Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

It really is true. And I'm not going to say something mean like the merely good players don't fully appreciate me. That's not the reason. It has to do with the fact that almost all poker plays combine your assumptions about your opponents possible hands and his playing proclivities with the logic and math required to exploit those assumptions. And my books don't focus on how to make those assumptions. For various reasons, the biggest one being that public disclosure can backfire once it is well known.

So most of my stuff involves the best way to extract money given you have accurate assumptions. And in small or medium size games that's not hard to achieve. But it is in bigger games. And if you screw that up the logic and math won't save you. Good as it is. But it IS still very useful if you are a good enough player to read even pretty tough opponents. Something only great players do well.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

Tbh ... Mason has you crushed and it is not even close.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

David,

I'm not a great or even a good player, but I quite like your "stuff". I have a question.

Say you are heads up as the PFR against an intelligent player who called in the big blind.

Flop comes A72r. He checks. How much do you bet if you are holding:

a) AJ
b) KQ
c) TT

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

Lol @ David's self-delusions.

You got that completely backward and I really find it hard to believe you don't know that.

The great players, by whatever standard you define "great", are not 2+2 fans. The big 2+2 fans are more typically the 30-60 live nit types.

The great (or supposedly great) old school live players like Chip and Doyle are either not book types or learned poker pre-2+2, or both.

The younger generation great players like Ivey or Rugby or any random tough internet pro either have not read 2+2 books at all, or learned far more from experience and discussion with other pros.

As for great tourney players, whomever they may be, I doubt any of them have been significantly influenced by 2+2 books.

Even strong analytical nerd types have always loved to bash 2+2. From Abdul to Tom Weideman to Chen/Ankemann (though they are too nice to really bash.)

I honestly can't think of a single really impressive poker player who is a strong enthusiast of 2+2 books*. Some of them probably started off reading 2+2 books but then they learn to move beyond them.

Now keep in mind I am not talking about twoplustwo.com, just 2+2 book. This website has probably had a major influence on lots of the great young NL players.

Also I'm not bashing 2+2 books here. They are valuable as far as they go. But to think that great poker players sitting around eagerly devouring the latest 2+2 text is nuts.

Sorry David.


* I have a feeling someone is going to offer Chris Ferugson as a rebuttal, based on his endorsements on the back of some 2+2 books. Not to digress too much but I have always strongly suspected he was just being nice. He's too into game theory to be a real 2+2 fan.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly can't think of a single really impressive poker player who is a strong enthusiast of 2+2 books*.

* I have a feeling someone is going to offer Chris Ferugson as a rebuttal, based on his endorsements on the back of some 2+2 books. Not to digress too much but I have always strongly suspected he was just being nice. He's too into game theory to be a real 2+2 fan.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd guess Greg would be the more popular rebuttal here. Did Chris really endorse a 2 book? I don't recall that.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

Since I like David's books a lot, I must be a great player by definition.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

[ QUOTE ]
It really is true. And I'm not going to say something mean like the merely good players don't fully appreciate me. That's not the reason. It has to do with the fact that almost all poker plays combine your assumptions about your opponents possible hands and his playing proclivities with the logic and math required to exploit those assumptions. And my books don't focus on how to make those assumptions. For various reasons, the biggest one being that public disclosure can backfire once it is well known.

So most of my stuff involves the best way to extract money given you have accurate assumptions. And in small or medium size games that's not hard to achieve. But it is in bigger games. And if you screw that up the logic and math won't save you. Good as it is. But it IS still very useful if you are a good enough player to read even pretty tough opponents. Something only great players do well.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a footnote in NLHTAP that basically says something like '....we focus on the mathematics required to mathemtics required to make good poker decisions... ' (this is not an accuarate quote as I don't have the book to hand. I always thought that this was a damning admission to make. Your post above just reinforces this weakness.

First of all the book does have the word "practice" in the title - so surely it should have more on how to read opponents and make accurate hand range estimates. Secondly, this book is/was marketed as providing the information that a player needs to progress to an advanced level of play. Any book that sets out to achieve this must spend a lot of time talking about hand reading. Essentially your post above is an admission of this?

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

You have mostly missed the point of David's post FWIW.

He is saying that his books help you know what to do once you've got a good read on a situation and therefore great players are in a better position to use the material he presents (since they read situations better). Or to put it in a different way, knowing what the correct play is in a certain situation (what his books help with) does you no good if you cannot determine that you are in that particular situation (which his books do not help with).

I'd also hazard a guess that more top players have read ToP than you think.

