comments on a book review
Gary Carson
dangerous book, full of errors that will destroy your bankroll unless
you're an experienced player.
Of course that's what he said before I even wrote the book.
I have two poker games to play in tonite, so I don't have much time
right now.
Just a quick comment about some of the ommisions in my book, then I'll
post more later.
One of the things Malmuth doesn't like about my book is that I don't
spend a lot of time on the turn and the river.
That's right.
The book talks some about theoritical perspectives. I claim that
different game conditions require you to look at the game from
different perspectives. Almost all books use a singel perspective.
I tried to use multiple perspectives. To keep the book at a managable
size I only focused on perceptctives I think havn't gotten good
treatment in other books, and for those perspectives I think flop play
is more important than play on other betting rounds. So, I have a lot
of attention on flop play. I devote a lot of attention to preflop
because a lot of players say they don't know how to adjust preflop to
changing game conditions.
Maybe Mason would have understood that if he'd read the book more
closly.
I also don't have long chapters on tournaments and on big bet games.
I don't think I talk about jackpots at all.
I'll have more comments later.
Gary Carson
http:// garycarson.home.mindspring.com
Gary Carson
interesting than most hold'em books but he then points out that
interesting doesn't mean accurate.
The implication of that statement is that the book has errors.
He never actually follows up on that though, at the end of the first
paragraph he's saying the book has flawed spots -- not excatly the
same thing as not being accurate.
Then he has a nice little paragraph of some of the unique features of
the book. Then this paragraph
"But the book does have its problems. Carson mainly ignores games
where people are trying to play have way decently. Once that’s true,
many of the hands that he recommends playing are unplayable. Many of
the hands he would raise for value are no longer worth raising with,
and most importantly he omits opportunities to raise to knock people
out since presumably he would claim they won’t call anyway. There is
also virtually no discussion on how to play fourth street or the
river", says Malmuth.
He goes from inaccuracy, to flaws, to problems. His problems fall
into two catogories -- things I didn't cover at any length because I
thought they were topics well covered in other books, and things that
don't even exist.
Yes, there are things I don't give as much attention to as some other
books do. Yes, much of what I do talk about is situaltional and the
preferred action depends on specific conditions. In a loose game you
should usually raise preflop with AQ offsuit, in a tight game you
should sometimes fold. In a loose game you should usually bet top
pair weak kicker from early postion (BB position) on the flop, in a
tight game you should check. I talk about those things in the book.
So, Mason is right, I do make some recommendations that would be bad
recommendations for different situations.
Personally I thought that was the strength of the book rather than the
inaccruacy/flaw/problem that Mason tries to characterize it as.
Anyway, I guess that's really about all I need to say about the
review. Maybe I didn't even need to say that much, I don't know.
.
Dennis Cartwright
(1) It doesn't cost $39.95
(2) The pages don't fall out
Dennis
Gary Carson <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:3bf629ed....@news.mindspring.com...
JayNT
Mason but since you haven't found the time to mail me my book yet,
regardless of several private and to the point e-mails, I have to side with
Mason for now. Once I get the book, I'm sure I'll see it your way.
"Gary Carson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:3bf629ed....@news.mindspring.com...
Boylermaker
>
> Anyway, I guess that's really about all I need to say about the
> review. Maybe I didn't even need to say that much, I don't know.
>
You didn't. A review is strictly someone's opinion, which everyone is
entitled to. If he doesn't like the book, so be it. Based on what
I've read here, there are plenty of people who do.
Bill Reich
> Malmuth's review starts out with the observation that my book is more
> interesting than most hold'em books but he then points out that
> interesting doesn't mean accurate.
"Replying" to a review is minus EV. BIG minus EV. Replying to your own
reply...
Hey, _I_ like your book and I could see why you concentrated on the
areas you covered. So could Mason but he had to point out that someone
going to play in a life-or-death game with five rocks and three
experts needs some other advice. Pretty short book, though: _Don't
PLAY in that Game_ with its sequal _Don't play in that game, EITHER_
But you can't win arguing with him. That is also a game you shouldn't
play. But you will.
--
Will in New Haven
"Being recognized as a mighty hunter is quite satisfying. Until it
costs you a kill." _Poker for Cats_ by Feather
Badger
"But the book does have its problems. Carson mainly ignores games where
of the hands that he recommends playing are unplayable. Many of the hands he
would raise for value are no longer worth raising with, and most importantly
he omits opportunities to raise to knock people out since presumably he
would claim they won’t call anyway."
Translation:
If Carson's advice for the games he talks about is applied to games he
doesn't talk about it would be bad advice.
Mason Malmuth is Mark Glover.
JayNT
"Badger" <PlayWinning[RemoveThis]Po...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vCFJ7.49144$S4.45...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Eric
> interesting than most hold'em books but he then points out that
> interesting doesn't mean accurate.
>
I thought Mason's review was pretty favorable. But you have to be
familiar with his reviews to know that. His reviews are heavy on
criticism and light on praise. That's just his style, maybe that's
why he has drawn the ire of you and others. Also some of his comments
on the book were addressed by 2+2'ers, clarkmeister and backdoor.
They defended you're book with a fair amount of success. Especially
the parts of the book dealing with draws and simulations.
> The implication of that statement is that the book has errors.
