Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

Hi Everyone:

I have several friends who are very good poker players and who have now read the Greenstein book. They all like it a lot. But there are now reviews, some of which have appeared here, that are quite critical of it and I can't dispute the complaints these reviews represent.

I think the problem has to do with exactly what you, the reader, were expecting from this book as opposed to what this book is. One problem is that it is subtitled An Advanced Poker Guide. In many ways it is, but in other ways, with the possible exception of the hand examples, it's not. Ace on the River does not step you through detailed strategy. It mostly deals with those psychological holes, and in many cases not in extreme depth, that stop pretty good playes back from beginning great players.

Since these are areas that are rarely discussed in the poker literature, this book will have a lot of value for some players. But if you're a relatively new player who is still trying to figure out the basics of correct strategy, as Barry said to me, "Read a Two Plus Two book for that."

So all in all I still recommend Ace on the River. But a more accurate rating might be 8 + or -2 depending on what exactly you are looking for in the book and what An Advanced Poker Guide means to you.

One criticism that I do reject is the "too many pictures and not enough dense text." The book is 316 oversized pages. If Greenstein would have gone with normal size pages (such as our books use) and perhaps only had 280 pages by using less pictures, this comment would go away completely.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

[ QUOTE ]
One problem is that it is subtitled An Advanced Poker Guide. In many ways it is, but in other ways, with the possible exception of the hand examples, it's not.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where I've been stuck in my review, because I feel the exact same way.

I also agree with you about the book's length.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

Inside the Poker Mind covers a lot of these non-strategic topics in more depth.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

[ QUOTE ]
Inside the Poker Mind covers a lot of these non-strategic topics in more depth.

[/ QUOTE ]

OTOH, John Feeney doesn't play 4/8k, does he?

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Inside the Poker Mind covers a lot of these non-strategic topics in more depth.

[/ QUOTE ]

OTOH, John Feeney doesn't play 4/8k, does he?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's fair.
If you want to discuss content, do it.
But don't try to dismiss someone's criticisms with, "Barry plays higher stakes!"

I like Greenstein's book, btw.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

[ QUOTE ]
Inside the Poker Mind covers a lot of these non-strategic topics in more depth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Mason is aware of that, and was refering to things not already discussed in ITPM and POP, both of which he should be decently familiar with the contents of. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

The subtitle is poor - especially for what the book is.

When you set that aside and, as you said, examine whether it does what it is trying to do well, I think it does.

ESPECIALLY when you consider in the last few years the number of good non-2+2 poker-related books and list The Professor Banker and Suicide King, and King Yao's Weighing the Odds, and now Barry's Ace on the River.

I'm guessing some (incorrectly) thought that this would magically turn $20-$40 players into people who could hang with Barry and Phil Ivey and whomever else at the $4K-$8K game.

Considering how bad most non-2+2 poker books by name professionals turn out to be, this book could have been so much worse but not really a whole lot better, when you look at what Barry was trying to do with the text.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

Another problem might be that this book does not resonate as well with many of the "new" poker players, including college-aged kids who primarily play online, or working professionals who treat the game as a recreational (albeit serious) hobby rather than a seriuos source of income. These players can't really relate to the various members of the "poker society," for instance.

Mason's correct in that the book was marketed as an advanced strategy guide, but turned out to primarily be a meta-meta-game guide.

I was disappointed.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

I haven't quite finished reading it yet, but I think there is a subtlety to the lessons that Barry is giving us here that either resonates within you immediately or it leaves you cold. Granted, there isn't much in the way of strategy but I didnt expect that there would be. Books about strategy are plentiful, and the best of them have been written by Sklansky. (I really dont think that there's much more anyone can say about how, for example, the high-limit players play AK when they miss the flop.) Once a player has mastered the concepts in the Theory of Poker (and I doubt very many have) he really doesn't need charts or roadmaps. Barry Greenstein is giving us his insight into what those qualities are that separate the game's top players from the rest. And those qualities, I believe, are what make the difference, not some esoterica that the rest of us are trying to gain access to.

all the negative reviews
 

i'm half-way through this book and i think i understand why there have been so many negative reviews of barry's book.

1. as Mason stated, this book isn't a tactical manual. Its not trying to give a strategic edge to a part-time student who 4-tables $10/20 on Party for spending money. The premise of Ace on the River, essentially is for an already very good full-time poker player becoming an excellent professional. In this way, it goes into a *lot* of detail into what the world of high-stakes is all about and how to operate and navigate it successfully (table demeanor, dropping stakes, traps/mistakes professional gamblers routinely fall in...) Its been said many times, but no one seems to remember; the assumption is that you are already an excellent player!

