Is Gary Carson a Dirty Phrase?

[rakemeplz]

I believe the references to his book were minor in nature and probably nothing Ed Miller/David didn't know already. Just stuff that was in his book before Ed published his.

[Diana Ross Fan]

[ QUOTE ]


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.


[/ QUOTE ]

It was actually written as a reply to HEFAP. But SSHE is largely HEFAP edited for loose-passive games. I read all 3.

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was the highlight of his book. The discussions on poker theory and game conditions were better then the "do this, do that" parts of the book.

In a way it's better for me that most people here don't read his book. They don't know his ideas exist and can't see where strategy should be changed.

[betgo]

I think the book was pretty awful. The discussion of game conditions implies you can play extremely loose preflop at a loose game. There are a lot of bad books by weak players on playing low limit limit holdem, but this is one of the worst.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the references to his book were minor in nature and probably nothing Ed Miller/David didn't know already. Just stuff that was in his book before Ed published his.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets give some credit where it belongs - most of these ideas were first released to the poker world by Abul, who built upon the foundation of previous works.

[Diana Ross Fan]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the book was pretty awful. The discussion of game conditions implies you can play extremely loose preflop at a loose game. There are a lot of bad books by weak players on playing low limit limit holdem, but this is one of the worst.

[/ QUOTE ]

there are times where he is easy to misinterpret. I think that is one of them. (It's even easier to misinterpret some of the older 2+@ books). That hardly makes it "the worst"

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of bad books by weak players on playing low limit limit holdem, but this is one of the worst.

[/ QUOTE ]

B*llocks.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of bad books by weak players on playing low limit limit holdem, but this is one of the worst.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't go that far, but i still wouldn't recommend it at this stage, there is no reason too when the other books on the market surpass the redeeming values of Gary's book.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe the references to his book were minor in nature and probably nothing Ed Miller/David didn't know already. Just stuff that was in his book before Ed published his.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets give some credit where it belongs - most of these ideas were first released to the poker world by Abul, who built upon the foundation of previous works.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't remember if it was on his blog or RGP, but I seem to recall Carson blowing a gasket because he thought that SSHE described the concept of Morton's theorem without actually crediting Andy Morton.