Caro Article

[SenecaJim]

Mason,
how succinct. This longtime claim contradictory to his present claim is the only pin needed to pop the balloon. Not to mention anyone who has been successful at poker at one time, even if not presently, obvioulsy does not ignore the math.

So here's my take. I believe 2+2 books are THE books for poker folk and the ones most talked about and purchased. Caro's " Book of Tells " is legendary and that's about it. Not to mention recent results in televised competitions if you look at Sklansky vs Caro.

Caro is a marketeer and knows any publicity is (blah blah). So, what better way to cash in on that than somehow attach your own name to 2+2 authors. Cheerleading their concepts won't do much, so stir up some controversy, get attention brought to yourself and get yourself discussed on 2+2 boards, etc. If he is really lucky the authors will respond somehow in one of their own articles and he can act all defensive and preach the Caro doctrine , probably culminating in his Real Explanation of what he meant. Which will no doubt include the importance of math but in His context and His statments.

So, Mr. Caro, as you can see, psychology can be used to figure out someone's motives both on and off the " ever-so-exciting gaming tables".

[Zygote]

CARO says: "If you dare... point out the limited role of mathematics in the heat of poker combat..."

But i dont think any body denies that math has a limited role except for Mr. Caro. CARO says: "In poker math is meaningless..."

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention recent results in televised competitions if you look at Sklansky vs Caro.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sample size is way too small.

[SenecaJim]

Not talking about who the best player is, talking about public perception / publicity / marketing.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Not talking about who the best player is, talking about public perception / publicity / marketing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, okay, I got you. Anyway, even though it's too small a sample size to see who is better, Caro is probably Sklansky's biatch in the long run. But Book of Tells is still a classic, and Mike is pretty amusing.

[niin]

I thought the article was pretty obvious what he was talking about, all around. All things equal, that is if you're playing with someone who knows the math behind the game as good as you, then the psychology (playing the player) is the only thing that will break the stalemate.

The quoted comment I take as tongue in cheek. He's not 'joking', in that he believes what he is saying, it's just saying it in a playful manner.

People are too sensitive.

And may I add, Mr. Malmuth, that both poker psychology books published by your fine company are among the most useful and important books I own. Caro is a good businessman and his reputation is not one of a mathematician (like Sklansky and yourself) but one of an expert at reading players. I think the math is much more important in limit than NL. I've played NL my entire poker-playing life and I suck at math. I don't even think of math I think exclusively of my opponents. What types of hands they play in various situations. What their actions indicate, etc. You can't stack a player in one hand in limit, but you definitely can in NL. Picking off bluffs in limit can earn you an extra bet or two, in NL it can earn you their entire stack. Overplaying a hand in limit can lose you a few bets, it can lose you a lot more in NL. So, I think that in NL, there is some truth to what he is saying. As far as badmouthing two eminent poker players/authors, well, that's just bad for poker. If you disagree with anything I have written, I warn you right now, I will not argue with you. I know better than to argue with those who know plenty more than I do.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bear:

I agree with your points about no limit.

Best wishes,
Mason

What about my points about the psychology books? I truly believe that, once a player understands how to play the game straightforwardly, that's the next step really. That's where I'm at. I can play the game straight, I don't doubt that. But, in order for me to move up to the next level, the psychological aspect becomes increasingly important. To play devil's advocate without having read the article, there probably is some truth to what Caro is saying. I mean, if you, Caro, Sklansky and a few others of your caliber are sitting at a table playing limit hold em, regardless of the limit, math really doesn't matter. Maybe you and David have a slight edge there because of your backgrounds (I don't know Caro's mathematic background) but in order for any one of you to win more than the others you need to outsmart the others. All of you would understand the math well enough to be able to make the most mathematically sound decisions. It would then come down to outfoxing the other players. Personally I couldn't sit at that table because both my math and psychological skills aren't there yet, however, through practice, reading and participation in these forums, maybe one day I will be able to compete at your level.
By the way, I'm flattered that someone of your stature agrees with something I said. I guess I am making progress.
Edit...And another thing, isn't it good for business when people talk about you, even in a negative way? Doesn't it make others interested in you to the point that they buy your books just to see what the hype is about?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bear:

Caro always mentions that he's the world's foremost authority in poker statistics. If that has no value, then why mention it?

As for your other questions, expert poker play requires good logical thinking, and that's a blend of the game's psychology and the underlying math/probability that governs play. This is something that both David and I have addressed in some of our books.

As for bad publicity, it's not something that we seek. Our goal is to only put out top quality material and we much prefer that we are evaluated accuarately, not emotionally. That way, if we do get something wrong, we'll be able to see the light and eventually get it fixed.

Best wishes,
Mason