Just finished reading Cards by Maxwell.

[acekingoffsuit]

yes, you are right that being negative isn't the best way to get to the bottom of an arguement.

the thing is that this book, and the responses, has gotten under my skin, and made me question my poker understanding, and the understanding of others. and this is really annoying the hell out of me, making me wonder if i need to do some deep rewiring in my thinking.

but, very possibly not, because through life experience, i've seen how stupid masses and majorities can be, so i'm not just going to go with the flow on anything.

like i've said before, i think "Mic Jameson" is an intelligent player who is frustrated with his life, and this leads to unfortunate plays. I DO NOT think he's stupid: I think his analysis, when not intimidated or angry, is ABOVE AVERAGE, BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE HERE.

Now if I'm wrong, that's fine, great, i'm the better for it, but the more i try to get this book nicely filed away in my mind, the more confused i get. Mic seems to be a pretty smart guy to me, his plays are VERY thoughtful, it seems to me.

so instead of making useless comments, please help me out and talk specifics.

I'm not going to win a World Series, but I have made more money than I've lost inpoker, and my friends regard me as one of the sharks in our local games. But maybe I'm just a fish a little less fishy than them.

confused,

AKo

[donger]

[ QUOTE ]
A shame.

I was hoping the people bashing this book would back their statements up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a passage (one of many) that made me cringe. He's just moved "over the rail" to a 15/30 game:

[ QUOTE ]

First hand. I shuffle then look: 10-7. One middle position calls. I raise my position. He calls. The dealer flops 4-3-Q with two spades. The guy checks. I bet. He folds. Nice start. I jot a mental note that the guy plays rather weakly. He should have bet into me on principle, especially to test the new player. I would have folded, although a reraise would have been an aggressive alternative


[/ QUOTE ]
I've highlighted the moronic parts in case you couldn't find them on your own.

This book reads like the generic drivel of a misguided 1/2 player's myspace blog. The author's heart's in the right place, but none of the hands are even very interesting and the analysis of play and poker concepts ranges from painfully bad to average-at-best.

[donger]

[ QUOTE ]
You can play any starting cards, as long as you know how to play them after the flop."

I dont think this is bad advice. If you want to call the blind bet with 3-5 suited, and the flop comes 3-10-Q and someone bets, then you throw away. No big deal. "Ohh, but the EV of this play over 100 years will yield a negative ratio on the integral of pi..." lol, watch some cartoons, take a vacation, or something.



[/ QUOTE ]

This attitude is why you like the book and most 2+2ers hate it. Do you see why?

[krazyace5]

I don't get why this thread is still on the front page, do you get a cut of the sales or something?

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]


First hand. I shuffle then look: 10-7. One middle position calls. I raise my position. He calls. The dealer flops 4-3-Q with two spades. The guy checks. I bet. He folds. Nice start. I jot a mental note that the guy plays rather weakly. He should have bet into me on principle, especially to test the new player. I would have folded, although a reraise would have been an aggressive alternative

[/ QUOTE ]



Nice Hand!!!


I also agree with your comments regarding the whole idea behind the general 'any-two cards are playable' philosophy.


Some people actually win at poker by playing tight and by learning that they shouldn't just be playing any two cards at any time in efforts to 'try to hit a flop' or something like that.

A lot of people who believe they are so smart that they can overcome the long-term losing qualities of such hands because they can 'feel' when it's the right time to play them are actually long-term losers (many of whom just got unlucky...or say that they are really good players 'when they are playing well' or some other such nonsense).



I'm pretty sure I'm not going to bother with this book.
However, that may change if I happen upon it in a bookstore and I feel like laughing and cringing at the same time.

[bigt2k4]

[ QUOTE ]
I just started reading it. Seems as though it will be as good as Poker Nation by Andy Bellin.

[/ QUOTE ]
under tek's name there are 3 stars, from what I understand doesn't this mean a lifetime ban? I am not complaining I am just confused over the rules. Also, I got a star for a very stupid reason. I know starting a the King vs Chuck Norris poll/thread in OOT is not exactly great material, but does it mean I should get a star? It is in OOT and I have seen worse(I know its hard to believe) threads.

[acekingoffsuit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A shame.

I was hoping the people bashing this book would back their statements up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a passage (one of many) that made me cringe. He's just moved "over the rail" to a 15/30 game:

[ QUOTE ]

First hand. I shuffle then look: 10-7. One middle position calls. I raise my position. He calls. The dealer flops 4-3-Q with two spades. The guy checks. I bet. He folds. Nice start. I jot a mental note that the guy plays rather weakly. He should have bet into me on principle, especially to test the new player. I would have folded, although a reraise would have been an aggressive alternative


[/ QUOTE ]
I've highlighted the moronic parts in case you couldn't find them on your own.

