aces and kings: dumbest poker book ever?

[yeffy 0]

Aces and Kings was a pretty useless read.One of a Kind and Professor, the Banker, etc. are both absolute must reads. Well written and full of fantastic stories.Also someone mentioned Badbeats and Lucky Draws by Hellmuth....if you read his old cardplayer columns don't bother. The book is nothing but a reproduction of his hand of the week columns. Only the hands written by other players are new material....and even one of those is the column Layne Flack wrote for Phil. I f you haven't read them there are some good stories but you can get most of those in the CP archives.

[myenemy 0]

I read A's & K's, it had decent entertainment value, also liked the format, each chapter a short story of each player. Some interesting factoids, quick and easy and not a total waste of time but doesnt really blow your hair back.I know its strategy but what have people heard about Action Dan's Books?

[anytwocards 0]

I'm a game theorist, so I feel I have at least some authority on the subject. Game theory is a collection of tools used to analyze strategic interaction. The primary contribution of game theory to the analysis of strategic interaction is the development of equilibria, which are points of stability. That is, an equilibrium is a set of strategies that all players are happy with and would continue to use when presented with the same set of circumstances. While a firm understanding of game-theoretic principles is quite helpful in playing poker, knowing game theory is of little help on an individual hand. For example, by understanding how partial information equilibria come about, one can determine that it is optimal to "mix it up" and it also gives some indication of how to do so. However, because of the extremely complicated nature of the game of poker (usually, real world situations are significantly simplified so as to make them tractable before they are analyzed), determining an equilibrium is virtually impossible. I know there have been some strides made in the AI branch for limit poker. I'm not convinced that this is even a possibility for NL games. It would have to be developed in a similar way to poki, using AI, but NL is a way way way more complicated game from a game theorist's point of view. Even if you knew what the optimal strategies were, you would not be able to remember them. Some people have a hard time remembering what starting hands are good (probably not the people here). Can you imagine how hard it would be to remember what the optimal play is for any situation you could be in? (position makes the situation different, as do previous bets....terribly complicated to formalize) This is all aside from the fact that the equilibrium strategies are not necessarily optimal if your opponent plays sub-optimally.In summary, a firm understanding of game theory makes Ferguson a better player, no doubt about that. However, on this one hand, it probably had nothing to do with his play. Apt descriptions of why he did what he did have already been given above and involved no game theory. Game theory can be helpful in formulating your overall strategy for poker, but will not help much in determining the "exactly correct" play on a given hand.

[lax 0]

I'm a game theorist, so I feel I have at least some authority on the subject.  Game theory is a collection of tools used to analyze strategic interaction.  The primary contribution of game theory to the analysis of strategic interaction is the development of equilibria, which are points of stability.  That is, an equilibrium is a set of strategies that all players are happy with and would continue to use when presented with the same set of circumstances.  While a firm understanding of game-theoretic principles is quite helpful in playing poker, knowing game theory is of little help on an individual hand.  For example, by understanding how partial information equilibria come about, one can determine that it is optimal to "mix it up" and it also gives some indication of how to do so.  However, because of the extremely complicated nature of the game of poker (usually, real world situations are significantly simplified so as to make them tractable before they are analyzed), determining an equilibrium is virtually impossible.  I know there have been some strides made in the AI branch for limit poker.  I'm not convinced that this is even a possibility for NL games.  It would have to be developed in a similar way to poki, using AI, but NL is a way way way more complicated game from a game theorist's point of view.  Even if you knew what the optimal strategies were, you would not be able to remember them.  Some people have a hard time remembering what starting hands are good (probably not the people here).  Can you imagine how hard it would be to remember what the optimal play is for any situation you could be in? (position makes the situation different, as do previous bets....terribly complicated to formalize)  This is all aside from the fact that the equilibrium strategies are not necessarily optimal if your opponent plays sub-optimally.In summary, a firm understanding of game theory makes Ferguson a better player, no doubt about that.  However, on this one hand, it probably had nothing to do with his play.  Apt descriptions of why he did what he did have already been given above and involved no game theory.  Game theory can be helpful in formulating your overall strategy for poker, but will not help much in determining the "exactly correct" play on a given hand.

cliffs?

[anytwocards 0]

Cliffs: Game theory had nothing to do with Ferguson's play on that one particular hand.

[haganation 0]

I'm a game theorist, so I feel I have at least some authority on the subject.  Game theory is a collection of tools used to analyze strategic interaction.  The primary contribution of game theory to the analysis of strategic interaction is the development of equilibria, which are points of stability.  That is, an equilibrium is a set of strategies that all players are happy with and would continue to use when presented with the same set of circumstances.  While a firm understanding of game-theoretic principles is quite helpful in playing poker, knowing game theory is of little help on an individual hand.  For example, by understanding how partial information equilibria come about, one can determine that it is optimal to "mix it up" and it also gives some indication of how to do so.  However, because of the extremely complicated nature of the game of poker (usually, real world situations are significantly simplified so as to make them tractable before they are analyzed), determining an equilibrium is virtually impossible.  I know there have been some strides made in the AI branch for limit poker.  I'm not convinced that this is even a possibility for NL games.  It would have to be developed in a similar way to poki, using AI, but NL is a way way way more complicated game from a game theorist's point of view.  Even if you knew what the optimal strategies were, you would not be able to remember them.  Some people have a hard time remembering what starting hands are good (probably not the people here).  Can you imagine how hard it would be to remember what the optimal play is for any situation you could be in? (position makes the situation different, as do previous bets....terribly complicated to formalize)  This is all aside from the fact that the equilibrium strategies are not necessarily optimal if your opponent plays sub-optimally.In summary, a firm understanding of game theory makes Ferguson a better player, no doubt about that.  However, on this one hand, it probably had nothing to do with his play.  Apt descriptions of why he did what he did have already been given above and involved no game theory.  Game theory can be helpful in formulating your overall strategy for poker, but will not help much in determining the "exactly correct" play on a given hand.

Does game theory have anything to do with Ferguson putting all my chips in the middle on a gutshot draw on last night's Full Tilt $109 MTT last night? Didn't think so. Even the people who sit regularly with top pros and known players not only do not know what their future actions will be, they know even less about the motivation behind said future actions.Jesus is a great poker player with a solid grasp of some difficult concepts, not an egghead with 32 degrees who plays poker.

[dank773 0]

Since this post seems to have become about Jesus' suck out on the final hand of the main event, let's not forget that this was his 2nd big suck out with all the chips in the middle, the first being when has salvaged a chop with T.J.