Why Sucky Players hate Slansky\'s Stuff More Than Bad Players!!!
 

I read all of Skalnsky's stuff and I really suck. Wasn't there a double my money back guarantee if I read the books and lost?

How do I get my money back?

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

Funny that David's books (reading) is a topic of discussion in this thread and yet your comprehension of his original post is so far off.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

But it IS still very useful if you are a good enough player to read even pretty tough opponents. Something only great players do well

Sometime the best mechanics arent the guys that fix the problem, they are the guys at finding the problem.

Your books will tell a player the best course of action to take, after the player puts the opponent on a specific hand. Knowing what the opponent holds, sometimes take more skill than knowing what action to take.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

[ QUOTE ]
You have mostly missed the point of David's post FWIW.

He is saying that his books help you know what to do once you've got a good read on a situation and therefore great players are in a better position to use the material he presents (since they read situations better). Or to put it in a different way, knowing what the correct play is in a certain situation (what his books help with) does you no good if you cannot determine that you are in that particular situation (which his books do not help with).


[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, I understand the explanation David offers for why his premise should be true. (The premise being that great players often like his books more than good players.)

And as I explained I think his premise is completely false.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

[ QUOTE ]
Funny that David's books (reading) is a topic of discussion in this thread and yet your comprehension of his original post is so far off.

[/ QUOTE ]

No YOUR reading comprehension is off!!!!!1111

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

[ QUOTE ]
And as I explained I think his premise is completely false.

[/ QUOTE ]Do you have evidence that the greatest players, many whom you have listed, have not read or have little regard for David's books?

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And as I explained I think his premise is completely false.

[/ QUOTE ]Do you have evidence that the greatest players, many whom you have listed, have not read or have little regard for David's books?

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, I have right here signed affidavits from the 20 winningest players...

Um, no. I don't have 'evidence'.

However I have read specific quotes from some of the great/supposedly great that they have never read any poker books (Ivey and Benyamine off the top of my head). I believe Barry G. on 2+2 expressed a similar lack of interest in poker books.

Others I am virtually certain based on common sense likely haven't read any 2+2 books at all. Chau, Doyle, Chip.

Many others from the Internet generation I know for a fact do not feel they have gotten much from 2+2 books, if they have read any at all.

Trust me, I'm right on this one.

Like I said before I'm not bashing 2+2 books, just DS's absurdly exaggerations.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

[ QUOTE ]
However I have read specific quotes from some of the great/supposedly great that they have never read any poker books (Ivey and Benyamine off the top of my head)

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but you are wrong about Phil Ivey. I have a DVD where he admits to reading poker books and recommends poker books to beginning players.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

[ QUOTE ]
The younger generation great players like Ivey or Rugby or any random tough internet pro either have not read 2+2 books at all, or learned far more from experience and discussion with other pros.


[/ QUOTE ]

Srugby says he read every poker book in Borders.....and he has 2173 posts on 2 + 2.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The younger generation great players like Ivey or Rugby or any random tough internet pro either have not read 2+2 books at all, or learned far more from experience and discussion with other pros.


[/ QUOTE ]

Srugby says he read every poker book in Borders.....and he has 2173 posts on 2 + 2.

[/ QUOTE ]


Good thing I added that second clause.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Funny that David's books (reading) is a topic of discussion in this thread and yet your comprehension of his original post is so far off.

[/ QUOTE ]

No YOUR reading comprehension is off!!!!!1111

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice comeback.

HU Razz for rolls?

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

[ QUOTE ]
Trust me, I'm right on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]Sorry, I don't. I put a little more trust that David, who has known and played with top pros longer than most of us have even been in this game, has pretty good idea of how his works are regarded by them.

Not that it matters to me one way or the other. His books have certainly made ME a better player, though I understand the limitations of them and that what they teach is only part of the puzzle.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Trust me, I'm right on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]Sorry, I don't. I put a little more trust that David, who has known and played with top pros longer than most of us have even been in this game, has pretty good idea of how his works are regarded by them.

Not that it matters to me one way or the other. His books have certainly made ME a better player, though I understand the limitations of them and that what they teach is only part of the puzzle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trust a guy that's actually sat and played with several world class players or the guy that hasn't.

Toughie.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And as I explained I think his premise is completely false.

[/ QUOTE ]Do you have evidence that the greatest players, many whom you have listed, have not read or have little regard for David's books?

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, I have right here signed affidavits from the 20 winningest players...

Um, no. I don't have 'evidence'.

However I have read specific quotes from some of the great/supposedly great that they have never read any poker books (Ivey and Benyamine off the top of my head). I believe Barry G. on 2+2 expressed a similar lack of interest in poker books.

