![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Parkinson's Disease
Apr. 23rd, 2005 12:59 pmI'm sure that it's a complete coincidence, but ever since I forked out £67 for "Power Poker" by Parkinson, Grey and Gardiner, I haven't been able to do a thing right in tournaments. Fortunately I've restricted myself to Stars FPP super satellites (since I have bundles of FPPs) and the value-added Betfair tournies. So, no damage done.
There are definite flaws in the book, although I would recommend it to much of the "dead money" that currently occupy seats in many tournaments. For a start, it overestimates the likelihood of you finding maniacs early on. It also overestimates your chance of doubling up. This means that you are VERY likely to end up short-stacked just at the time you are meant to be beginning to play poker (a la "Renaissance Man" style) in Gear 3.
Now, for a lot of players there is nothing wrong with this advice. There is a chapter that says "What to do if you are in danger", although it implies that this will happen only occasionally, rather than 75% of the time. The recommendations are good and along the lines of the Sklansky all-in system and the Andy Ward all-in system. Some minor differences, but sound advice from all three nevertheless.
The second major flaw in the book is that, in my experience, it is writing about tournaments that, online, are becoming a thing of the past. The idea is to win lots of uncontested pots by picking your spots to raise. The problem is, these opportunities are getting thinner on the ground. In SOME situations this system works, but not all. In other words, these guys are talking about a subset of a subset of a subset. (a type of freeze-out (lots of people scared to go out) in a type of tournament (a freeze-out with reasonably timed levels) in a type of poker (Hold 'em).
That doesn't mean that the book isn't worth the money. If you get just one gragment of useful advice from a poker book these days, then it is worth the money. And the "wrong" advice that it gives? Well, I'm happy about that as well.
And what is the "wrong" advice? Well, basically, if you follow the Parkinson game plan you are following the old principle used by winning tournament players in the 1990s, which is to get your money in first on the principle that you have two ways to win. Usually your opponent will fold, but if he doesn't, you have a fighting chance. This used to work when your opponents duly folded, as planned, but, as the saying goes, a semi-bluff loses most of its strength if your opponent is unlikely to fold. And, in most parts of this book, it advises you to fold if someone makes an all-in move on you. As Parkinson (I'm sure that this is his line rather than Grey's or Gardiner's) says, utterly incorrectly, it's no good getting 2-to-1 about a 6-to-4 shot if you are out of the tournament if you lose.
This is utter bollocks, but it's a prevalent thought amongst a number of top-flight tournament players. There are a few (Ivey, that young Finnish player Huppi, Ferguson) who have spotted the flaw in the logic, but others, such as Men The Master, Cloutier, McEvoy, the Mob apart from Beevers, stick to the concept that they can win tournaments by turning down such "all-or-nothing" situations, because they will be able to steal uncontested pots later on. Then, when they bang in an all-in raise with K9 suited on the button, they are utterly gobsmacked when they are called by A9 off. "How could he call with that?" they cry (because they themselves would have folded....). Because the maths are on their side, boys. The maths are on their side.
Although, next month, they might not be.
There are definite flaws in the book, although I would recommend it to much of the "dead money" that currently occupy seats in many tournaments. For a start, it overestimates the likelihood of you finding maniacs early on. It also overestimates your chance of doubling up. This means that you are VERY likely to end up short-stacked just at the time you are meant to be beginning to play poker (a la "Renaissance Man" style) in Gear 3.
Now, for a lot of players there is nothing wrong with this advice. There is a chapter that says "What to do if you are in danger", although it implies that this will happen only occasionally, rather than 75% of the time. The recommendations are good and along the lines of the Sklansky all-in system and the Andy Ward all-in system. Some minor differences, but sound advice from all three nevertheless.
The second major flaw in the book is that, in my experience, it is writing about tournaments that, online, are becoming a thing of the past. The idea is to win lots of uncontested pots by picking your spots to raise. The problem is, these opportunities are getting thinner on the ground. In SOME situations this system works, but not all. In other words, these guys are talking about a subset of a subset of a subset. (a type of freeze-out (lots of people scared to go out) in a type of tournament (a freeze-out with reasonably timed levels) in a type of poker (Hold 'em).
That doesn't mean that the book isn't worth the money. If you get just one gragment of useful advice from a poker book these days, then it is worth the money. And the "wrong" advice that it gives? Well, I'm happy about that as well.
And what is the "wrong" advice? Well, basically, if you follow the Parkinson game plan you are following the old principle used by winning tournament players in the 1990s, which is to get your money in first on the principle that you have two ways to win. Usually your opponent will fold, but if he doesn't, you have a fighting chance. This used to work when your opponents duly folded, as planned, but, as the saying goes, a semi-bluff loses most of its strength if your opponent is unlikely to fold. And, in most parts of this book, it advises you to fold if someone makes an all-in move on you. As Parkinson (I'm sure that this is his line rather than Grey's or Gardiner's) says, utterly incorrectly, it's no good getting 2-to-1 about a 6-to-4 shot if you are out of the tournament if you lose.
This is utter bollocks, but it's a prevalent thought amongst a number of top-flight tournament players. There are a few (Ivey, that young Finnish player Huppi, Ferguson) who have spotted the flaw in the logic, but others, such as Men The Master, Cloutier, McEvoy, the Mob apart from Beevers, stick to the concept that they can win tournaments by turning down such "all-or-nothing" situations, because they will be able to steal uncontested pots later on. Then, when they bang in an all-in raise with K9 suited on the button, they are utterly gobsmacked when they are called by A9 off. "How could he call with that?" they cry (because they themselves would have folded....). Because the maths are on their side, boys. The maths are on their side.
Although, next month, they might not be.
