I want to calculate Laurent expansion of $\frac{1}{z-1}$ thtat are valid in the annuli
$\begin{align} (a) & \;\;1<|z|<3\\ (b) & \;\;0<|z-3|<2 \end{align}$
For part $(a)$ since $|z|>1$ we use the trick $$\frac{1}{z-1} = \frac{1}{z(1-\frac{1}{z})}$$ which can be turned into a geometric series.
For part $(b)$ why did the book used $$\frac{1}{z-1} = \frac{1}{2(1+\frac{z-3}{2})}.$$ I know $|\frac{z-3}{2}| < 1$ but why can't the the method in part $(a)$ be applied here, since we also have $|z| > 1$.
The original problem was $\frac{1}{(z-1)(z-3)}$ I think this might effect the two different calculations because $z$ can not equal to $3$ in the expansion? And suppose we do not have the factor $(z-3)$ on the bottom, could the method in $(a)$ applied to $(b)$?
Note: The regions of convergence are somewhat different than you might think. Here I provide a complete Laurent expansion of $f$ around $z=0$. From this you should be able to check your results.
A power series expansion of $\frac{1}{z+a}$ at $z=0$ is \begin{align*} \frac{1}{z+a}&=\frac{1}{a}\cdot\frac{1}{1+\frac{z}{a}} =\frac{1}{a}\sum_{n=0}^\infty\left(-\frac{z}{a}\right)^n\\ &=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^n}{a^{n+1}}z^n \end{align*} The principal part of $\frac{1}{z+a}$ at $z=0$ is \begin{align*} \frac{1}{z+a}&=\frac{1}{z}\cdot\frac{1}{1+\frac{a}{z}}=\frac{1}{z}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\left(-\frac{a}{z}\right)^n\\ &=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(-a)^{n-1}\frac{1}{z^n} \end{align*}
Note: According to OPs comment let's assume a slightly different situation:
We can immediately conclude from the representation of $f$ that $1$ and $3$ are simple poles.
When looking at \begin{align*} f(z)=-\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{z-1}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{z-3} \end{align*} we observe the term $\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{z-3}$ is already the principal part of the Laurent expansion at $z_0=3$ and since $\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{z-1}$ is analytic at $z_0=3$ we can expand it as power series.