I picked up Gary Carson’s book “The Complete Book of Hold ‘em Poker” a few days ago, and I’ve been slowly but steadily reading through it. I’ll put up a formal book review of it in due time at CardsChat.com, but my book reviews are more on the format of “who is the book for” rather than a discussion about the ideas in the book, and this particular book has some interesting features that I want to comment on - and this blog is a good place to do it.

The book itself is not necessarily aimed at beginners (I wouldn’t recommend it as a first book to read on poker for a hold ‘em player) but it contains some refreshing perspectives on the game that I haven’t seen in other books. Specifically, he does a good job of illustrating a point that I’ve argued myself (and he does it a lot better than I have): The hands you play and how you play them should depend on the conditions at the table. Nobody disagrees with this, I hope, but Gary takes it a step further. He speaks extensively of how there are different theories about the game how they are not (necessarily) applicable at the same time. Two examples of such theories are “poker is a game of struggle for the antes” and “money in poker flows from the bad players to the good players.”

He lists eight such theories. The theories themselves aren’t what I found interesting (none of them should be news to an experienced player), but his point that they’re not necessarily true at the same time; two theories may both be true, but they may not be in play at simultaneously. This is the refreshing perspective that I mentioned, and the book has had me thinking about this for a few days now.

To give an example of what this means, let’s look at a situation in limit hold ‘em where everyone has folded to the button, as compared to deep stack no-limit hold ‘em where it is raised UTG. In the first case, the game is a struggle for the blinds - whoever is first to raise may well be a favorite to win the pot uncontested.When someone raised UTG in a no-limit game, however, the blinds are probably not the driving force. He’s hoping to get called by a worse hand, or to otherwise create a situation where he may win someone’s entire stack. The blinds are almost - but only almost - of no consequence. I think this is a good example of how the two theories mentioned above are in play in different scenarios.

Perhaps I’m cheating though, given that I”m using a limit situation and contrasting it with a no-limit one. But this is only for illustration purposes. Clearly there’s a middle ground, a non-discreet range where one theory slowly gives way to another. If we stick solely with no-limit, imagine what happens when the stacks start getting smaller in comparison to the blinds - as they do in a tournament. Gradually, it will become less and less about good players winning money from the bad players, and more and more about who is the first one to raise, and will everyone else fold?

This distinction - that just because something is true for one situation doesn’t mean that it holds true at all for another - matters very much. Many of us of course realize this intuitively or by learning. Few people will try to steal the blinds UTG in a no-limit game with deep stacks. But if we understand that what Gary Carson says is true, then we also understand how important it is to describe the game conditions when we discuss a hand or a situation.

“Is 8-8 a calling or raising hand in middle position?”

Hrmpf. I also like Carson’s emphasis on how we should think of hands not in terms of “rank” but in terms of “value.” Cold, hard, dollar value. Good stuff.

I’m about two-thirds through the book, and I find it an interesting read. I haven’t “learned” anything in the traditional sense, but it’s gotten me to think in new lines which is just as valuable - probably more - as picking up some specific piece of advice.