Review of Ace on the River

[barryg1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bobdibble and I have been trying

[/ QUOTE ]


don't forget me.

info on 'you should tip delaers and chip-runners' and 'dont blow all your winnings on strippers or betting sports' did not really provide me any significant insight either.


Again...I enjoyed the book relatively speaking. But this 'next level' stuff regarding the psychology I'm just not getting because I didn't see anything that revolutionary in there.

[/ QUOTE ]

If really amazes me that many people read things that I didn't write, because that was their own understanding of the subjects I talked about. For instance, when I talked about the pragmatic value of tipping and the information and assistance you can get from it, you and others thought I was talking about how the people in the casino need the extra money to supplement their normal income.

The problem with my book (and probably with any book) is that it doesn't apply to everyone's situation. I thought I did a good job of explaining what I think about in my life in poker and as I think through individual hands. It is critical for me to be able to think about the relevant things very quickly. However, people who primarily play limit hold'em on the Internet are playing a game that is more about hand values against faceless opponents.

I can't even read the books you guys think are good. They don't apply to me and the poker I play. But I certainly have made them recommended reading for my son, who has been playing for a year.

When I discussed the 2+2 books with Mason and David, I said the problem I have with them is that they break down at high levels. They then said that if people read my book without acquiring the fundamentals that can be found in their material, they will not get much out of my book, and they will try to make sophisticated plays on hands that they will lose money with in the long run.

There really is some good material in my book on how to think and what not to think about. Spend a few years in live games and read my book again and see if you get more out of it.

In the meantime, lend it out to friends who either don't know much about poker, or have spent many years playing in casinos. Those people will enjoy it.

Barry

[Piers]

I thought the book was well presented and interested. Aimed mainly at the B&M, its not going to revolutionise the game, but a lot of people will be helped by it.

10/10 is over the top, which I don’t think is that much of a criticism.

[bobdibble]

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, when I talked about the pragmatic value of tipping and the information and assistance you can get from it

[/ QUOTE ]

Acutally, I did find that part interesting, but it won't be relevant to me for a long time. There are always big donators in the live games in which I play, so I don't need calls from the floor letting me know when a live one has come in. Mabye once I build my BR up to the point where I can safely play the local 2/400 game, this particular tip will be more relevant.

Barry, I'm curious if you have read Inside the Poker Mind (2+2), and if so, what are your opinions the non-strategy sections?

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't even read the books you guys think are good. They don't apply to me and the poker I play. But I certainly have made them recommended reading for my son, who has been playing for a year.

When I discussed the 2+2 books with Mason and David, I said the problem I have with them is that they break down at high levels.

. . .

There really is some good material in my book on how to think and what not to think about. Spend a few years in live games and read my book again and see if you get more out of it.

In the meantime, lend it out to friends who either don't know much about poker, or have spent many years playing in casinos. Those people will enjoy it.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

There are two axes that are getting confounded here -- and I think that to some degree, you're responsible for confounding them with some of the comments you have made.

The first is High-Level-Pro vs Middle-Limit or Low-Limit player.

The second is Brick & Mortar player vs Internet player.

When you make statements like "I can't read the books you like, but I recommend them to my (implied: novice) son", "The 2+2 books break down at high levels", "I have had a few detractors say they knew almost everything in my book. If they fully understood, they wouldn't be middle-limit players anymore" and of course the Phil Ivey quote, "It will go over their heads", you imply strongly that those that do not appreciate your book are missing out on something deep, difficult, and profound.

On the other hand, you've also made much more reasonable (in my opinion) comments to the effect that your book will not be as appreciated by internet players as there is less player interaction in such an environment. You have not spelled it out, but I would imagine that among internet players there is less risk of ruining the game by insulting the fish, less risk of getting pulled into poor social habits that hurt one's bankroll, and of course, live players in general build up their bankroll slower, and so the danger of losing it all due to taking shots at higher limits is much greater.