>
Speaking of errors, could you clear up one statement in the book. On
page 149, you recommend folding AKo in early position in some
aggressive games. Seems to me AKo would be especially effective in
aggressive games where people are raising with weaker hands. Have you
run any simulations to confirm this? Is this an error or can you
clarify this point?
BTW, I thought the book was pretty good.
Gary Carson
>garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson) wrote in message
news:<3bf629ed....@news.mindspring.com>...
>> Malmuth's review starts out with the observation that my book is
more
>> interesting than most hold'em books but he then points out that
>> interesting doesn't mean accurate.
>>
>
>I thought Mason's review was pretty favorable. But you have to be
>familiar with his reviews to know that. His reviews are heavy on
>criticism and light on praise. That's just his style, maybe that's
>why he has drawn the ire of you and others. Also some of his
comments
>on the book were addressed by 2+2'ers, clarkmeister and backdoor.
>They defended you're book with a fair amount of success. Especially
>the parts of the book dealing with draws and simulations.
>
>> The implication of that statement is that the book has errors.
>>
>
>Speaking of errors, could you clear up one statement in the book. On
>page 149, you recommend folding AKo in early position in some
>aggressive games.
Why do people keep saying this kind of stuff? I don't "recommend
folding". I say it "should be played selectively" and
"should often be folded" in certain typs of games". "Should often be
folded" is stronger language than I should have said.
I should have said that you should sometimes think about folding from
early position.
It should have said tight or very tight games which are also aggresive
or very aggresive.
I think AKo is a very overrated hand. Of course it's a good hand,
But, in some kinds of situations you should really think about not
playing it. If the game is really a tough game, the kinds of hands I
call dominated power hands, mostly JTs and AKo should be avoided from
early position. It just puts you at too much of a disadvantage in
later rounds.
Opening with these hands from mid positon you should be thinking about
raising, and from late position you should be thinking about raising
Seems to me AKo would be especially effective in
>aggressive games where people are raising with weaker hands.
Yes. I wasn't talking about that kind of game, I should have been
more clear.
> Have you
>run any simulations to confirm this? Is this an error or can you
>clarify this point?
I ran a lot of TTH sims about this. Against really tough lineups, it
loses too many of the big ones to cover the rake. If you play really
well it's probably a profitable hand from up front, but at high risk.
In the holdem hand nomenclature as I understand it big slick refers to
AKs, walking back to Houston is AKo.
It's an error, but because I didn't clarify it well.
btw, note to Jay. I put your book in an envelope about a month ago.
I found it last night under a pile of shit on my desk, I hadn't mailed
it. I feel like a complete idiot. I'm really sorry.
To the others. I've mailed out most of the books, But, this
addressing by hand crap is really slow for me, I should get the rest
out this week.
JayNT
Looking forward to infuriating you with nonsensical questions.
backdoorRGP
Schoonmaker made a claim on 2+2 that you copied some material from his
book. Can you respond? (Since I am using Google, this may have already
happened, if so, ingore.)
Second, could you clear up some questions that Jim Brier asked:
**********************************
1. In his Chapter on "Playing a Draw", Gary states:
"Five players had called the blind by the time the action got to our
here with the 9s-7s. Should he call, fold, or raise? If you are taking
an odds perspective to the game, then you need to think about a raise
in this situation. There is a popular misconception, repeated in many
poker books, that you should only raise if your hand figures to be the
best hand. That is not how to get the money in holdem. You should
raise whenever your chances of winning are greater than the odds you
are getting on the raise. Based on Turbo Texas Hold'Em simulations,
9s-7s from late position against a field of five to seven players,
will win over 20% of the time. That makes a hand about a 4-to-1
underdog. With five players already having called, the two blinds yet
to act, you will get between 5-to-1 and 7-to-1 on a raise. If you know
the blinds will call a raise, then there is profit in a raise and you
should take that profit."
I have a couple of questions for you:
1. Where does the 20% estimate of winning chances come from? Does it
assume your opponents hold random cards? If someone has a hand like
Ks-Js they will limp in 100% of the time. If they have a hand like
8c-2h they will virtually never limp in.
2. Does the 20% assume you go all the way to the river? Suppose you
flop a backdoor flush-draw and get bet out of the hand? If you flop a
straight draw, does it assume you go all the way to the river to
maximize your chances of winning regardless of the board and the
betting?
Based on Gary's narrative I sense that the 20% is based on you getting
to take 9s-7s all the way to the river regardless of what the flop or
turn brings and regardless of the betting action. If so, I question
the realism of these assumptions.
It is interesting that a person can test whatever assumptions they
want but the results you get are a reflection of the realism of those
assumptions. Without knowing the assumptions Gary used, I have to
question the validity of his results.
Gary thinks calling is okay but raising might be better. But suppose
raising drives out the blinds who would call? Suppose raising results
in someone deciding to reraise? What happens when you have to pay two
or three bets to take a flop instead of one bet? What is the impact on
your implied odds? When you make a pot very large like this, it may be
harder to get your hand to hold up when you hit your flush since
players will go for runner-runner and so forth. A guy with a lone As
might well decide to take off a card even if only one spade is flopped
since he has a backdoor and the pot is large. In my opinion, raising
is a high variance play that adds very little to your expectation if
anything. It may even hurt your EV instead of helping it. I think
calling is better.
