Well, a few days ago I received my copy of Gambling Theory and Other Topics by Mason Malmuth. It is a book I've been planning on buying for a while but have put off. Gary recommended it to me so I figured what the hell.
Let me tell you, if you have not read this book, you can't call yourself a serious player (no offense to anyone, just trying to make a point). This book rockets to the top of my list of favorite poker books. And, the book covers other topics as well (BJ, etc.) so it is not just a poker manual. Actually, there isn't any info on how to play specific hands, etc. It outlines bankroll swings, lucky vs. unlucky, etc. It has a lot of math in it, but I like that so that's cool by me.
Anyway, I'm only up to page 120 out of approx 340 pages but it has been worth every penny. Here are some of the comments made in the text. I am trying to spark discussion here so please feel free to post your feelings on these statements.
"...only a small number of people are highly sucessful at gambling."
"...sucessful gambling is actually a balance of luck and skill."
"...most people who gamble a lot only rarely get the best of it, and their overall performance is almost always negative."
"...marginal (value) bets and raises --- where the real money is won in limit games."
"I believe that most sucessful gamblers are introverted. This is probably because they are using their minds and thinking instead of talking." (I love this one. Defintiely, one of my favorite quotes.)
"In limit poker, mistakes that cost you an extra bet or fail to get that extra bet for you are not always that important. ...However, mistakes that cost you the whole pot can be disastrous."
"...poor play - not a little bad luck - is usally the reason people steam."
I'm always looking for great books to read and I'm glad to see yet another positive recommendation for anything Mason writes.
To spark some conversation, it was posted here awhile back(perhaps by racer???) that your success at low limit is highly dependent on whether or not your draws hit. "Of course, you win more if your draws hit" you say, and I wholeheartedly agree, but finishing a session up or down, I have noticed at low limits, depends on your draws. Unless you have a very tight low limit table, people will play all sorts of crap and we never know whether our top pair, top kicker is in bad shape against Jack's and Two's from UTG when he checks and calls all the way. You need your draws to come through when 6 people stay for the turn to be profitable at these limits. Top pair with a real kicker just isnt good enough when 5-8 people see the flop.
I was at Luxor yesterday playing $2/4(yeah, yeah, I know I missed the final table, but I was in the room from 43 players to 9 wed and thurs) and despite the fact that several of the people seemed to at least have read a book or two, there were routinely 5+ people contesting the flop. I cant count how many times the flop was 8 handed. At a table like this, you just need the flop to hit you hard. The first 2-3 hours, I missed all my draws and sets and had them hit against me twice when I flopped top pair, top kicker against 2 opponents and three bet the flop both times. My stack was dwindling and very low before my raises started getting respect and I could see the flop with 2 other people and outplay them. Then my draws started hitting and I went up towards even. I finished the session down about 4 bets, but was down more than 25 at one point. I wasnt playing badly, my draws just werent hitting against 6 opponents. I started playing AXs from early since I could count on having enough callers to get the correct odds; this was also a deceptive play against the people who expected me to play by the book. I was raised and called after a rerasie on the river with the nuts by an overpair who had no idea what I was doing in EP with AXs. With a neutral table image, I'm starting to limp more out of position with good drawing hands since you almost always get the correct odds. This is a marginal play at best, but when you hit, you get paid off, and you get more action when you get a real EP hand(ie AA,KK).
I found Mason's book had the answer to the question that I wanted to know from day one: How bad can the swings get. One of the most important things this book offers is the formulas that give you answers that can be applied to nearly any situation or game.
I read some of Phil's book and decided to buy it as well. I disagree with some of it, but I do like some of his ideas(intermediate and advanced) that stand in contrast to S&M/Ciaffone type thinking about limit. This kind of book could help you switch gears and mix up your play in tough games or normal games where players are prone to tilt.
Hitting draws is very important for overall winning at low limits. The beauty of it is, you are almost always garaunteed the the odds to go for it with 6+ players seeing the flop. Problem is throwing away top pair when you know it isn't any good anymore
I know what you mean about playing hands such as Ax(s) from early position. This is playable provided you have a good read on the table (read: raise is unlikely and there is always 5+ players seeing a flop). Pacific is the epitome of where position goes out the window. Drawing hands can be played from alomst any position. However, one thing I have been thinking about recently in regards to starting hand requirements is that some hands hit so rarely, positional play helps to save money in the long run. Take Ax(s). You only hit 2 more of your suit on the flop 1 in 8 times. Even when you hit, you don't always make your flush (34.97% of hitting by river). The question is, can you make enough on the times that hit to cover the times it doesn't?
This is a marginal play at best, but when you hit, you get paid off, and you get more action when you get a real EP hand(ie AA,KK).
You make an excellent point here. The point of playing more marginal hands is not that you make money on those marginal hands...its that you make more money when the premium hands come based on your play of the marginal hands. This is a very dangerous area though as your play of the marginal hands must be near perfect or it could cost you in the long run. Sklansky makes his case for this in HFAP but I can't seem to find the exact quote right now.
Anyone else out there read Mason's book? I plan on posting details for determining bankroll and swings in the near future. In the meantime, here are a few more quotes I picked up today...
"Incidentally, typical players, even those who visit public cardrooms regularly, never fully realize the gap in skill that exists between them and the real experts"
"...very few players become good at more than one form of poker. But you should strive to become good at all major forms of (casino) poker."
I take pride in the fact that I never have to say "nice kicker" when I spike an Ace on the flop and call to the river to see AK/AQ. Given the read on my opponents and whether its an "any ace" game, I have no problem tossing my top pair out when the draw misses and an Ace hits. If I'm in EP and have a tight/aggressive image(which is nearly all of the time), I'll semibluff it, but get out of there at the first sign I'm beat.
I dont want to give the impression that AXs is on my playable list from EP, but I will play it once in awhile if I'm sure 5 other people will limp and stay for a bet when the draw hits. Just as important as that, as you pointed out, is knowing whether others at the table realize you are making a mistake limping from EP if you show it down.
