Review of Greenstein's "Ace on the River" - long and probably boring

[fnord_too]

(As if there weren't enough threads on this already...)

I cannot find the post, but fsuplayer once said something along the lines of "If I ever feel like going pro I go play live games and that cures me of the impulse." In the context of the thread, IIRC, he was talking about the type of people you encounter at live games. I play live very infrequently, but every time I do I am amazed at what I see. There is no single word that accurately describes the atmosphere, but some words that describe some of the people who play are: compulsive, addicted, spiteful, ignorant, stupid, superstitious, overly emotional, mean spirited, depraved, pitiful, weak, amoral, violent, abusive, gullible, anti-social, and repulsive. I could add words all day, but you get the idea. That is not to say that there are not intelligent, graceful, generous, well adjusted people at the tables, too, there are, but they are neither the norm nor do they balance the negative with their presence.

The first part of Greenstein’s book really captures the atmosphere as I have come to know it in my limited exposure to live play. He also exposes a lot of his own personal weaknesses, which had to be tough.

There are a couple of points I don’t agree with in the first part of the book. Specifically, I don’t agree that knowing the value of money will necessarily impede your ability to play poker successful nor do I believe that not being willing to play outside your bankroll if you see a good opportunity is bad. We may differ on definitions on the second one, though, as I certainly am not opposed to taking shots that leave you enough of a bankroll to play in your normal games. On the first, it seems that there is a hidden assumption that knowing the value of money and risk aversion are definitely correlated. That is not necessarily the case. If a play is +EV it is +EV, and as long as it does not jeopardize your bankroll (i.e. you ability to engage in future +EV situations) it should be made IMO. (Also, another quick tangent, even someone who is incredibly EV focused can understand the gestalt of certain short term –EV plays, that is, Shania.)

Getting back to the non play of hands section of the book… Greenstein talks a lot about the traps people fall into. A lot of this does not really apply to me, but is fascinating nonetheless. The parts that do apply, playing longer when stuck and playing when tired or otherwise upset, I have known were personal weaknesses and I have been addressing for some time.

There has been a lot of discussion as to why this book may not be best suited for many of these forums’ posters. Here is one I don’t think has really been touched on: a lot of the posters on these forums don’t play because they particularly like to gamble, but because they see poker as a high expectation/low risk venture. That is, a lot of people are playing for entirely analytic reasons, and don’t have the associated traits that were typical of poker players when the expectation was lower and the risks were higher. I certainly think that these posters are in the minority, but they exist. (Personally, I loved to gamble when I was younger, but now it does not hold much appeal. When I read dedication for the book, which is very touching, it mentioned gamblers watching games they had bets on instead of playing a game with their children and all I could think was “Why watch the game? That won’t change the outcome; just check the results after it’s over.”)

So, to sum up my thoughts on the non-play of hands sections: This may not have come through but I enjoyed them thoroughly and flew through the sections, reading at every opportunity. I think Greenstein does an excellent job of describing the live poker world. I got a chuckle out of his internet section. (Sorry Barry) but it is very funny how he talks about a monitor that can display four tables with no overlap at once in an day where four monitors is the new two monitors and two monitors has been the gold standard for over a year. (And there are people with 6 monitors out there, yikes!)

On to the play of hands section: This section is fine, but the hands are really used to illustrate some high level thoughts that a lot of readers (of these forums) should be familiar with. Perhaps I have finally started catching on, but for almost all of the hands my thinking was dead in line with the text. There was one hand in the tournament section that got me thinking some, but mainly these sections made me feel pretty good with the way I think about poker right now. These are kind of like interesting hands that are posted on the boards with all the good thoughts captured and presented in a clear, cohesive manner. Hand reading is stressed, which is good in my opinion. Also, Greenstein distinguishes between the FTOP best way to play a hand and the correct way given what you know. I think it is important for people to appreciate that the correct way to play a hand given perfect knowledge may be different than the correct way with information available. That sounds a lot like “Don’t be results oriented,” and it is, but in a slightly different way.

Overall I thought this was a fine book, and well worth the price. Certainly do not buy this book looking for a lot of technical advice. Also, IMO, this is a book which has more utility for live players. A lot of this book is about how people sabotage themselves. Certainly that is not exclusive to live players, but identifying when someone has succumbed to a particular weakness is easier in person. Also, a lot of these shortfalls occur over extended periods of time, and you just don’t encounter a lot of extended sessions with the same lineup on line.

(Reading over this post, it is more like half review, half spouting my own philosophy. Oh well.)

[colgin]

fnord_too,

I thought this was a great review on your part. Part of what I like is that it will help assist others in deciding whether or not this book is for them based on its contents.

For me, I expect my copy to be in the mail when I get home from work. Your review made me look forward to opening it up and start reading whereas some other recent posts had me anticipatng dissapointment. That is not to say that you are right and others are wrong. There may not be a right and wrong. Unlike other books that are mostly technical advice, in which case we can debate the quality of the advice, it sounds as if "Ace on the River" will simply appeal to some but not others. I suspect I am in the former category.