I also had some serious problems with Gary's flop and turn analyses of
this particular problem. 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 will not
eliminate anyone with a better hand or a better draw (a better
flush-draw that is). I will eliminate players who may have been
contributing dead money when I hit. His method of counting "outs" is
bizarre. In poker, there is no reward for simply improving. "Outs"
than don't win and don't get you out simply burn up more money. How is
this considered in a simulation?
*************************
Thanks. I haven't read your book yet, but based on Mason's review it
does appear to be good. (Adjusting for known bias and knowing how he
communicates. Damned by faint damning, so to speak.)
Regards.
Daniel Kimberg
[i'm just taking advantage of backdoorRGP's post to comment on a few
interesting issues that came up in either gary's book or jim brier's 2+2
post]
I haven't read Gary's book yet, but it's on my shelf, and I have a feeling
it won't be too long. That said...
Although Jim is interested in another point, the sentence I liked out of the
quoted paragraph was, "There is a popular misconception, repeated in many
poker books, that you should only raise if your hand figures to be the best
hand." This falls into a class of my pet peeves, so I'm glad Gary brought
it up. Although I'm not sure it always rises to the misconception. Poker
players and writers frequently use words like "figures," "know," and "sure"
instead of percentages. I wrote a few paragraphs on this for my book, but I
could rant about it for hours. As far as I can tell, these words mean
anything from about 25% to 99.9%, and it's not always clear either what the
author means or if they've even thought about it. You have to have a
concept before you can have a misconception, so to speak.
Okay, one more aside, or maybe my real reason for jumping into this thread.
Is it bad form to reply in detail to a review of your own book, negative or
otherwise? I don't know, maybe. When I started hosting my poker book
review page, more than five years ago now, I tried to encourage authors to
contribute comments on their own books, at whatever level, and to reply to
reviews if they wanted. I don't think anyone's ever taken me up on the
offer (although one author did respond to some of my comments, I think on
RGP). Probably because the site doesn't get much traffic, and few poker
authors have stumbled across it, but I was a little disappointed. I never
considered the awkward position it puts an author in, especially when they
have a genuine point of disagreement with a reviewer. For example, I
thought Mason's review of my own book was quite fair, but I might still want
to discuss one or two of the points he raised. I won't do it, though,
because although I might enjoy myself, I don't think the net impact of
anything I might post in reply would be helpful.
I'll wait for Gary's clarification of the simulations, and the other thing.
I'd be shocked if Gary's simulations are as simple-minded as Jim describes.
dan
Gary Carson
wrote:
>Dear Gary Carson,
>
>Schoonmaker made a claim on 2+2 that you copied some material from
his
>book. Can you respond? (Since I am using Google, this may have
already
>happened, if so, ingore.)
>
What material would that be?
I did finish writing my book over two years ago (it was tied up in
bankruptcy court because of the bankruptcy of Carol Publishing). I
have read Shoonmaker's book, but long after my book was written.
Manuscrip copies of my book were distributed a couple of years ago.
Maybe he got hold of one of them and forgot where he got his material.
I don't know, I don't remember seeing anything in his book that looked
like something I mightr have written.
>Second, could you clear up some questions that Jim Brier asked:
>
>**********************************
>1. In his Chapter on "Playing a Draw", Gary states:
>
>"Five players had called the blind by the time the action got to our
>here with the 9s-7s. Should he call, fold, or raise? If you are
taking
>an odds perspective to the game, then you need to think about a raise
>in this situation. There is a popular misconception, repeated in many
>poker books, that you should only raise if your hand figures to be
the
>best hand. That is not how to get the money in holdem. You should
>raise whenever your chances of winning are greater than the odds you
>are getting on the raise. Based on Turbo Texas Hold'Em simulations,
>9s-7s from late position against a field of five to seven players,
>will win over 20% of the time.
>
>I have a couple of questions for you:
>
>1. Where does the 20% estimate of winning chances come from? Does it
>assume your opponents hold random cards? If someone has a hand like
>Ks-Js they will limp in 100% of the time. If they have a hand like
>8c-2h they will virtually never limp in.
I think the quoted passage said it came from TTH simulations. I dont
'understand why that's not clear to Jim.
>
>2. Does the 20% assume you go all the way to the river?
Of course not. I said you can expect to win about 20% of the time. I
don't think a player would expect to go to the river 100% of the time
with any hand, in particlar with that hand.
>Suppose you
>flop a backdoor flush-draw and get bet out of the hand?
Then you don't win.
Did Jim really ask these questions?
>If you flop a
>straight draw, does it assume you go all the way to the river to
>maximize your chances of winning regardless of the board and the
>betting?
Of course not. Why would you think I'm assuming you can't play for
shit?
>Based on Gary's narrative I sense that the 20% is based on you
getting
>to take 9s-7s all the way to the river regardless of what the flop or
>turn brings and regardless of the betting action. If so, I question
>the realism of these assumptions.
LOL
Because I say I ate an apple Jim Brier will assume I ate an orange.
LOL
>
>It is interesting that a person can test whatever assumptions they
>want but the results you get are a reflection of the realism of those
>assumptions. Without knowing the assumptions Gary used, I have to
>question the validity of his results.
Okay.
