What order should I read these?

[Jim Anchower]

I've read sklansky's hold 'em poker a couple times and want to move
onto read hold 'em poker for advanced players, the theory of poker and
gary carson's book. Do you guys have any suggestions on what the
correct order would be for these? After these I plan to read the
deffinitive book on pot limit/no limit written by two guys, can't
remember their name or the title, then I will read sklansky tournament
poker for advanced players. Are there any important titles I am
missing in my poker growth? Thanks for the help.

[surf_dog]

I would read Gary Carson's book first. Then read
Middle Limit Holdem by Ciaffone and Brier.

I here Jim is working on a new book aimed at low-limit
holdem. Antone heard anything else.

[Nobody]

"Gary Carson" <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:3f3e05c4.24955017@news.mindspring.com...

> Unless you've already bought it it's probably a waste of time to read
> holdem for advanced players. There's nothing advanced about it and
> some of it's just wrong.

In you opinion, what and where are the 3 worst errors?

[Newgca]

> Are there any important titles I am
>missing in my poker growth? Thanks for the help.

The question should be are you reading any books that will help you with your
poker growth?

If you limit your play to LIMIT HOLDEM or even NO LIMIT HOLDEM, you have NO
CHANCE.

Russ Georgiev

[Gary Carson]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 14:42:28 GMT, "Nobody" <nobody@spamstop.com>
wrote:

>
>"Gary Carson" <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
>news:3f3e05c4.24955017@news.mindspring.com...
>
>> Unless you've already bought it it's probably a waste of time to
read
>> holdem for advanced players. There's nothing advanced about it and
>> some of it's just wrong.
>
>In you opinion, what and where are the 3 worst errors?
>
>

I don't have a copy of the book. Pretty much the entire loose games
section is an error.

The hand groups contians a few errors. The worst of those is probably
the KTs JTs error. The reason that's a big error is that it suggests
to the reader that connected is more valuable than big. That's just
not true.

The advise to memorize the hand groups is wrong -- again it conveys
the idea that there is some kind of static, inherent value in the two
cards you have rather than value comeing from the money your opponents
put into the pot.

The idea that the value comes from cards, not opponents is one that
influences all kinds of bad thinking in the book. That's where the
idea that big unsuited cards and big pairs lose value in loose games
comes from. The idea is just wrong, and it only makes sense if you
think that a deck of cards contians some fixed value that's
distirbuted among the cards and that if one pair of cards gains value
it must be at the expense of another pair of cards. The don't seem to
understand the concept of dead money.

That's a few genereal areas of mistakes that come to mind.

And, of course there's the idea that since it's terribly written and
badly organized that it must contain special wisdom available only
from a poker player who can't write for shit.

I used to recommend the book, because there just weren't that many
alternatives. But, it's not a good book, and there are plenty of
alternatives available these days.

[Gary Carson]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 13:37:31 -0700, "eggrock"

snip a bunch of errors/inconsictencies in the book

>
>...............
>
>I could go on and on. Perhaps I'm out of line since I'm obviously not
>expert,

No, you're right.

but I agree that many of the ideas presented in the book are common
>sense and are not 'advanced', while other areas that would help to
>understand advanced games are partially or completely absent.

According to Malmuth, the target market is "advanced beginners". His
choice of title was a flash of marketing genius I think.


There is
>definitely good information in the book and I in no way intend to
denigrate
>S&M's knowledge of Hold 'Em,

S&M are not one person. Malmuth doesn't really understand hold'em
very well. Sklansky does.

>just their ability to present that knowledge to
>the 'poker public' in general.
I'm definitely not going to throw the book
>away or stop reading it, but I'm skeptical about buying anything else
from
>these authors

It's the best book Malmuth has written.

The history of the book is that years ago Malmuth was a draw player
wanting someone to teach him to play hold'em. Caro tried and failed.
So, Malmuth hired Sklansky. He had conversations with Sklansky and
made many notes. Later they wrote the book, Malmuth wrote it from his
notes taken during teaching sessions with Sklansky.