If you never accept this premise, its like trying to read a mystery when you thought you wanted to read a romance novel.

2. Maybe some of the points BarryG highlights cut too close to home for some aspiring pros. One recurring theme in this book is quelling your ego and make profitable decisions and how to keep situations profitable. Every day in every forum here, people consciously make unprofitable decisions and justify it to themselves and others with some nonsensical platitude. Whether its taking on too big a game to satiate their sense of worth, getting into headsup pissing matches with unknowns, or not dropping stakes when it's appropriate to do so. And probably many more subtle errors that never make it to the forum like playing when you're already dead-tired after a day of class/work...

Also, while many pay lip service to not "tapping the glass"; BarryG takes it a step further & says you should make the fish comfortable! Offer condolences when you beat them in a race or give a little harmless action to keep them happy. At the same time, using any perceived personality flaw as motivation to take their $$. And all the while, trying to stay as unobtrusive as possible. If just an occasional part-time player can't maintain this type of karmic balance(and MANY here cannot) how could he reasonably expect to do it as his full-time job to put food on the table? To be fair, even many well-known professionals seem to routinely display sub-par professionalism in public places.

For myself, I am enjoying this book as its a glimpse into a world I have neither the temperment nor the talent nor the desire to ever enter. And you should be nice to me; b/c guys like me supply your part-time spending $$. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Inside the Poker Mind covers a lot of these non-strategic topics in more depth.

[/ QUOTE ]

OTOH, John Feeney doesn't play 4/8k, does he?

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither does anyone here.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

I there is a lot of value in the book in both the strategy and non-strategy sections but you have to find it yourself. Some of the play examples really have me thinking. I am having trouble understanding a few of them which is a good thing.

I think the main problem with the book is that it doesn't really know who its audience is. Is it the general reader? high-stakes players? beginning players? recreational players?

If the audience is high-stakes players then why include very basic information about who to tip in the casino and the definition of a railbird? If it is beginning players, why include hand examples where you are playing against someone who is capable of folding jacks-up to a raise on the river?

What makes SSH and HPFAP such usefull books is they they know who their audience is. I know that Barry Greenstein had family members involved in the editing of the book, but I think it would have come out better if another editor was involved.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

[ QUOTE ]

Mason's correct in that the book was marketed as an advanced strategy guide, but turned out to primarily be a meta-meta-game guide.

I was disappointed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason did not say that the book was marketed as a strategy guide. What he said was:

[ QUOTE ]
the problem has to do with exactly what you, the reader, were expecting from this book as opposed to what this book is.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, the book had very little marketing, which may have added to the confusion. The only hard information on the book, prepublication, was the table of contents posted on Barry's site. It was fairly obvious from that TOC that the book was not a strategy text.

Mason also says that the subtitle can be misleading. I agree, but that is as a result of what people infer from it, as opposed to what Barry implies by it. The subtitle is "An Advanced Poker Guide". Too many people read that as "An Advanced Poker Strategy Guide".

I haven't read the book yet, but I intend to. I am not discouraged by all the negative reviews in the many different threads here, because most of them say essentially the same thing: the book is not what I wanted it to be.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Inside the Poker Mind covers a lot of these non-strategic topics in more depth.

[/ QUOTE ]

OTOH, John Feeney doesn't play 4/8k, does he?

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither does anyone here.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I don't get is this: If the book was written for the high stakes pro then it is actually kinda funny. Imagine you would be such a player with a bankroll of a couple of million dollars and then you can buy vital cruical important advice to improve your game for just 25 bucks. Must be either a bargain or some sarcastic joke.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

It wasn't written for the other extreme high stakes players. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

[ QUOTE ]
What I don't get is this: If the book was written for the high stakes pro...

[/ QUOTE ]

i think rather than thinking about it this way, think of it as, it's written "from the perspective of a high stakes player, about what that world is like"

the audience then, is people interested in that subculture. Some will be complete novices, others hobbyists, and still others aspiring pros.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

[ QUOTE ]

i think rather than thinking about it this way, think of it as, it's written "from the perspective of a high stakes player, about what that world is like"

the audience then, is people interested in that subculture. Some will be complete novices, others hobbyists, and still others aspiring pros.

[/ QUOTE ]

I share this view of the book, and is the reason that I like it.

For theory, read TOP.

For applications of TOP to holdem, read SSHE for loose players and HFAP for tight players (at mid limits mix the strategy in the 2 books depending upon the players in a given hand). Also read King Yao's book which bridges SSHE and HFAP with EV calculuations.