>Gary thinks calling is okay but raising might be better.
I didn't say that.
I said you should think about raising.
What I said, towards the end of the paragraph I mentioned the 20% in
is
"With only 5 sure callers, a raise with 9s7s would be marginal. If
the players in the hand play very badly you might want to raise. In
general though, 5 players isn't quite enough to raise with this hand".
(it's on page 266)
If Jim Brier is claiming that means I said raising is better than
calling then I think you know all you need to know about anything
Brier or any Malmuth apoligist saiys about my book, or any other book
for that matter.
About the TTH sims -- I experimented with combinations of profiles
(most I modiified) and put together linepus that fit the defintions I
have early in the book of very tight, tight, typcial, loose, very
loose, combined with very passive, passive, typical, aggresive, and
very aggresive tables. Not profiles that fit those descriptions but
table compositions that fit the operational definitions I gave.
The 5-7 number correponds with my definition of a loose table. I said
5-7 rather than loose becauxe parts of that chapter had been in posts
I'd made to 2+2 in a thread on the hand (it was a hand Mason played).
Mason deleted some of my posts in that thread, but when I salvaged
some of it to put in the book I kept the 5-7 description rather than
call it loose table.
I used a combination of various simulations and analysis of mutinomial
type math/probability models in evaulting various situations when I
was writing the book. Math models, simulation models, probability
models, optimization, and statistical analysis are topics I know a
little about.
Gary Carson
wrote:
>Dear Gary Carson,
>
>Schoonmaker made a claim on 2+2 that you copied some material from
his
>book. Can you respond? (Since I am using Google, this may have
already
>happened, if so, ingore.)
I went to 2+2 to see what he said.
There is a paragrpah on pages 197-198 of my book where I introduce the
sclaes of loose/tight and passive aggresive and also weak/tough
straightforward/tricky.
In the last edit, my editor added a bunch of stuff to the middle of
that paragraph where he used the terms rock, maniac, calling station,
stone killer to describe the exremes of the loose/tight and
passive/aggresive scales. I didn't really like that usage, in fact
elseqhere in the book I define maniac very specically as something
that's more than just loose/aggresive. But, I didn't want to argue
about it, so I left it in.
He may have gotten the idea from Shoonmaker's book, that last edit was
this year, after Shoonmaker's book was out.
However, the two dimensional framework Shoonmaker uses is pretty
standard, it wasn't invented by he or I either one. The term stone
killer may have come from his book, I don't know. The idea certainly
didn't.
Shoonmaker seems to have honed in on the phrase stone killer and
failed to notice that I'm catogorizing players along 4 dimensions, not
2. Trickiness and toughness are important dimensions that need to be
included with the loose and aggresive dimentions when evaluating
players. That's my main critisim of Shoonmaker's book -- it's too
simplistic.
I did use only two dimentions of aggresive and loose when evauating
tables -- but a loose table isn't just a collection of loose players.
I still don't like the term stone killer and wish I hadn't gone along
with my editor when he wanted to use it.
Lurker from TS
I think Carson is a real stand-up guy. I emailed him to send me the
hard copy. I got it a few days later.
I had trouble with the AK thing too.
I also had trouble with "then" throughout the book when it should have
been "than". There were a lot of other typos but in my opinion it was
a very good book especially the parts on loose-aggresstive games.
Mike S.
Alannschoonmaker
You've admitted that material in your book was lifted directly from mine, but
you blame your editor. You also state that you didn't like some of it. You read
the final version of the text, and you approved it.
Mature adults do not avoid responsibility. If my words appear in your book, it
is your responsbility. Plagiarism is theft, and serious writers don't do it.
You should also note that Mason did not attack your book or you personally,
even though you have repeatedly attacked him, David, me, and dozens of other
people. Personal integrity and maturity are far more important than poker. The
bottom line is that you attacked me many times, then stole my work, and even
now refuse to accept responsibility for doing so.
Gary Carson
(Alannschoonmaker) wrote:
>YOU'RE COPPING OUT, GARY
>You've admitted that material in your book was lifted directly from
mine,
No, I didn't.
I doubt if it was. Could you be specific about what you think was
lifted?
My editor could have gotten the phrase from your book. Or he could
have heard you say it, I don't know. You do play in AC don't you?
When I read it I didn't like the phrase stone killer. I still don't
know what it means. Also, , the use of the term maniac in that
parapgraph isn't consistent with the usage elsewhere in the book.
So, when I read his changes I called him. I told him I'd never heard
the phrase stone killer. He told me it was a commonly used phrase
where he played.
Maybe he heard it at the tables. Maybe he read it in your book and
just thought he'd heard people using it. I don't know.
>but
>you blame your editor. You also state that you didn't like some of
it. You read
>the final version of the text, and you approved it.
Well, not really. My approval wasn't required. I did read the
changes my editor made in that one paragraph. I didn't like them all
that much, but I didn't argue with him. There are lot's of parts of
the book I'm not completely happy with.
>Mature adults do not avoid responsibility. If my words appear in your
book, it
>is your responsbility. Plagiarism is theft, and serious writers
don't do it.
Fine. What words exactly do you think were lifted from your book?
Two words? I do have a copy of your book someplayce, but I don't know
where it is so I can't do a comparision. So, why don't you just tell
me exactly what words you think were lifted?
