The new Parkinson Grey Gardner book
I wrote a an entry last night, but then the machine decided to destroy it. Then I entered a comment on Andy Ward's blog, and the site wiped that out as well. Is this a conspiracy to stop me getting anything published?
So, this is being written on Notepad as a precaution. Knowing my luck, my machine will crash instead.
The office computer arrived this evening. But it's still in the box. Trying to install complicated technical equipment when tired is not a good idea. Far more sensible to try to blow your wad at PLO. This was mainly because there was no action in the limit hold 'em, so I thought I might as well accumulate a couple of bonus dollars at PLO. Yesterday it was a case of playing PLO while awaiting a space at two $3-$6 tables.
I seem to have accumulated a couple of hundred bucks in the past four days, although it doesn't feel like it. Anyway, in a fit of madness I splashed out £67 for the new Parkinson/Gardner/Grey/May online tournament poker book. In a sense, I'm glad that it's so expensive, because it will mean that fewer people will read it. In another sense, I'm a little disappointed, in that I had figured out much of what is written in the book (that part that I have read so far). However, I will admit that I haven't applied all of the principles, even though I know them to bet correct!
In other areas, I positively disagree with their conclusions, but I am, paradoxically, pleased about this. Parkinson takes the "Gap" theory to extremes and basically never wants to call; he wants to "get his chips in first". This is because of the old adage that, if you call and lose, you are out. So he thinks you should not call when you are getting 2-to-1 about a 6-to-4 shot, if losing would eliminate you.
Although there are certain mathematical areas where this line is true (because the value of the chips does not absolutely match the value of your equity) it is not a truth to be universally acknowledged. But I am perfectly happy for this trio to carry on putting the argument forward.
However (and to their credit), what these guys are doing is telling you how to make money in tournaments. And the system that they propose is a good one (it should be - I've developed a very similar theory in my own play :-)). The strengths of the book are its proposal that you play cheapo tournaments in a single specified gear, so that playing in that gear becomes automatic, and when you subsequently play the important tournaments, you can shift gears easily. The other good proposals are that you should take detailed notes on every opponent, and adjust your play in the later stages according to who is in the blinds and the style of your opponents' play, rather than the actual cards you hold. Since the aim is to win uncontested pots through raising, rather than win contested pots through better hands at the finish, this makes a lot of sense. I must do it myself.
The book also allocates Mondays to studying your previous weekk's tournaments. A very good plan, but the Lord Copper problem comes into play here (up to a point....). All this will murder my hourly rate, at least temporarily. I can't make this "extra" to my existing online play, my writing, my other stuff -- hell, I hardly have a life as it is. So it means that online limit play will have to be at least partly given up, and this flows straight through to the bottom line. In other words, following this book will be worthwhile only if I want to spend some considerable time becoming a top tournament player.
Now, that would be nice. For a start, you get more comps in Vegas as a known tournament player. Secondly, the opposition is universally weaker in tournaments than in cash limit (although whether this flows through to a better hourly rate is less certain). And it would be an extra string to my bow. Just too few hours in the day.
So, this is being written on Notepad as a precaution. Knowing my luck, my machine will crash instead.
The office computer arrived this evening. But it's still in the box. Trying to install complicated technical equipment when tired is not a good idea. Far more sensible to try to blow your wad at PLO. This was mainly because there was no action in the limit hold 'em, so I thought I might as well accumulate a couple of bonus dollars at PLO. Yesterday it was a case of playing PLO while awaiting a space at two $3-$6 tables.
I seem to have accumulated a couple of hundred bucks in the past four days, although it doesn't feel like it. Anyway, in a fit of madness I splashed out £67 for the new Parkinson/Gardner/Grey/May online tournament poker book. In a sense, I'm glad that it's so expensive, because it will mean that fewer people will read it. In another sense, I'm a little disappointed, in that I had figured out much of what is written in the book (that part that I have read so far). However, I will admit that I haven't applied all of the principles, even though I know them to bet correct!
In other areas, I positively disagree with their conclusions, but I am, paradoxically, pleased about this. Parkinson takes the "Gap" theory to extremes and basically never wants to call; he wants to "get his chips in first". This is because of the old adage that, if you call and lose, you are out. So he thinks you should not call when you are getting 2-to-1 about a 6-to-4 shot, if losing would eliminate you.
Although there are certain mathematical areas where this line is true (because the value of the chips does not absolutely match the value of your equity) it is not a truth to be universally acknowledged. But I am perfectly happy for this trio to carry on putting the argument forward.
However (and to their credit), what these guys are doing is telling you how to make money in tournaments. And the system that they propose is a good one (it should be - I've developed a very similar theory in my own play :-)). The strengths of the book are its proposal that you play cheapo tournaments in a single specified gear, so that playing in that gear becomes automatic, and when you subsequently play the important tournaments, you can shift gears easily. The other good proposals are that you should take detailed notes on every opponent, and adjust your play in the later stages according to who is in the blinds and the style of your opponents' play, rather than the actual cards you hold. Since the aim is to win uncontested pots through raising, rather than win contested pots through better hands at the finish, this makes a lot of sense. I must do it myself.
The book also allocates Mondays to studying your previous weekk's tournaments. A very good plan, but the Lord Copper problem comes into play here (up to a point....). All this will murder my hourly rate, at least temporarily. I can't make this "extra" to my existing online play, my writing, my other stuff -- hell, I hardly have a life as it is. So it means that online limit play will have to be at least partly given up, and this flows straight through to the bottom line. In other words, following this book will be worthwhile only if I want to spend some considerable time becoming a top tournament player.
Now, that would be nice. For a start, you get more comps in Vegas as a known tournament player. Secondly, the opposition is universally weaker in tournaments than in cash limit (although whether this flows through to a better hourly rate is less certain). And it would be an extra string to my bow. Just too few hours in the day.