For psychology, read ITPM.

For the perspective of a high stakes player on poker, gambling, and society, read Ace on The River. I really enjoyed this aspect of AOTR.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

When I first got and read through the book, I came to appreciate what Barry was doing here. The closest thing I have to this book in my library is a 25 year old museum guide to the King Tut Exhibit when it came to the US.

Both books explain exhibits with beautiful pictures. The Tut book explains actual ancient objects, most works of art. Barry covers esoteric nuances of professional poker play. Both quite captivating in their own way.

Barry's book was nothing like I expected, and that is a good thing. Who says that a poker book can't be crafted as a work of art in and of itself?

Nicely done Barry.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

Although it's gotten mixed reviews here, I consider Ace on the River to be one of the best poker books I've read.

The first part of the book you will enjoy if you liked Aces and Kings or similar books. It's the story of Barry's poker career, which -- while interesting -- will not make you a better poker player.

Then there are several sections that do not concern poker strategy or tactics, but should make you a better poker player if you take them seriously. Barry describes certain characteristics that are helpful for a poker player -- stuff like not pounding your fists or yelling while watching a sporting event, not getting mad when someone cuts you off in traffic (treating it instead like an obstacle in a video game), not appreciating the value of a dollar, not being responsible enough to show up to a poker game on time when you're tired (go ahead and sleep in), not wanting to win every argument, etc.

I think this will read like "fluff" to a lot of players -- but I think there are some important gems in there if you take it seriously.

Then we get to the real meat of the book -- the hand analyses. This part is fantastic. He crams a number of important concepts into each hand, so you will want to read and reread them carefully. Moreover, Barry doesn't just tell you how you should play each hand and why, but he gives you a way to do your own analysis of the hands you play. This is the most important part of the book, IMO. There's no starting hand chart or whatever that's going to turn you into a great player. All great players have thought about the game on their own, combining their playing experience with their own hard thinking about the game away from the table. That might be obvious to a lot of people, but I've never thought about hands in exactly the way Barry suggests. For a given hand, given what you know about your opponent's cards, what would have been the perfect play? (Do not base this on which cards were subsequently dealt -- i.e., a flop of 7 2 2 does not make calling an all-in bet with 72o the perfect play against AA. If your opponent has AA, the perfect play is to fold 72o before the flop.) Next, given what you can deduce about your opponent's likely range of hands, what would have been the correct play. The perfect play against AA is to fold KK. But the correct play against {AA-TT, AK-AQ} may be to reraise with KK, even if your opponent happened to have AA that time.

For each hand that you play, go back and determine both the perfect play and the correct play.

I think this, more than anything else, encourages a tight-aggressive style. When you know what your opponent had, the perfect play in hindsight is almost always either to fold or raise. There are exceptions, but they do not come up as often as you'd think based on how frequently many players call. When you think about how you should have played that hand, given what your opponent had, you will often conclude, "I should have raised the turn." (Or whatever.) Then, when you think about the range of hands your opponent was likely to have in that situation, again you will probably think "Against that range, I should have raised the turn." (Or folded, or whatever.) But against a given range, it will normally be correct to raise against some hands in that range and to fold against other hands in that range -- and a lot of people end up calling as a compromise. But compromising is wrong! Do something that has a chance of being correct. As you gain more experience and get better at putting people on a narrower and more accurate range of hands, you will make better decisions more often. But get out of the habit of compromising right now.

Using hindsight to determine the perfect play (against your opponent's actual hand) and then, more importantly, the correct play (against your opponent's likely range of hands) will get you in the habit of trying to make the correct play on future hands -- not the compromise play.

As I said, maybe this is obvious to many people, but I've never thought about it in those terms before, and I find it helpful.

Another thing that Barry emphasizes is that there's often no right or wrong play based on the cards. The right or wrong play is based on situations, and the cards are only a small part of that. Barry lists many factors that should influence your decisions -- too many to go through them all at the table, but he says that with experience you will instinctively know which factors are important in a particular situation and which are not, allowing you to focus on the important ones. (I think this is sort of like chess. The best players don't necessarily consider a wider range of moves on a particular level, but think several levels deeper by knowing which possible moves to focus on at each level. My terminology is off because I'm not a chess player, but hopefully you know what I mean.)

So in summary, the book does not give you a formula or recipe for play. There are no starting hand charts, no list of tactics and when to apply them, etc. There are other books for that. But it does give you direction in how to think about the game on your own.

A $1/$2 player trying to move up to $3/$6 might need a starting hand chart and a description of when to semi-bluff, when to do a free card play, when to check-raise, etc. Barry's book doesn't offer these things.