Maybe you should contact a lowyer?
>You should also note that Mason did not attack your book or you
personally,
I know. Mason only made a few posts with bold-faced lies about things
the book said.
>even though you have repeatedly attacked him, David, me, and dozens
of other
>people.
I don't recall ever attacking David. Or you either.
> Personal integrity and maturity are far more important than poker.
> The
>bottom line is that you attacked me many times, then stole my work,
and even
>now refuse to accept responsibility for doing so.
Then maybe you really should contact a lawyer. If you don't want to
tell me exactly whatr you think I stole from you then tell your
attorney.
Linda K Sherman
>
> Plagiarism is theft, and serious writers don't do it.
Even if Gary borrowed ideas from your book (which I doubt), that's not
plagiarism. Ideas are not protected by copyright. Words and terminology
are not protected by copyright. Which is good for you because your own
book is just an expansion and clarification of ideas and terminologies
that existed in the poker community before you wrote about them.
Linda
Linda K Sherman
>
> When I read it I didn't like the phrase stone killer. I still don't
> know what it means.
I'm not sure if you mean that you don't know what "stone killer" means,
or that you don't know what it means as Dr Schoonmaker uses it. But here
goes...
"Stone killer" means an unusually remorseless and efficient killer,
especially a professional one.
There was a 1973 movie called "Stone Killer" starring Charles Bronson.
Linda
Daniel Kimberg
> Even if Gary borrowed ideas from your book (which I doubt), that's not
> plagiarism. Ideas are not protected by copyright. Words and terminology
> are not protected by copyright.
Copyright infringement and plagiarism are different things. Taking someone
else's ideas and passing them off as your own is certainly plagiarism, but
as you point out is not a copyright infringement. I think Alan was only
accusing Gary of plagiarism, not of copyright infringement.
That said, I just read the relevant sections of both books, and I only see
two relevant points of similarity. Both writers use a familiar and obvious
framework for categorizing players as their point of departure. And both
writers use the phrase "stone killer" (as well as other phrases that
certainly didn't originate with either writer). It would help if Alan could
be a little more specific about what he claims Gary stole.
dan
Gary Carson
<poke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Alannschoonmaker wrote:
>>
>> Plagiarism is theft, and serious writers don't do it.
>
>Even if Gary borrowed ideas from your book (which I doubt), that's
not
>plagiarism. Ideas are not protected by copyright.
Actually that would be plagarism.
Plagarism is a concept from academia which has nothing to do with
copyright. In academia the use of an idea without attribution is
plagarism.
The use of words without permision is a copyright violation.
It's not at all clear what I'm being accused of -- I think Alan has
the two concepts confused.
The use of a specific term, like stone killer, without attribution
isn't plagarism or copyright violation either one. Stealing the
concept that the term describes would be plagarism. Stealing a long
passage to define the term would be copyright violation.
Eric
> On 18 Nov 2001 07:19:14 -0800, vze2...@verizon.net (Eric) wrote:
>
> I ran a lot of TTH sims about this. Against really tough lineups, it
> loses too many of the big ones to cover the rake. If you play really
> well it's probably a profitable hand from up front, but at high risk.
>
> In the holdem hand nomenclature as I understand it big slick refers to
> AKs, walking back to Houston is AKo.
>
Thanks for responding Gary. It's not that I've been folding AKo in
early position or anything, I was just curious. If I find myself in a
game like this I should be looking for a table change anyway.
Gary Carson
Absolutely
I don't generally go around folding AKo. It is a situation that might
come up sometime in say a touranment where you had the bad luck to
draw a really tough table.
Terrence Chan
garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson) wrote:
>I should have said that you should sometimes think about folding from
>early position. [specifically in] tight or very tight games which are also aggresive
>or very aggresive.
>
>I think AKo is a very overrated hand. Of course it's a good hand,
>But, in some kinds of situations you should really think about not
>playing it. If the game is really a tough game, the kinds of hands I
>call dominated power hands, mostly JTs and AKo should be avoided from
>early position.
I wouldn't ever fold AK in a non-tournament situation UTG.
It should be obvious that in a loose or typical game AK is a
substantial money maker. In a tight game, there is a fair
chance of you winding up with the blinds. That's okay. If
you wind up with the blinds very frequently when you raise
UTG, that's definitely okay. Your opponents now are playing
too tight. So the optimal thing for them to do is play
looser. To do that, they have to defend with hands that are
dominated by AK. (It's unlikely someone would decide to
play 44 against an early raiser but toss AQ if everyone else
has folded.) Now you are again in a profitable situation.
Put it another way: The hands that AK is dominated by are
AA, KK. It also doesn't really like QQ, JJ and AKs (to some
extent) since those hands can often push AK out of the pot
before it gets to see all five cards. But if the only hands
the opponents play versus an UTG raise are AA-JJ and AKs,
then the UTG raise will end up stealing the blinds a very
high percentage of the time. Instant profit. If players
loosen up to counter this, they frequently end up calling
with hands that are dominated by AK.
A hand like AJ can definitely be unprofitable in early
position against tough opponents because it tends to be
dominated by the hands good players call a raise with. AK,
only being dominated by the big pairs, is rarely dominated
and frequently dominating.