It's a bruised-ego thing. We don't like being told that because we don't fully appreciate the material in your book, we're destined to be mid-limit chumps forever. We also fail to see how so many people so easily get trapped into blowing huge portions of their bankroll on women, sports betting, craps, and staking crappy players, all while chasing tourists away from their tables by being insulting or condescending. It is not that we don't appreciate that many, many poker players have fallen into those traps -- it's just that your advice seems pretty damn obvious, at least from behind a computer screen [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img].

We also appreciate the attempt to discuss psychology -- and there are important psychological issues to be dealt with, even for Internet players, when it comes to playing your best/dealing with tilt -- it's just that in general I don't think those two areas are dealt with in much depth in your book, especially compared to what we have found in other materials.

That pretty much sums it up. I think we both agree that internet players will get less from much of your book, and even that live players must be able to appreciate the advice you give about playing in a B&M, and the dangers therein. Where I disagree is that said lessons are very profound, or difficult to learn [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]. Definitely not "over my head", and not what's stopping me from being more than a mid-limit player. Not that I play live, but what'd stop me from being a upper-limit player would have more to do with my complete lack of observational skills (a tell? What's a tell?) than the risk I'd blow my bankroll at the craps table.

[boondoggle]

Barry,

I just asked my wife and she said she mailed it 2-3 weeks ago.
I included a printed copy of your comment in this thread stating that I should return it for a refund along with my return address.

cheers
Boon

[barryg1]

Let me give you one example of next-level thinking in my book, that you can get from following my thoughts about poker. At the level of the books that are out there, you get an idea of a zero-play: a bet or raise that will only get called by a hand that beats it. This may happen when you have a pretty good hand. The books out there will recommend that you check, and they are right.

But at the next level, as I show in some examples, you need to be aware of times when you don't have a very good hand, but your opponent has a hand that will not call your bet or raise. Most players don't tie these two situations together properly. You need to have the same betting pattern in both of these situations that come up so frequently in no-limit hold'em and seven-card stud.

The expertise comes in knowing when these situations exist and when they don't.

There are players who take this to an extreme, and go through long sequences of getting the last bet in, being called on the river, and saying, "Take it."

I don't think players who don't like my book are stupid. I think it just doesn't hit them where they currently are. The funny thing is, that although there have been many detractors in this thread, it has actually been good for my book. I never said my book would be the Holy Grail of poker, although some people have attributed such quotes to me. This lead to high expectations that could not be met. This thread has lowered prospective readers' expectations, which is a good thing.

The second good thing for sales is that this thread created controversy, which is always good for attention and results in extra readers who want to be able to form their own opinions.

Of course, I would rather have everyone say how much they liked my book, but I intently listened to any criticism from readers before the book was out so I could improve it, and I'm still listening so I can see how it could be better.

Barry

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
The expertise comes in knowing when these situations exist and when they don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, that expertise only really comes from hard-fought experience. The road one travels in his poker career can't be safely mapped out, and any book that attempts to do so will inevitably fall short. When I read a poker book, I seek to be educated or entertained. I would never expect or want a book on poker to determine my level exposure to the game, I'd prefer to find out for myself through trial and error. That's really the only way it seems to happen effectively.

Of course, in one's poker odyssey, it helps to have read Theory of Poker to know what many others know about the game, and A. Alvarez' contribution to poker history with The Biggest Game in Town is invaluable. But there is no amount of reading, analyzing, dreaming or discussing about poker that can truly prepare someone for what it's like to get out there and play full time and for high-stakes. I spent the duration of the WSOP in Vegas this year--my first time at the Series--and it was certainly a heavy experience, alternately trying and exhilirating. Of course, I had to battle with many of the vices and traps that you discuss in your book, but reading your book beforehand would probably not have helped me avoid them. I really believe that most people will succeed or fail in poker based on how well they naturally plug the leaks in their game and lifestyle. I respect the fact that you attempted to guide people through these pitfalls in your book, but believing that your words will succeed in this effort is an idealistic and slightly hubristic notion. That partly why I think a lot of people on this forum have harbored a negative reaction to the book.