But a mid- or high-limit player looking to improve his game will want to think about the game more effectively on his own, to make better use of his own playing experience, and to start to think about the game in terms of situations instead of cards. As another player once put it, poker is such a dynamic and complex game, you have to learn how to learn how to learn from your own experiences. Barry's book is the best I've seen so far on that score.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

I haven't read this book yet but intend to soon, and it will be worth it to me just for a top player's insights on what Maurille has mentioned, namely being a good gambler overall and the thought process by which a top player analyzes a particular situation. Mike Caro said in one of his essays that the order in which you think about things is important. And what I get from Maurille's review is Greenstein gives great insight into what things and what order are appropriate for different situations.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

I want to thank Maurile, Mason, Felicia and many others for their glowing reviews. It is probably not politically correct for me to do this, since it is a little like praising people for complimenting me. I take their comments to mean that they got a lot out of the book.

I looked at the negative reviews also, because I wanted to understand what kinds of players I didn't resonate with. It seems that a lot of my material isn't relevant to players who play solely on the Internet and who don't value my advice on personal interaction. I also suspect that these players don't have children since many players with families have told me that I have handled the family issues well. Also, my detractors don't seem to care about writing ability or the beautiful photographs. Hopefully, once they get their "systems of play" solidified from experience and reading 2+2 books and other books, they will revisit what I have to say when they play in the higher-limit brick and mortar cash games and tournaments.

I have already gotten numerous e-mails from players who have had their best session or best tournament finishes after reading my book. I think that the closest summary of their comments is that I made their thinking about hands and about themselves more focused on the right things.

Barry

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

[ QUOTE ]
I want to thank Maurile, Mason, Felicia and many others for their glowing reviews. It is probably not politically correct for me to do this, since it is a little like praising people for complimenting me. I take their comments to mean that they got a lot out of the book.

I looked at the negative reviews also, because I wanted to understand what kinds of players I didn't resonate with. It seems that a lot of my material isn't relevant to players who play solely on the Internet and who don't value my advice on personal interaction. I also suspect that these players don't have children since many players with families have told me that I have handled the family issues well. Also, my detractors don't seem to care about writing ability or the beautiful photographs. Hopefully, once they get their "systems of play" solidified from experience and reading 2+2 books and other books, they will revisit what I have to say when they play in the higher-limit brick and mortar cash games and tournaments.

I have already gotten numerous e-mails from players who have had their best session or best tournament finishes after reading my book. I think that the closest summary of their comments is that I made their thinking about hands and about themselves more focused on the right things.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

In addition, Barry, the ever vigilant and critical 2+2 typo police have been uncommonly quiet re. the editing of your book.

If poker doesn't pan out for you; ask the powers-that-be at 2+2 about proofreading consulting [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Frank

Re: all the negative reviews
 

[ QUOTE ]
the assumption is that you are already an excellent player!

[/ QUOTE ]


I am enjoying the book a bit more now.
But I never expected it to make me a $4k/$8k player.

I don't need a book to tell me, "Hey....if you suck at betting sports then don't blow all your money on that."
or, "If you win a lot but spend it all you won't have a lot of money left."

I also am thinking about the section near the beginning where he runs through the different people in a poker-room and mentions that you should probably be tipping them if they do something for you.


If you are already an advanced poker-player and don't already know, "Hey...you should be tipping the dealers and chip-runners" then I don't think this book is going to help you figure that out.


He has some interesting perspectives on the game and the society. And his background sheds some light as to why he seems to have had some serious money management problems (basically....he got pretty good quite quickly and had a lot of money when he was young).

But at many parts it is NOT an advanced poker-guide nor is it directed to an advanced audience.
Stuff like "Don't spend everything you win" does NOT qualify as solid money-management advice.
Stuff like "Tip the dealers because they count on your tips" does NOT give me an advanced look into the world of the poker-room that I just wasn't aware of before.
What about tipping the floor-man when I get a phone-call that there is someone fishy in the big-game? Shouldn't this be obvious to the big-game players.
I think it's interesting that Barry gets phone-calls about this....but for most of the readers it isn't like the 'advice' is very practical. It's just an interesting side-note that he gets a phone-call when a 'live' one is at his table.


Anyway, some of the book is just 'fluff' and I would rate the book more of a 7 or 8.
Not because I was expecting the book to make me into the next WSOP champ or ultra-successful 'big game' player.

I was NOT expecting anything too tactical.

I just expected it to be more interesting all the way through.
There are PARTS that are terrific. But the beginners' fluff is just a little bit silly imo.


