Poker books

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
But I think that unless you are more of a math-minded player, this book will only be nominally useful.

[/ QUOTE ]You know, I felt like this book wasn't really THAT math oriented. Sure it had the odds and probabilities and stuff to prove some points; however, the content that was most useful was more focused on considering why I make some plays I do and how they really aren't getting me where I want to be

[ QUOTE ]
But Daniel argues Ted should have known his hand was good because there Was a 6 in Ted's hand and two on the board. The only Hand that Daniel could have played in the given situation would have been 66, not 6x. And since Ted knew 66 was impossible for Negreanu (because one in Ted's hand, two on the board), And that even Daniel wouldn't have played 6anything, he should have known he was good.

[/ QUOTE ]This in no way knocks "math guys".

[ QUOTE ]
The point is, the shortcomings of SOME math guys is that they see that said opponent will have hand that beats me XX percentage of the time, but they don't take into account if that particular hand would have been played by the opponent given the total action at the table. And that's what real poker is in my book.

[/ QUOTE ]Any poker player who doesn't take into account how a hand would be played isn't playing good poker. But this isn't the kind of poker 2+2 or Sklansky advocates. If you've read his material then you know he says math will only get you part of the way. Other skills are needed, and often more important (depending on the game).

[MCS]

Daniel Negreanu's dirty little secret is that he's really a smart math guy.

[Jazz June]

The board in that hand was A666x, Ted Forrest had AA for aces full and Daniel has the last ace for sixes full. Forrest didn't raise him on the end. Daniel's point was that because it had been raised pre-flop with shallow stacks the only hand with a 6 that he would play would be 66, but he couldn't have that as there were three 6's on the board.

[Jeff76]

I agree with Daniel's point here- Ted should have raised. However, this has nothing to do with the value math in poker, the usefullness of books, or the teachings of Sklansky, Miller, and the other 2+2 authors.

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
...it was a semi-disquised shot at the "math guys" in poker

[/ QUOTE ]

If you follow Daniel's writings seriously (e.g. CP articles, forum chat, daily blog)...you'll find that he rarely ever disguises much when it comes what he thinks of math/theoretical players. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

But, this thread digresses...

[udbrky]

<quote>
The point is, the shortcomings of SOME math guys is that they see that said opponent will have hand that beats me XX percentage of the time, but they don't take into account if that particular hand would have been played by the opponent given the total action at the table. And that's what real poker is in my book.
>

I doubt any of the "math camp" writers and players will disagree with you here. Each hand, you've got to play it back through your head before you can assess the probability your opponent has you beat. Otherwise, you won't arrive at a meaningful #.

[fungaimike56]

First, you are receiving, through this debate and discussion, some valuable insights about the recommended books.
Second, on a personal note, It took me ten years to progress from fish to small winner at limit hold-em. I can't imagine starting out in poker in No-Limit Hold-em as so many of you obviously have and are.
In his Essays, Mason Malmuth has always maintained that limit hold-em is harder to learn than no-limit because limit involves more decisions on more streets than does no-limit which boils down to pricing opponents in or out of the hand (I'm grossly oversimplifying here). He's written about no-limit players condescendingly killing some time at his limit table until a 'real' game started meaning no-limit. And the no-limit guy always gets killed.
When my all time poker hero Doyle Brunson labelled limit hold-em in SS1 as a 'mechanical game' he wasn't being complimentary. Yet that didn't keep him (and Bobby Baldwin in Limit) from writing the definitive works of the day in BOTH Limit and No-Limit.
Malmuth has observed that these days No-limit is commonly played with small buy-ins relative to the blinds which controls the size of the game. You have to beat a guy out of ten buy-ins of $200 instead of one of $2000 which 1: makes the games last and 2: changes strategy. And naturally Doyle, thirty years ago, has this covered cold. Super System 1, page 491 "...you'll have to adjust your play in a small game. You'll probably discover you'll get re-raised more when you raise in a small game than you will in a big game...Here's why: If I'm in a game where there's not much money on the table...a guy with big cards is going to move-in on me. They do it all the time in a small game. And when I've got a 7-6 or a 9-8 and someone bets the rest of his money at me...I can't call it. I'm not going to take two small connecting cards and try to beat two Kings, A-K and so forth when I can't win anything if I get a hand. So, in a case like that, I throw my hand away. And because of that...I have trouble winning in a game where there's not much money on the table.--But it's a totally different story in a big game. If I raise it $300 or $400...If he raises me $700 or $800...and I've got small connecting cards, I'll call, now. If we've both got $25,000 in front of us...then all I'll be putting in is about 5% of my money. And it's worth it. Because now...if I get a hand...I might be able to break him."
The point to all this is (aside from displaying my unending loyalty to Doyle Brunson and SuperSystem 1) to demonstrate that there is no dichotomy between so-called 'math' and 'instinct' players. You need to understand this because the best players understand each approach. This thread is very interesting and doesn't need to get sidetracked.
Finally, I see that in this month's 2+2 magazine Mason Malmuth has observed that some casinos are now spreading no-limit games without a cap on the buy-in which means it now is much easier for the good players to kill the bad, and with it, no-limit.

[phydaux]

[ QUOTE ]
I see that in this month's 2+2 magazine Mason Malmuth has observed that some casinos are now spreading no-limit games without a cap on the buy-in which means it now is much easier for the good players to kill the bad, and with it, no-limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, why would casinos want to kill the fish that pay the golden rake? (If I may mix a metaphore.)

BTW, nice hand fungai. Very well played.

[smbruin22]

[ QUOTE ]
Man, why would casinos want to kill the fish that pay the golden rake? (If I may mix a metaphore.)

BTW, nice hand fungai. Very well played.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed 100%.... and they don't make much more rake/fees at the higher games..... you'd think they'd want to allow weak players to keep their money, so they can spend it in the casino....

can't remember which book it was, but steven wynn's view of poker was pretty funny. thought it cut into casino action, although he was finally convinced that it brought in new people and big gamblers who like poker and casino games.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi fungaimike56:

One quick point. The structure of limit hold 'em addressed in SS1 is the old structure with one small blind. Todays games have two blinds including the much larger big blind. This means that while the game addressed in SS1 was mechanical in terms of strategy, todays game is not (and today's game came to be in the early 1980s). Thus I wouldn't be as enthusiastic about the limit strategy in SS1 as you are. It's not that it wasn't a good chapter, it's more that it doesn't apply very well to what is spread today.

Best wishes,
Mason