Others I am virtually certain based on common sense likely haven't read any 2+2 books at all. Chau, Doyle, Chip.

Many others from the Internet generation I know for a fact do not feel they have gotten much from 2+2 books, if they have read any at all.

Trust me, I'm right on this one.

Like I said before I'm not bashing 2+2 books, just DS's absurdly exaggerations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where is it stated that most players from the "Internet generation" are very good players?

Also, it is true that many players have not read a book, and no one is claiming you MUST read them... but ask yourself how long it took them to get to a given level vs. someone who has read and studied the game and also gotten to that level.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However I have read specific quotes from some of the great/supposedly great that they have never read any poker books (Ivey and Benyamine off the top of my head)

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but you are wrong about Phil Ivey. I have a DVD where he admits to reading poker books and recommends poker books to beginning players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could have sworn I read in an interview that he didn't seriously read any poker books when he got started.

Anyway obviously he's going to recommend poker books to beginners.

All that aside are you guys seriously arguing my point that Ivey is not a 2+2 admirer?

Hopefully Barry Greenstein will come in here and kill this thread by telling you all I am right.

(I wrote his full name so he doesn't miss this post when he searches for himself.)

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

You just can't argue with math. He teaches you the math side of the game very well. Sure there are other skills that a great poker player will use as well, but you can't deny that you need math of some form to play this game well. I think his books are some of the best out there. I especially like no limit holdem theory and practice.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Trust me, I'm right on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]Sorry, I don't. I put a little more trust that David, who has known and played with top pros longer than most of us have even been in this game, has pretty good idea of how his works are regarded by them.

Not that it matters to me one way or the other. His books have certainly made ME a better player, though I understand the limitations of them and that what they teach is only part of the puzzle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trust a guy that's actually sat and played with several world class players or the guy that hasn't.

Toughie.

[/ QUOTE ]


Umm... I've played with several world class players. (Not that that is really germane to the issue.)

Who is the other guy who supposedly has? Surely you're not thinking of Sklansky...

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

[ QUOTE ]
But it IS still very useful if you are a good enough player to read even pretty tough opponents. Something only great players do well

Sometime the best mechanics arent the guys that fix the problem, they are the guys at finding the problem.

Your books will tell a player the best course of action to take, after the player puts the opponent on a specific hand. Knowing what the opponent holds, sometimes take more skill than knowing what action to take.

[/ QUOTE ]

But when the mechanic finds the problem, I sure would like him to know how to fix it..... and fix it the best it can be fixed.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

However I have read specific quotes from some of the great/supposedly great that they have never read any poker books (Ivey and Benyamine off the top of my head).

The Ivey quote is not accurate.

Before Phil Ivey started playing poker for a living, he worked as a telemarketer in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Someone that worked for me worked with Phil Ivey.

According to the fellow that worked for me Phil Ivey carried a copy of Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players with him, and would read the book whenever he was not on a phone call.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

[ QUOTE ]
However I have read specific quotes from some of the great/supposedly great that they have never read any poker books (Ivey and Benyamine off the top of my head).

The Ivey quote is not accurate.

Before Phil Ivey started playing poker for a living, he worked as a telemarketer in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Someone that worked for me worked with Phil Ivey.

According to the fellow that worked for me Phil Ivey carried a copy of Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players with him, and would read the book whenever he was not on a phone call.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok I guess I have to concede the point that Ivey has read a 2+2 book in his life.

I honestly think he did say something that sort of implied the contrary, but w/e.

Anyway Ivey reading a 2+2 book DNE "great players love 2+2 books".

After all according to this thread Rugby has read everything by Ken Warren.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully Barry Greenstein will come in here and kill this thread by telling you all I am right.

[/ QUOTE ]Barry G coming into this thread and saying he doesn't have high regard for 2+2 books would not make your point. If he came in and said that most top pros he knows do not have a high regard for 2+2 books, then that would add a counterweight to Sklansky's statement.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

[ QUOTE ]
I could have sworn I read in an interview that he didn't seriously read any poker books when he got started.


[/ QUOTE ]

That part is correct, he said in the interview (This DVD has been out for quite a while, they introduce him as the youngest player to ever win a WSOP bracelet) that he didn't know there were any books about poker until just recently and clearly stated he has read poker books, he implied that he had read pretty much everything available.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

[ QUOTE ]
Umm... I've played with several world class players. (Not that that is really germane to the issue.)

