gambling theory & getting the best of it

[jordiepop]

Is there a dif between these two books. the jackets really sound the same. has anyone read either of these??

[npc]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a dif between these two books.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they are different books.

[ QUOTE ]
the jackets really sound the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, other than they were written by different authors.

[ QUOTE ]
has anyone read either of these??

[/ QUOTE ]

A review of each:
http://www.jetcafe.org/~npc/reviews/...ng_theory.html
http://www.jetcafe.org/~npc/reviews/...est_of_it.html

[jfk]

It has been a while since I've read either so I don't remember the specifics well enough to give an exact breakdown.

There are certainly similarities as well as marked differences. Both are quite rich in quantitative material though Mason does a very nice job in balancing that with well considered anecdotal chapters, (like "the Tortoise and the Hare"), which are a welcome departure from some of the math.

To memory, Sklansky has a more methodical approach in his presentation of the material.

If I remember correctly, Sklansky addresses books, parimutuels and some casino type gaming whereas Mason stays more with cards, including pai gow, which is beatable in California rooms.

Mason's book is a real sleeper both in terms of the value of the information and the quality of the writing. For whatever reason Mason's made the deeper impression on me of the two.

Both books are worth reading. There is very sobering material about variance and the potential for long downswings which is very useful for anyone trying to understand the implications of making poker (or other gaming) their sole source of income.

[larrondo]

Getting the best of it is one of my favorites. I found it much more helpful to my poker game than Gambling Theory. His intro to math was very helpful as were some of the following essays.

[John Rwanda]

Getting the Best of It covers "mathematical expectation/expected value" much better than Gambling Theory and Other Topics. But the latter covers "standard deviation' very well but the former does not cover it at all.

[deacsoft]

I'm looking forward to getting both of these very soon.

[Lax67]

GTOT does offer sobering information about what a player can expect to win (or lose) given limits, win rate, variance, and amount of time devoted to playing. It showed me, quantitatively, that there's a difference between being a winning player and being a player that can make a living. I think as a beginning poker player I got lulled into thinking that I could rake in thousands of dollars per year playing 2/4. Working through my win rate/variance calculations showed me that to make substantial money playing poker I need to improve my game, increase my win rate, play at higher limits, and play more hours. Sounds simple, but I don't think this is obvious to new players. In Poker Essays 3, MM touches on this in "Playing for Minimum Wage"

Btw - Poker Essays 1-3 will help pull a lot of 2+2 concepts together and I recommend them along with GTOT.