up in it.

Does he really know what a strong game is? I talk to a lot of people from CA whenever I play here in Vegas and they talk like most Vegas games are tough to beat. They are equating small pot games as tough to beat, something most know isn't necessarily true. I think I make the most money playing in these rock-gardens we see around here in 10-20 and 20-40, while I only hold my own in the action weekend games that sometimes are seen here or when I go down to play in Oceanside. I have heard this whole "make myself better" argument but I think one has to have a goal in playing these games, not simply to "absorb". He/she must know what makes the game tough, such as player A & B are very aggressive and I want to learn how to improve my aggressiveness or player C is very tricky and I want to learn how to handle such a player in my regular game. Most of the people I talk poker with around here do try bigger and tougher games with the attitude of I want to learn something, but it seems to me what they usually learn is how to function with a lighter bankroll. Even worse almost everyone tries to do it by stepping up to a bigger limit! Foolish I say, go down to a smaller game and just test things out. Even if the best players won't be there, they probably aren't in your game all that much either. Going out of your way to take them on in the hopes that something rubs off on you is crazy. Occasionally they might venture into your game and you can try to learn something from them on your terms, at your limit and game. Don't try to learn something on their terms, that is backward thinking.

I agree with you inasmuch as improving yourself as a poker player in concerned. However, I also agree with Carl Spackler. Saying that Sklansky (or anybody else) exercises good game selection is FAR from an insult. I think we'd all agree on that.


Josh

Take it from a retired pool player/hustler. The only thing that is gonna get broken by walking into that strong wind is your bankroll. These days I can still beat over 99% of the people who play pool for money. Only problem is this 99% are willing to risk only 1% of the money. It is the other 1% with the large bankrolls(backers) who will play for the large $$$. Guess what I am saying is it makes sense to me to be satisfied with a sure small win vs a big probable loss. Leave that wind walking to the young, the brave and the foolish.


Jimbo

Jimbo- I get your well-made and sensible point. It is certainly true that at the end of the day, one wants the cash in one's pocket. I agree with you that it's easier to win the "easy" money than to try to beat your head against a wall and win the "hard" money. I am not advocating "pissing in the wind" by any means. I only suggest that if you really want to grow and move up, you need to try that wind from time to time just to see if you can stand up. As you know, at each level when you move up you encounter resistance from better players, etc. Then...eventually...AHHHHH...you breakthrough... OK...yes, now I get it,,,I can do this......right? Where is your limit? That is the real question, I guess. Thanks for the feedback and good advice... Babe.