Some positive comments in that 5 thread about Gary Carson and his work
Not everybody who posts t 2+2 thinks my work is crap just because Mason says it is.
As I mentioned previously in this collection of posts, that need to make adjustments according to table conditions, and not adjustments from a base but complete adjustments in the way you think about the game, is what the book is all about.
In that sense, by the way, the book is just as applicable to no limit games as it is to limit games. t least I think it is. I'm slowly putting a new edition which includes no limit ideas on the web.
Also,
Well, I think of SSHE more as a companion to CBHEP. Part of that is ego and part is that my book wasn't geared towards one particular game condition.
Many of the details do focus on loose/aggresive games, that's because I thought that was a game condition that few written works addressed and I thought it was the predominate game condition in the typical 20/40 limit game outside of Las Vegas at the time.
I wonder what was laughable about the psychology in the part about female players. Most of that was taken from observations that Abdul's wife had made and that Abdul had discussed on 2+2. Mason didn't agree with the observations, but Mason also didn't understand why Abdul didn't control his wife better.
The chapter on theories of poker is my favorite part of the book also.
More later.
I gave his book on hold'em a quick read a couple of years ago. I actually thought it was quite good, especially since he wrote pretty extensively about adjusting your play based on table conditions. Probably very few here will agree with me but that's okay too.
As I mentioned previously in this collection of posts, that need to make adjustments according to table conditions, and not adjustments from a base but complete adjustments in the way you think about the game, is what the book is all about.
In that sense, by the way, the book is just as applicable to no limit games as it is to limit games. t least I think it is. I'm slowly putting a new edition which includes no limit ideas on the web.
Also,
I think of it as a companion to SSHE, which is focused more on a loose passive table. Carson's book is more interested in loose aggressive settings. I'd suggest reading both books with an open mind while actually thinking about poker.
Carson's book has its flaws. It doesn't seem to have much at all on turn and river play. I seem to recall that it has some laughable psychology, especially in the part concerning female players. But it also has its strong points. My favorite chapter in his book is the one on theories of poker.
Well, I think of SSHE more as a companion to CBHEP. Part of that is ego and part is that my book wasn't geared towards one particular game condition.
Many of the details do focus on loose/aggresive games, that's because I thought that was a game condition that few written works addressed and I thought it was the predominate game condition in the typical 20/40 limit game outside of Las Vegas at the time.
I wonder what was laughable about the psychology in the part about female players. Most of that was taken from observations that Abdul's wife had made and that Abdul had discussed on 2+2. Mason didn't agree with the observations, but Mason also didn't understand why Abdul didn't control his wife better.
The chapter on theories of poker is my favorite part of the book also.
More later.
Labels: Complete Book of Hold'em Poker, Twoplustwo thread on Gary Carson
posted by Gary Carson at 8:12 AM
3 Comments:
Gary, in my view the big failing of SSHE is that it is of limited use against aggro players. The micro forum on 2+2 is much better, and often flat contradicts SSHE.
An SSHE that was updated to focus on online conditions would be fantastic. There still are limit games but they're a different cup of tea to the ones envisaged in SSHE. I dream of a Carson/Miller collaboration.
Yeah, I know, but I have some wild dreams!
Miller has too much of a Malmuth zero-sum world view of reality to every be able to stomach me.
Evidence of that is that whenever I make a post that links to his blog he reads the post (I know who reads posts) but he never comments and never links. He's afraid that I might benefit from a link and he can't deal with that idea.
The boy's just not as bright as his press would suggest.
I can't imagine anything with the heavy handed moderation of 2+2 having reliable content.
I think you're a bit hard on Ed, although I agree that your approaches are quite different.
I'd love it if Ed would comment. Maybe he's a bit afraid of you, Gary. Ed likes to be teacher. He always did in 2+2 and he does on his own blog. Which is fine for someone like me who knows a lot less than him, but maybe less comfortable for someone like you.
Dude, there's plenty of good stuff on 2+2. A ton of shit, yes, but some nuggets of gold.
Post a Comment
<< Home