Sklansky has written a couple of good books, he just didn't actually
write this one.

I wouldn't recommend any book written by Malmuth.


without some strong recommendations from people I respect and
>trust.
>
>Okay, now who /else/ has the definitive HE book, one that covers all
(or
>most) aspects of the game, is well organized and presented, etc.
etc.?
>Whoever told me not to get the 'advanced' book as a first HE book was
>(mostly) correct, which one do I get? Other than the 'tells' book,
I'll
>definitely be buying that one...


Books that would be an adequate first hold'em book include Either of
the two Warren books, the Jones book, either of the two Krieger
hold'em books, A collection of 3 hold'em books by Nelson, Sklansky's
holdem book, and the book by Carson (my book). Some are better than
others, but they are all at least adequate.

As a second book I'd suggest Inside the Poker Mind by Feeny, Mid Limit
Poker by Ciaffone and Brier, one of the books by McEvoy/Cloitier, or
the Carson book if you didn't read it as your first book.

[Gary Carson]

I'm pretty sure David's sales have nothing to do with me, although I
do think Theory of Poker is a good book.

One of the current best sellers is Hellmuth's book. Are you going to
argue that it's a great book?



On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:14:37 -0700, "Mason Malmuth"
<MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com> wrote:

>Gary:
>
>Thanks for continuing to emphasize how HPFAP was written by me and
how much
>worse it is than those books written by my employee David. By doing
that you
>probably keep the Amazon ratings of his Theory of Poker (the second

[Jim Anchower]

newgca@aol.com (Newgca) wrote in message news:<20030816173632.06868.00000724@mb-m03.aol.com>...
> > Are there any important titles I am
> >missing in my poker growth? Thanks for the help.
>
> The question should be are you reading any books that will help you with your
> poker growth?
>
> If you limit your play to LIMIT HOLDEM or even NO LIMIT HOLDEM, you have NO
> CHANCE.
>
> Russ Georgiev

Russ are you saying that I should learn to play other types of poker as well?

[Gary Carson]

On 18 Aug 2003 10:29:47 -0700, willreich_77@yahoo.com (Bill Reich)
wrote:

>I have a hard time seeing how this could happen. I assume you mean
>that Malmuth was a SUCCESFUL draw player.

I guess he was, I don't know.

> If so, how could he not have
>learned holdem fairly quickly? It is all poker and draw is more
>difficult.

Uh. Draw is pretty simple. A straightforward, game theory approach
will get the money.

> And interesting. He might never have gotten to be as good a
>holdem player as Caro or Sklansky (both of whom are great draw
players
>also) but he should have been able to learn to play holdem with some
>success. Are you postulating a learning disorder, an aversion to the
>game that could not be overcome, or simply stating what you have
>observed and not offering an explanation?

Most of that comes from stuff Caro and/or Malmuth said in some old
threads where Malmuth was trying to bad mouth Caro. It was a couple
of years ago about Caro's 12 steps to holdem heaven or something --
that pamphelt. Badger was invovled in the thread, Abdul was, I was,
Sklansky was, you could find it in the archives if you poked around

[Gary Carson]

On 18 Aug 2003 16:49:33 -0700, QuadNines@hotmail.com (QuadNines)

>I concur. Why doesn't Malmuth show some appreciation to his readers
>by hiring even an adequate editor? From page 4 of the 1999 edition:
>
> Finally, we would like to express our appreciation to
> Irving Sklansky for editing this work. Thanks to him
> our ideas are now more clearly stated and thus should
> be more easily understood.


An editor can't fix that. He needs a writer.

[Gary Carson]

Probably Super System


On 19 Aug 2003 03:06:10 -0700, rpatterson_@hotmail.com (Jim Anchower)
wrote:

>Thanks for the info Gary. I bought your book today, it seems very
>good. Can you recommend any books that will give a basic tutorial on
>different types of poker.