Collections
Poker1 library
“Added Fast” purpose: Allow Mike Caro to post spontaneous thoughts, tips, and information.
- Includes Mike’s notes to himself.
- Titles begin with “Fast,” plus date.
- If expanded later, link is at bottom.
Also see: → Why a Poker1 “Fast” category? | → All Poker1 “Fast” entries
Okay, so today NoDepositPoker.co.uk publishes a piece by Steve Ruddock praising me and saying that I belong in the Poker Hall of Fame. (You can go here to read it: → Poker Legends: Mike Caro Earned the Title “The Mad Genius of Poker”)
Fine so far. I like praise and I agree with the PHOF part. I’m not modest. But I read down through the favorable stuff and I come to this:
“A lot of the theories Caro espoused over the years are looney tunes (utter hogwash) and have been proven wrong, but Caro was one of the few people who was willing to test conventional wisdom and test it in new ways, such as his use of computer simulations.” (See update note at bottom of this entry.)
Huh? WTF … no, wait! WTF won’t suffice in this case. This requires a full “What the fuck?”
Guy to guy
Steve, Steve — I’m talking straight at you Steve Ruddock, heart to heart, guy to guy, and your reply is welcome below. Exactly which theories that I’ve espoused have been proven wrong? Who proved them wrong?
You see, I take great pride in the research I do. All I can remember is that what I’ve published has been proven right — time after time, sometimes years later. I stand ready to retract, correct, and apologize for anything I’ve ever written about poker strategy or theory (except for temporary glitches I’ve self-corrected) that’s not accurate.
I know you meant well and that, most likely, you’ve been influenced by words you heard from others. Gossip gets around. But where’s the merit to this accusation?
So, I’d be honored if you let me set you straight. None of my teaching is wrong. It can’t be, because I don’t use guesswork to devise strategy and when I declare something to be unquestionably true, it’s — you guessed what I’m going to say, right? — unquestionably true.
Most productive
And just so you know, I haven’t faded into obscurity. It was my choice to become a hermit in the Ozarks, but during these past dozen years I’ve done the most productive poker analysis in my life. I’ve also spent much of the last six years working on a methodology that protects online players from all forms of cheating. Hopefully, you’ll hear more about that soon and revise your opinions.
Now, Steve, I know you meant your article to be complimentary. And I accept it as such, in good spirit. There are many pioneers in many fields whose early theories have later been invalidated. There’s no disgrace in that. However, I’m not one of those.
— MC | Follow-up link: → None
Update note: (2014-09-24) Steve Ruddock has gracious responded with several comments below. You might find our back-and-forth discussion interesting.
He has also modified the original text of his article — the part quoted above.
It now reads: “A lot of the theories Caro espoused over the years are looney tunes and have been proven wrong, and in many cases Mike Caro himself no longer adheres to these strategies, but more importantly, Caro was one of the few people who was willing to test conventional wisdom and test it in new ways, such as his use of computer simulations.”
I’m still confused about which theories have been proven wrong and which I no longer adhere to, but I appreciate Steve’s willingness to make those changes without even being asked to do so.
Also see: → Why a Poker1 “Fast” category? | → All Poker1 “Fast” entries