Sorry Barry - I hope you don't hold it too much against me if ever we were to get the opportunity to meet.
I am enjoying the interesting parts of the book immensely.
I'm perhaps just being overly-critical of the stuff I think is a bit 'filler-ish'.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

You are a class act and that is good for poker.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

I finished this book lastnight and I'm off to read the latest Harry Potter.

This is without a doubt the best poker book that I could have read at this time. As a warning if you don't have a foundation of playing reasonably well on autopilot then it probably won't do much for you, but I can tell you that the sections that people have been calling trash are absolutly sound and well worth the read.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

Mason, do you know who is the noted poker author who kept limping in the sb with the maniac who would raise his BB everytime?

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

Hi Nick:

No. But for sure it's not David or myself. He also states that this happened in the early 1990s, and that only leaves one other author, as far as I know, who would have been playing that game at that limit.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

Did anybody order it from Overstock? I preordered a few weeks ago and it still hasn't arrived.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

Mason,
I know that it was first quoted that the book would cost around $100, were there any changes to make it $25 or is it the same. I think it was an enjoyable book for $25, but would probably disappointed if it were $100.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is without a doubt the best poker book that I could have read at this time. As a warning if you don't have a foundation of playing reasonably well on autopilot then it probably won't do much for you, but I can tell you that the sections that people have been calling trash are absolutly sound and well worth the read.

[/ QUOTE ]

spot on imo. this book is not for those who are looking for the ins and outs of how to play a hand. rather, it is for those who already know how to play a hand and want to take it to the next level.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

Hi Nick:

I'm only familiar with the final product so I can't answer your question.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

[ QUOTE ]
Mason, do you know who is the noted poker author who kept limping in the sb with the maniac who would raise his BB everytime?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have had different readers tell me of five different authors who they thought were the culprits. I am not going to disclose who it was. This story shows an extreme example of playing one's cards instead of playing poker.

I don't think my silence will generate as much interest as Carly Simon did when she chose not to disclose the object of the song "You're So Vain."

Barry

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

Since there aren't many noted poker authors, that seems to imply Caro...?

Guessing games are fun.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

Is anyone else kicking themselves for ordering from Conjelco, and thus still not having a copy of Barry's book?

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is anyone else kicking themselves for ordering from Conjelco, and thus still not having a copy of Barry's book?

[/ QUOTE ]
I ordered from Amazon months ago and still haven't received mine.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

[ QUOTE ]

Mason also says that the subtitle can be misleading. I agree, but that is as a result of what people infer from it, as opposed to what Barry implies by it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how the two are different. Do let us know what you think after you've actually read the book.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Mason also says that the subtitle can be misleading. I agree, but that is as a result of what people infer from it, as opposed to what Barry implies by it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how the two are different. Do let us know what you think after you've actually read the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems like he has already read the book. He is wrong about the subtitle, though. It may not be all that misleading, but it's not exactly accurate either. Mason said it best, and I think Ben was stretching a bit. I'm thinking the subtitle should have had the word "gambler" in it, but that probably wouldn't sell or sound quite as good.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the main problem with the book is that it doesn't really know who its audience is. Is it the general reader? high-stakes players? beginning players? recreational players?

If the audience is high-stakes players then why include very basic information about who to tip in the casino and the definition of a railbird? If it is beginning players, why include hand examples where you are playing against someone who is capable of folding jacks-up to a raise on the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an incredibly good observation.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is without a doubt the best poker book that I could have read at this time. As a warning if you don't have a foundation of playing reasonably well on autopilot then it probably won't do much for you, but I can tell you that the sections that people have been calling trash are absolutly sound and well worth the read.

[/ QUOTE ]

spot on imo. this book is not for those who are looking for the ins and outs of how to play a hand. rather, it is for those who already know how to play a hand and want to take it to the next level.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still baffled by claims like this. Can you point out a specific line/section that has enabled you to "take it to the next level"? Surely you didn't need to learn that you're about 2:1 to make your straight/flush by the river if you flop an OESD or 4-flush. Or that lending money to fellow gamblers can be risky. Or that being rude to the fish is counterproductive.

Re: Comment on Greenstein Rating
 

[ QUOTE ]


I don't think my silence will generate as much interest as Carly Simon did when she chose not to disclose the object of the song "You're So Vain."



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Simon has never said who this is about. Some of the rumors are Warren Beatty, Kris Kristofferson, Cat Stevens, and Mick Jagger, all of whom she had affairs with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was Warren Beatty, but a quick google once again reveals I don't know what the hell I'm talking about....