So, I don't see that you can fold AK UTG except against
players who clearly outclass you, in which case you have no
business at the table to begin with.
--
Terrence Chan
http://www.sfu.ca/~tchand/
Gary Carson
the flop and after.
It's not just the hands.
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 23:01:58 -0800, Terrence Chan
<terren...@telus.net> wrote:
>So, I don't see that you can fold AK UTG except against
>players who clearly outclass you, in which case you have no
>business at the table to begin with.
Well, yes, that's kind of the point. In a raked game they don't even
have to outclass you.
Dsklansky
AK under the gun could have an EV as low as $5 in a tough 15-30 game. Abdul and
Izmet, among others, demonstrated that raising with it had to make the hand
worth more, unless players played in a way that was not in their overall best
interest. But even if they played that way (eg folding AQ but not JTs or 55)
AK is still a mandatory play. I like AK under the gun less than most, but it is
INCONCEIVABLE that it should ever be folded UTG in a limit game.
Gary Carson
Immaculate conception?
I don't think it really matters whether it's possible for conditions
to exist where it would be best to fold AKo utg. It really has more
to do with post flop play, which is more difficult to analyze than
preflop equities.
The point is, as you say, it's over rated from early position in tough
games.
I went back and read that part of the book again (I wrote it two years
ago and sometimes forget) and my previous explanation isn't really
accurate. I was talking about the loose and very loose games that get
aggresvie, not tight games like I assumed I was talking about.
There are two kinds of tough games -- tight games, and loose but very
aggresive games. In either of those games I think you should be
careful with what I call dominated power hands from up front -- hands
like 88, A9s, JTs, AKo.
The thing about the loose very aggresive games is that blind stealing
equity is zero.
I have folded AKo from 2nd spot in a 10 handed very loose/very
aggresive 20/40 game with $5 rake because I wanted to run to the
bathroom -- and I don't play tight in that kind of game.
That passage I had in the book probably should have been rewritten to
tone down that sentence though. I don't think it's that big a deal
though.
Badger
> The point is, as you say, it's over rated from early position in tough
> games.
The point should be that position matters an awful lot in tough games.
--
Steve Badger
http://www.playwinningpoker.com
er...@home.com
(Gary Carson) wrote:
>To the others. I've mailed out most of the books, But, this
>addressing by hand crap is really slow for me, I should get the rest
>out this week.
----------------------------
Gary, you appear to be an excellent typist (keyboarder), so if you
have access to Word, or a good word processor, use the label
feature, get some printer labels -- and forget about "hand
addressing".
PS - I bought your book from Amazon.com and it has paid me back
several times already, and I'm still on my first reading.
ERIC
RazzO
Heehee.
razzo
--
Any comments or statements made are not necessarily those of any
employer or client, their subsidiaries, or affiliates.
---------------------------------------------
The Poker Show
http://www.pokerworld.com/thepokershow
Radio show on poker hosted by RazzO
* Guests * Callins * Poker News *
!!!!!!!!!!!! L I V E !!!!!!!!!!!!
---------------------------------------------
PLAY ME ONLINE......!
http://www.pokerworld.com/onlinepokersiteconnection/
* PokerRoom.com, TruePoker.com, ParadisePoker.com, PartyPoker.com
---------------------------------------------
POKERWORLD.COM by RazzO
http://www.pokerworld.com
---------------------------------------------
Gary Carson
<PlayWinning[RemoveThis]Po...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Gary Carson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote...
>> The point is, as you say, it's over rated from early position in
tough
>> games.
>
>The point should be that position matters an awful lot in tough
games.
Yes. You make the point much clearer.
Alannschoonmaker
Some people have claimed that it is not plagiarism because my ideas were not
new. In my book I explicitly made that point more than once. For example, I
wrote (p. 300): "All this book has done is provide a more formal framework for
their (S&M) own and other authors' insights." Your plagiarism is not the ideas,
but the words and the general way the dimensions were presented. I list about
20 people in my "Acknowledgements" and I quote people and use footnotes because
I don't take credit for other people's work.
You claim that an editor inserted material even though you did not like it. I
have published with five firms and consulted for others. I have never heard of
an editor's inserting material into a book against the author's wishes. In
other words, I think you're lying. You stole from me, but are not man enough to
admit it.
Gary Carson
(Alannschoonmaker) wrote:
>I accuse you of plagiarism and of refusing to accept responsibility
for it.
>Some people have claimed that it is not plagiarism because my ideas
were not
>new. In my book I explicitly made that point more than once. For
example, I
>wrote (p. 300): "All this book has done is provide a more formal
framework for
>their (S&M) own and other authors' insights." Your plagiarism is not
the ideas,
>but the words and the general way the dimensions were presented. I
Okay. What words?
>You claim that an editor inserted material even though you did not
like it. I
>have published with five firms and consulted for others. I have never
heard of
>an editor's inserting material into a book against the author's
wishes.
He send me the manuscript with his changes. I dfdn't like the phrase
stone killer and didn't like the way he'd used the term manic. So I
called him. He told me that he'd heard the term stone killer used in
AC cardrooms, and that he liked it, so I said okay. That doesn't mean
I liked it. It just means I'm easy to get along with.
I'm sure that he would have gone along if I'd objected. I didn't
object, but not because I liked what he'd added, but because I liked
him and was willing to accept his advice about how to phrase
something.