This book reads like the generic drivel of a misguided 1/2 player's myspace blog. The author's heart's in the right place, but none of the hands are even very interesting and the analysis of play and poker concepts ranges from painfully bad to average-at-best.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for replying.

good, we have a meaty point of disagreement.

to call this "moronic", or "the drivel of a misguided 1/2 limit myspace blog" is simply not correct.

checking a 7-10 button post, then checking and folding the turn is the sound, basic play, BUT i believe the way he played it is FINE (and maybe better): he's on a blind steal + one other caller(not raiser)= weak field. There's a good chance the blinds will fold (typical blind stealing philosophy), also he's forced into this pot, so why not raise if you have to call anyway? OK it costs a bet, but what about the value of the initiative against a weak field? the flop looks threatening, the guy checks, so he follows through with a bet, and wins.

is this a guy who is an unintelligent player, or a guy who simply has an aggressive style?

He calls his opponent "weak": OK i think tis is too judgemental of the charachter, but there's truth to his statement. I think a better play might have been to bet into the main charachter. Remember, it's heads up here, odds are no one hit the flop, i would think it's +EV to bet into the button, as you'd have to expect him to bet if you don't, as he should be playing against your non-bet.

and let's remember that this is NOT a book of conclusive best plays, its the depition of a frustrated yet intelligent burnout who only scrapes by.

my point: I dont think this guy is a bad player. I dont think you can find one instance of him overcalling with a bad draw, getting involved with a lose-lose hand (like calling a raise with A-6), or not understanding the neccessary elements of situations. This guy thinks pretty deeply about his plays, and I feel I'm a better player because of it.

primarily, this book has taught me the opportunities to play only against the opponent's cards.

Like I said before, I think the main reason some find this book disagreeable is because they have built their poker education on dry, clear cut mathematical principles of dense poker theory books. This is fine, and probably lucrative, but it doesn't mean there are those that can and do survive in different, more psychological styles.

[donger]

It doesn't say anywhere in the book that he posts, and most live games don't require you to post when you first join the table, only if you've sat out and missed the blinds. I'm pretty sure in this hand he voluntarily puts in two bets preflop.

I disagree with the book not because it doesn't agree fit with my dogmatic view of poker, but because it's poorly written, boring, and repetitive.

Also, if you have changed your game based on this book, I'm sorry. I can't comment very authoritatively on the NL&PL play, but the limit play sucks, big time. The author was pretty obviously a typical crappy B&M player and most of the plays he describe are tilty and awful.

Judging from your continued enthusiasm and overall lack of poker strategy posts, I am starting to think you might be this book's author.

[ewile]

I'm up to the point in France where he's on a good run...the inevitable downfall is going to be painful.

[acekingoffsuit]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't say anywhere in the book that he posts, and most live games don't require you to post when you first join the table, only if you've sat out and missed the blinds. I'm pretty sure in this hand he voluntarily puts in two bets preflop.

I disagree with the book not because it doesn't agree fit with my dogmatic view of poker, but because it's poorly written, boring, and repetitive.

Also, if you have changed your game based on this book, I'm sorry. I can't comment very authoritatively on the NL&PL play, but the limit play sucks, big time. The author was pretty obviously a typical crappy B&M player and most of the plays he describe are tilty and awful.

Judging from your continued enthusiasm and overall lack of poker strategy posts, I am starting to think you might be this book's author.

[/ QUOTE ]

haven't you ever been excited about something? Guess not. I've been passionate about many topics at 2+2, usually not theory topics, exactly because i think they are too pedantic. And why i continue to buy poker books, i continue to have the feeling that i tend to not connect with them, then I read this book, and i felt like someone, albeit more extremely, know how I feel. this has given me great satisfaction.

i'm sorry you are an unhappy individual who cant relate to such enthusiasm.

And what about all the others that have said this is one of the best books they've ever read? what, are they the authors best friends? lol i'd love to have written this book.

I'm sure that you are the mindless mathematical grinder that this charachter mocks, and your lack of psychological aptitude is the driving frustration to belittle those that have such understanding.

And i sent you a private message, asking for your input. Thanks for being a pr ick.

Go program your pokerbot, because from your picture and personality, you sure aren't getting laid. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]