[/ QUOTE ]If this issue is "What do world class players think about x", surely having played with those players is germane to making an educated guess as to their opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
Who is the other guy who supposedly has? Surely you're not thinking of Sklansky...

[/ QUOTE ]You don't think Sklansky has played with world class players?

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However I have read specific quotes from some of the great/supposedly great that they have never read any poker books (Ivey and Benyamine off the top of my head).

The Ivey quote is not accurate.

Before Phil Ivey started playing poker for a living, he worked as a telemarketer in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Someone that worked for me worked with Phil Ivey.

According to the fellow that worked for me Phil Ivey carried a copy of Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players with him, and would read the book whenever he was not on a phone call.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok I guess I have to concede the point that Ivey has read a 2+2 book in his life.

I honestly think he did say something that sort of implied the contrary, but w/e.

Anyway Ivey reading a 2+2 book DNE "great players love 2+2 books".

After all according to this thread Rugby has read everything by Ken Warren.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are sort of right about this point. He said "I skimmed through some books, but I never actually read a whole book. " Who knows just how much he read and how much he skimmed of course...

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

I do believe David himself has stated in one of his books that a " talented " non-theorist player will beat an untalented theorist always. That statement alone tells you there is more to the game than theory (math) , the stuff David writes about, and he is the one telling you that.

So, a talented player (talent you MUST have to be great) that learns and understands theory will have an edge over another talented player that doesn't. AND talented players are hard to get an edge over. Ergo, great players are going to appreciate David's work even more.

This makes so much sense to me, (sports ,chess, etc. analogies just leap out at you), it seems painfully obvious.

That doesn't mean others aren't helped or don't appreciate the work, just supremely talented players appreciate it more. We all benefit from a golf instructor on the mechanics of the swing , how to adjust to conditions, strategy on the course, etc. But you can rest assured that it is not utilized or the changes in yours or my performance appreciated as much as by Tiger Woods.

2+2 books quickly made me a winning player, period. I have implemented them to the best of my ability and experience. If I had more of either, I'm sure they would have made an even bigger difference.

Instead of looking to argue you should just look at the common sense of the statement.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

This is getting too nitpicky for me.

For the record I was simply suggesting that if "having played with supposedly great players in the post 2+2 era" is considered to be relevant here, that criterion favors me over Sklansky.

Sklansky has not played anywhere near the biggest games since like the 70's or something, and back then 2+2 did not exist so his experience there is irrelevant anyway.

Also keep in mind that there is a difference between "educated guess" and "egotistical delusion".

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

This would be a really good time for someone to post the classic photo of Doyle Brunson reading Sklansky on Razz. Since most of the people who post here never step foot in a card room or get to know world class players in real life, they need visual proof that the best of the top players all read 2+2 titles rather than trust in someone's statements. Or they can just call the Gamblers Book Club/General Store to ask who has been buying what books lately - they often sell 2+2 titles by saying XXXXX just stopped by to buy this book.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

TT,

Because you asked

http://www.markhope.com/imagebank/poker/doyle.jpg

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

The cruel truth that you are overlooking is that most great/supposedly great players *who are theoretically inclined* do NOT have an especially high regard for 2+2 books.

Because 2+2 books are better than most of the competition you guys assume that they represent the pinnacle of poker theory. But as I pointed out in my original post, the strongest theoretical players actually look down upon 2+2 books.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

heh heh. Nice dip into the archives , Mike. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

[ QUOTE ]
This would be a really good time for someone to post the classic photo of Doyle Brunson reading Sklansky on Razz. Since most of the people who post here never step foot in a card room or get to know world class players in real life, they need visual proof that the best of the top players all read 2+2 titles rather than trust in someone's statements. Or they can just call the Gamblers Book Club/General Store to ask who has been buying what books lately - they often sell 2+2 titles by saying XXXXX just stopped by to buy this book.

[/ QUOTE ]


So you think Doyle just happened to be reading that book, at the table, in the middle of a game, and a photographer happened to be strolling through the pokerroom and took a snap shot?

That's a PR photo and Doyle and Sklansky are friends from way back.

Anyway I did not say no great players have read 2+2 books, I just said that contrary to David's statement they are virtually never the greatest 2+2 fans.

Plus SOR happens to be probably the single best 2+2 book.

Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
 

[ QUOTE ]
The cruel truth that you are overlooking is that most great/supposedly great players *who are theoretically inclined* do NOT have an especially high regard for 2+2 books.

[/ QUOTE ]This is not a "truth"- it is an assertion"made without any evidence to back it up.

Who do you think was buying 2+2 books before the poker boom?