That's only about the term "stone killer", which as far as I can tell
is all you're really talking about. It's all youve been specific
about. I don't know if that came from your book or not. I do know
that when I wrote my book your book hadn't come out yet -- I hadn't
read it. The middle part of the paragrph that uses the term "stone
killer" may have been added after your book had been published, I
don't know for sure.
In
>other words, I think you're lying. You stole from me, but are not man
enough to
>admit it.
I thought you'd posted on 2+2 that I had admitted stealing from you?
There really isn't anything to talk about unless you want to tell us
exactly what words, (Or what ideas) that you think I took from you.
I did use someone elses ideas extensively in one chapter -- that was
the chapter on tournaments. I said in the text that those ideas came
from Johnny. I'm not aware of having used anyone elses ideas anyplace
else in the book.
Angelina Fekali
In your book, was the advice of calling an early raiser (and no other
callers)
with 98o on the button your idea?
--
Angelina Fekali
Studying People Inc.
http://www.fekali.com/angelina
Jaeger T. Cat
news:20011121202708...@mb-fx.news.cs.com:
> I accuse you of plagiarism and of refusing to accept responsibility for
> it. Some people have claimed that it is not plagiarism because my ideas
Hey Alan, quit frothing at the mouth, cut the pills in half
(or take two, your choice), and *POST THE FUCKING EXCERPTS*.
--
Eric J. Holtman (Jaeger T. Cat)
http://www.ericholtman.com
PGP Key: http://www.ericholtman.com/pgp.txt
Niven's Law 1a: Never throw shit at an armed man.
Niven's Law 1b: Never stand next to a man throwing shit at an armed man.
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With NINE Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Gary Carson
Fekali) wrote:
>I apologize for barging in like this, but I need to ask you Gary:
>
>In your book, was the advice of calling an early raiser (and no other
>callers)
>with 98o on the button your idea?
>
I didn't say that.
98o appears in a table of the worst hands you might want to call an
early position raiser with.
The title of the table that I assume you are talking about is "minimum
calling hands with an early position raiser" (p 48)
It doesn't say and no other callers. I don't reference it directly in
the book, but the relevant section of text starts on p. 46)
Here's part of what I say about it. (right before this I talk about
opening with a raise)
"Usually you need a stronger hand to call a raise than you need to
rasier yourself. That's usually the case, but not always.
If you open with a riase you're putting in two bets to win one and a
half bets That's 3-4 odds. If you call a raiser you're putting in
two bets to win three and a half bets, thats 7-4 odds. Because you're
getting better odds you can sometimes call with weaker hands, but not
always."
I follow that with three paragraphs about some of the risks of calling
an early position raiser.
If you read the book and ignore the tables you won't miss much. But,
reading the tables and ingoring the text is likely to mislead. I
don't recommend that.
Angelina Fekali
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 13:34:21 GMT, ange...@fekali.com (Angelina
> Fekali) wrote:
>
> >I apologize for barging in like this, but I need to ask you Gary:
> >
> >In your book, was the advice of calling an early raiser (and no other
>
> >callers)
> >with 98o on the button your idea?
> >
>
> I didn't say that.
>
> 98o appears in a table of the worst hands you might want to call an
> early position raiser with.
>
> The title of the table that I assume you are talking about is "minimum
> calling hands with an early position raiser" (p 48)
> It doesn't say and no other callers. I don't reference it directly in
> the book, but the relevant section of text starts on p. 46)
>
> Here's part of what I say about it. (right before this I talk about
> opening with a raise)
>
> "Usually you need a stronger hand to call a raise than you need to
> rasier yourself. That's usually the case, but not always.
>
> If you open with a riase you're putting in two bets to win one and a
> half bets That's 3-4 odds. If you call a raiser you're putting in
> two bets to win three and a half bets, thats 7-4 odds. Because you're
> getting better odds you can sometimes call with weaker hands, but not
> always."
>
Fuzzy logic. You are not against the same type of hand in these two
situations. Better odds that you mention are not a good reason enough
to compare apples and oranges.
When I see a player even considering such a cold call with 98o, I see
a fish (regardless of the number of callers).
> I follow that with three paragraphs about some of the risks of calling
> an early position raiser.
>
> If you read the book and ignore the tables you won't miss much. But,
> reading the tables and ingoring the text is likely to mislead. I
> don't recommend that.
I read your book, Gary, patronizing doesn't go well with me, please
stick to Mason.
I respectfully disagree with some of your writings and I think you might
(and no respected poker author should) be in trouble in the games that
I play.
Gary Carson
Fekali) wrote:
>> >In your book, was the advice of calling an early raiser (and no
other>> >callers)> >with 98o on the button your idea?
>> >
>>
>> I didn't say that.
>>
>> 98o appears in a table of the worst hands you might want to call an
>> early position raiser with.
>>
>> The title of the table that I assume you are talking about is
"minimum
>> calling hands with an early position raiser" (p 48)
>Fuzzy logic. You are not against the same type of hand in these two
>situations. Better odds that you mention are not a good reason enough
>to compare apples and oranges.
>
>When I see a player even considering such a cold call with 98o, I see
>a fish (regardless of the number of callers).
So you're saying that it's wrong to soimetimes call with weaker hands
than you'd raise with?