I'd like to mention that I truly respect what you've done in the way of charitable deeds with your tournament winnings and your efforts to open the mind of the poker community as a whole. You totally embody the passage from Dylan's great "Ramblin' Gamblin' Willie" ..."He supported all his children, and all their mothers, too/He wore no rings and fancy things like other gamblers wore/He spread his money far and wide to help the sick and poor." So I'm not trying to condemn your book (or get a refund)--and I hope it sells well--I'm just trying to outline why I think your goals in writing the book are a bit askew.

[TStoneMBD]

I think that I may have a comment that will bridge the gap in understanding the expectations of your book between us internet players and yourself Barry. As a person who started his poker career in live casinos and moved to internet play, I do have some limited experience and entirely realize that both lifestyles are very different.

Your book does not push the envelop for the new generation of players, not necessarily because they play on the internet, but as a whole, aspiring players are developing faster than players of previous generations. Your book would have been excellent 10 years ago, or even sooner, but much of the advice is no longer as applicable to most of the players you are targetting to; young, gifted players.

Players who have been brought up through brick and mortar have gone through entirely different learning practices than those brought up in the internet age. Many casino players are mainly self-taught. They learn experience as they go and they do not have guidance, or their guidance is from a limited source. The new race of exploding players are coming from a generation in which information and knowledge is earned at a much faster and advanced pace.

I believe that I can speak confidently when I say that Twoplustwo.com is the innovative leader for aspiring poker players during the internet age. It may surprise you that the life lessons presented in this book are not as well accepted as you would have liked. Those who have used the Phil Ivey quote saying that this book will go over many player's heads as a way to discredit any poor reviews is a copout in my opinion. I am willing to accept that in my situation, this book may have indeed went over my head, but I do not feel that way and am trying to review your book from an honest and objective standpoint. Whatever my, or our reviews are worth to you is for you to decide.

Your intentions for writing this book are not being questioned by me. I believe that you tried to give something back to the poker community, and you certainly have. However, I do believe that you could have performed better. When writing this book, I'm sure that the responses of your readers would be of great praise, as you have worked hard and feel that you deserve it. I empathize with you here and I hope that any negative remarks you receive do not deter you from writing any books in the future, but rather inspire stronger work from you or others who plan on writing in the future.

I have rated your book as above average, but I feel that poker literature as a whole is very much lacking. In many books, there is very little technical analysis. Instead, there are many broad and basic concepts. There are many players such as yourself who understand poker on levels far greater than what has been presented in text. Maybe it is difficult to translate this understanding into language. After reading 16 books, I feel that David Sklansky has performed the best when trying to express advanced concepts. However, it could still be improved on. If you are trying to improve the play of high-stakes players, it means that you need to present information that they are not aware of. That is a hard thing to do. Trying to teach life lessons to these players will certainly help people who need help in this area, but you should realize that you will be disappointing the other players at this level who need to improve their technical abilities moreso than their viewpoints on life.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I would rather have everyone say how much they liked my book, but I intently listened to any criticism from readers before the book was out so I could improve it, and I'm still listening so I can see how it could be better.

[/ QUOTE ]



and this is why my respect for you has absolutely soared.
Your open-mindedness in this area is admirable.


Grisga very nicely articulated many of my feeling on the book.

I think there are other issues that you have touched on in this thread that would make great book material. Your ideas on the importance (or lack thereeof) of some of the 2+2 books in the highest stakes games is very interesting to me too (for example).

[barryg1]

[ QUOTE ]
Your ideas on the importance (or lack thereeof) of some of the 2+2 books in the highest stakes games is very interesting to me too (for example).

[/ QUOTE ]

Twoplustwo books serve their readership well. The difference is partly due to the structure we play that puts a premium on taking the correct actions rather than starting with the best hand.

We try to avoid structures or games that will allow a tight player to win. Our stud games normally have a 1 to 4 ante-to-small bet ratio, and the ante in the no-limit games is generally equal to the small blind. We also play gambling games like Omaha, Omaha 8/b, and triple draw -- games in which you can win playing suspect starting hands if your opponents don't bet their hands aggressively enough.

I think this training carries over to tournaments well, where the people playing on the values of their cards get ground down and have trouble getting ahold of a lot of chips.

Barry