[bobdibble]

This pretty much sums up my thoughts of the book too.

I too would have made all the same decisions in the hand reading exercise chapter, with the exception of the one where he advocates just calling your FH in the hope that the expert player raises and then popping them both. The expert's hand is fairly concealed, so I'm not sure we can just hope for a raise. I'm not saying its wrong, but I'd want to make some estimates for the percent of the time expert will raise and do the EV calculations before making a decision final decision here.

Based on Mason's review, I was hoping that AOTR would surpass Inside the Poker Mind as a psychology book, but I don't think it does. I think ITPM covers a lot of the same psychology topics in more depth.

That being said, I'm still glad I purchased and read the book. Barry's story and his view of the gambling world and how it relates to society is interesting. And unlike some of the other on this board, I liked the glossy pictures.

One thing that surprised me was Barry's apparent lack of discipline with his bankroll. My impression of Barry from The Professor, the Banker, and the Suicide King was that he was one of the few that had good bankroll management skills (Todd Brunson being another.)

Now, I've certainly taken my share of shots now and then, but they never put my primary bankroll for my normal limits at jeopardy. It sounds like Barry was frequently taking shots with only 3 buyins. I just wouldn’t do this. Maybe it will cause me to move up to the higher limits more slowly, but the risk/reward just seems out of wack to me.

[MaxPower]

I have only read the first part of the book so far, I haven't read the strategy section yet.

There are plenty of players who know how to play poker very well, but do not make much money playing poker. Greensteins objective is to show you have to make money playing poker.

If you are a losing poker player, the advice in this section will seem great, but it won't make you into a winning poker player. You need to learn the basics of poker strategy.

If you are a winning poker player, but mostly play in games where most of your opponents are awful at poker, the advice in this section will seem like fluff. Your opponents play so poorly that none of this stuff really matters. Even if you don't play your best all the time and occasionaly tilt, you will still win plenty. When you are not playing at your best, your expectation is still positive.

If you frequently play in games where most of your opponents play well and even some of the live ones play well after the flop, I think the kind of stuff that Greenstein is talking about is crucial to your success. When you are not playing at your best or practicing good game selection, your expectation may be negative. It is not just good game selection and non-tilting, there are many other things that contribute to your success. In game with a lot of similarly skilled players, if you do these things and your opponents do not, you have a large advantage over them.

Simply put, I think when someone makes a large amount of money playing poker it is not because they know when to bet, raise, call or fold, it is because they know how to gamble. The purpose of this section is to teach you how to be a good gambler. If you don't already play well or your opponents are mostly incompetent fools, then knowing this stuff won't help your results at all.

Just my opinion. I enjoyed the book so far, but I am not ready to declare it a classic yet.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I enjoyed the book so far, but I am not ready to declare it a classic yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm done with it, and have very mixed feelings. I enjoyed it quite a bit, but some of it IS fluff. The extremely basic stuff just seemed to be filler to make the book longer. I also suspect some portions of this book will not appeal to many 2+2ers simply because they rarely play in live games.

However, the quality ideas and examples in Greenstein's book are rock solid. I really have to think a bit more about the the book's content and overall purpose before I'm willing to write a full review type of post.

[gomberg]

[ QUOTE ]
Simply put, I think when someone makes a large amount of money playing poker it is not because they know when to bet, raise, call or fold, it is because they know how to gamble. The purpose of this section is to teach you how to be a good gambler. If you don't already play well or your opponents are mostly incompetent fools, then knowing this stuff won't help your results at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree with this statement. I enjoyed the book and think this is the main piece of info I picked up... and I think it will pay dividends to my poker career in the future as I move up.

All those players who ask why the best players play together is because of this fact. They all have little to no edge against one another when playing well in mixed games - so knowing how to gamble and recognizing situations (outside the actual game) is where the real edge is found at the higher stakes w/out a super-rich action junkie at the table.

This stuff fascinates me, so I really liked reading the book.

[MicroBob]

I think he kind of leads you into making the right decisions in his hand examples....it's possible you are getting more out of these hands than you realize.

I personally thought the hand-examples were outstanding.

The tourney hand where he successfully lays down his set of Q's is wonderful.

Just because you're agreeing with him as you follow along every step of the way don't get to thinking that it's 'standard' or how you would have played it had you been in the hand.
How many people could have gotten away from that set-under-set hand?

[seahawktd]

thanks fnord. looks like i'll be ordering a copy of Ace on the River, though I'm hoping for the ebonics version- Ace on Da Riva

[rivered]

I heard there's a whole chapter on people making incredibly dumb moves in tournaments and then crying to espn and the tournament director the couple days and throwing hissy fits. Purely hypothetical situation of course.