I'm not completely clear on what you're saying.
>
>I read your book, Gary, patronizing doesn't go well with me, please
>stick to Mason.
I don't think that the text says anywhere what you said it said.
That's why I made the comment about reading the book rather than the
tables.
>
>I respectfully disagree with some of your writings and I think you
might
>(and no respected poker author should) be in trouble in the games
that
>I play.
That's fine. Of course many people would claim I'm not a respected
poker author.
But, other than that, can you be more specific about what you're
objecting to?
Are you saying that 98o is a hand that you should never volunarily put
money into the pot with?
Dsklansky
unraised but still have a positive EV if it is raised. (Not if you are all in
though.) Thus Gary Carson is r****t that some hands under some conditions are
worth calling raises cold with but not worth raising themselves.
Gary Carson is also r****t that later round play can signficantly add value to
mediocre hands in late position and subtract value from good hands in early
position. This phenomenon is especially true in pot limit holdem. Here it may
actually be correct to fold AK under the gun or call a small raise with 98
offsuit. It might even be right in spread limit games against weak opponents.
It could be close even in the old style 10-20 structure with an ante and one
five dollar blind whose first raise makes it ten. But Gary Carson is at least
slightly WRONG if he thinks it is ever correct to fold AK UTG or to call a
raise cold with 98 offsuit in the present structure that gets so much into the
pot early. The future betting that Gary r*****ly knows can transform the value
of starting hands more than Angelina is willing to recognize, is not enough to
make these extreme recommendations correct when the opening bet is half the
size of the river bet.
Gary Carson
The future betting that Gary r*****ly knows can transform the value
>of starting hands more than Angelina is willing to recognize, is not
enough to
>make these extreme recommendations correct when the opening bet is
half the
>size of the river bet.
I don't really disagree with that. Extreme are extreme, and I hope
the reader realizes that.
The staement I have in the book about AKo should have been toned
down, and will be if the book ever has a second edition.
Also,the table that has the 98o will have a little explantion if the
book ever goes to a second printing.
RazzO
Saddening that Mr. Carson would incite David Sklansky to resort to vulgarity to
make a p***t.
razzo
--
Any comments or statements made are not necessarily those of any
employer or client, their subsidiaries, or affiliates.
---------------------------------------------
2002 World Series of Poker Schedule
http://www.pokerworld.com/2002wsopschedule
==================================
Badger
> >Gary Carson is r****t
>
> Saddening that Mr. Carson would incite David Sklansky to resort to
vulgarity to
> make a p***t.
Count the asterisks. I have no clue what word Sklansky is representing.
Angelina Fekali
> So you're saying that it's wrong to soimetimes call with weaker hands
> than you'd raise with?
-snip-
> I don't think that the text says anywhere what you said it said.
-snip-
> Are you saying that 98o is a hand that you should never volunarily put
> money into the pot with?
I refuse to be dragged into a "who said what" debate with you, I've
seen that a lot on rgp lately, you and Badger are undisputed
masters of the WSW game. No EV for me here, I fold. You are
very rude for trying to put your words into my mouth.
Please disregard me, I'm sorry for having spoken my thoughts.
Jonathan Kaplan
says...
given the context, i am guessing the word is "right", but David S. isnt so good
at spelling with asterisks?
Jonathan
no matter where you go, there you are...
Daniel Kimberg
> Count the asterisks. I have no clue what word Sklansky is
> representing.
It's pretty obvious from context. The word is "rongdt," an obscure
alternative old English spelling for "wrong." The only thing that doesn't
fit is the actual content of David's text. But that could just be a typo.
dan
Badger
> I refuse to be dragged into a "who said what" debate with you, I've
> seen that a lot on rgp lately, you and Badger are undisputed
> masters of the WSW game. No EV for me here, I fold. You are
> very rude for trying to put your words into my mouth.
You feel free to mischaracterize what he said (in his opinion), then when he
mischaracterizes what you say (in your opinion) you post some insults and
then refuse to discuss some silly little poker issue.
You ought to try and learn to have some tiny bit of introspection and
realize what "rude" is.
> Please disregard me, I'm sorry for having spoken my thoughts.
This is a poker discussion group. He asked you specifically what you were
"objecting to". If you just want to call him a fish for his ideas, fine,
but if you think that qualifies as "thoughts", well, too bad for you.
If you can't stand the heat, don't come into the kitchen spouting simplistic
nothingisms.
Gary Carson
<PlayWinning[RemoveThis]Po...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"RazzO" <ra...@pokerworld.com> wrote...
>> >Gary Carson is r****t
>>
>
>Count the asterisks. I have no clue what word Sklansky is
representing.
Mason forbids David to say "Carson is correct".
Linda K Sherman
"robust" - what else?
You obviously suck at Wheel of Fortune.
Linda
Eric
I'm sure it's just a simple mistake. Maybe Sklansky just isn't very
good at Math and counting. He is P*lish, don't you know.
Angelina Fekali
*plonk*
RMITCHCOLL
>
>--
>
>Angelina Fekali
I have never understood the need for people to tell us that they have
kill-filed someone. Just do it (apologies to Nike...dont want to plagerize), we
dont care.
Randy Collack....whose kill-file is getting larger. I could tell you who is in
it, but then I would piss myself off.