Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

My vote is Supersystem by a long way. Will give reasons a bit later, just wondering whether their are any other contendors for this title.

I'm sure their are other worse poker books out their, Play Poker Like the Pro's by Hellmuth certainly wasn't good. I haven't read Macevoy's and Cloutiers efforts but they generally seem to be considered pretty bad too.

However these books aren't nick named "the bible of poker". Wonder how many people have gone broke following Doyles NL section.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

Supersystem I was really pretty good considering what was out there when it came out. Supersystem II has some excellent chapters, so I wouldn't put it on this list.

But you're asking about overrated, not just whether the book is bad. Even though I think Supersystem is well worth reading I might agree that it is a tad overrated...

For the Oscars category of "Most Overrated of All Time" NLTAP and PNL Vol. 1 stand atop the pedestal. Hands down.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

- I only read doyle's book and I constantly beat NL 200

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

SuperSystem came out in the late 70s or very early 80s. There was really nothing else authoritative, and at the time it was the absolute nuts on most of the games it covered. To say it is over-rated today may be true, because it is no longer the Bible. But it was the best strategy book by miles for many years.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

Overrated is completely different from not good.

Super System
HPFAP
SSHE
possibly NLHTAP by some people

Play Poker Like the Pros can't be overrated, it sucks for limit and everyone knows it, for NL it's not raved about, for sure.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

Maybe I the title of the thread should be "Most over-rated writer", or "Most over-rated chapter", becasue the olny part of the book i've ever read are Doyles parts, not sure if the other games mentioned in the book were even played when I started poker.

However, it is Doyles book, and the NL part is is section, so maybe it isn't wrong to say the whole book is crap based on that section.

Also, I think the arguement that it was written 30 or so years ago doesn't really hold, the rules of the game haven't changed, and someone plese correct me if I'm wrong, but didn;t Doyle use exactly the same NL section in SS2, and say something like "the information is as relevant today as when SS1 came out".

Its been a while since i've read it, so my memory of specifics may not be great, but here are a few reasons why the NL section is very poor in my opinion:

- Doyle doesn't like AA much becasue its hard to get away from, but likes AK and suited connectors.

- Be prepared to fold bottom, sometimes middle set. - Not bad advice when playing very very deeps stacked poker with opponents you know very well. But in reality, it is extremely rare when folding bottom set is correct.

- Play any draw like its the nuts.

- Doyles idea when flopping a big hand is "you're always trying to win a big pot" or "break them", not that you're trying to maximise your EV. There are defintly times when trying to get the opponent all in isn't the most profitable play. Doyles techniqies for breaking them being; overbetting the pot, leading into preflop raisers etc.

- Doyle is a strong advocate of leading out into a pre flop raiser, he fails to mention the fact that if you're even in the position where you would be leading into a pre flop raiser on a regular basis you aren't playing well. Not good business to be playing out of position against raises on a regular basis.



- He believes in ESP. I remember him saying something like - "doctors and scientists will tell you ESP doesn't exixt, but what do they know about poker".

I could go on..

I'm not saying Doyle isn't good or even great at poker, i'm sure he is (I wouldn't know). I think he's a crap poker writer. I think Doyle is one of those rare guys whose technical game isn't great, but he has an amazing "feel" for the game, he reads situations well, reads people well, and knows exactly when to "push all in on an inside straight draw". In most cases the typical beginner-average poker player who would read this book doesn't have this feel, and this book would cost them a lot more than just the price of the book.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

It may help you that you're a member of a pretty useful forum for learning to beat NL200, and their for you head has been able to filter out the crap that Doyle taught you.

Or it may be that you have run good for a couple of weeks and don't understand variance, I don't know.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

I do believe he slightly changed his view on ESP in his later years. At least he altered the wording a bit in that respect so you can interpret it differently.

The same thing with streaks, and how the scientists are wrong. Well, actually he still DOES say the scientists are wrong. There's a lot of blackjack players who also think the same..

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

You really do have to look at Doyle's book in the context of 30 years ago. Back then, his n/l advice was on the money and he was a huge winner using it. Times have changed, and while his ideas are still very interesting and have validity, they aren't anything close to definitive now.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

The advice in SS1 & SS2 is quite good if you give everyone at the table 500-1000 BB. For a 100 BB game, the advice is pretty abysmal.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The advice in SS1 & SS2 is quite good if you give everyone at the table 500-1000 BB. For a 100 BB game, the advice is pretty abysmal.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post had the makings of a good point, and there is a good point buried in there, but to counter that you have to keep in mind that people don't play with a 1,000BB stack like they did decades ago either. There's a reason you hear AK called "big slick" and not "walking back to Houston" nowadays. And you are not going to stack a guy with 1,000BB who holds AK when you hold 76s.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

That is a good point, back when the book was first written was the standard buy-in for nl games 1000 BB's? If so is their any reason why Doyle didn't change his advice for SS2 to suit the standared 100 BB buy in games these days?

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You really do have to look at Doyle's book in the context of 30 years ago. Back then, his n/l advice was on the money and he was a huge winner using it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, by the time SSI came out, the no-limit games didn't exist anymore with the exception of some of the side games at the WSOP.

MM

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Overrated is completely different from not good.

Super System
HPFAP
SSHE
possibly NLHTAP by some people

Play Poker Like the Pros can't be overrated, it sucks for limit and everyone knows it, for NL it's not raved about, for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you think that SSHE is overrated? It's probably the best limit hold em book out there, no matter what stakes you are playing. (I haven't read stoxtraders book so I can't compare with that)

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Overrated is completely different from not good.

Super System
HPFAP
SSHE
possibly NLHTAP by some people

Play Poker Like the Pros can't be overrated, it sucks for limit and everyone knows it, for NL it's not raved about, for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you think that SSHE is overrated? It's probably the best limit hold em book out there, no matter what stakes you are playing. (I haven't read stoxtraders book so I can't compare with that)

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly!! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Overrated is completely different from not good.

Super System
HPFAP
SSHE
possibly NLHTAP by some people

Play Poker Like the Pros can't be overrated, it sucks for limit and everyone knows it, for NL it's not raved about, for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you think that SSHE is overrated? It's probably the best limit hold em book out there, no matter what stakes you are playing. (I haven't read stoxtraders book so I can't compare with that)

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly!! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Overrated is completely different from not good.

Super System
HPFAP
SSHE
possibly NLHTAP by some people

Play Poker Like the Pros can't be overrated, it sucks for limit and everyone knows it, for NL it's not raved about, for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you think that SSHE is overrated? It's probably the best limit hold em book out there, no matter what stakes you are playing. (I haven't read stoxtraders book so I can't compare with that)

[/ QUOTE ]

SSHE? If you don't like it, you are a fish.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

I have a question for Mason, or anyone else who might know (I wouldn't have a clue since its well before my time). As Mason said, at the time the book was written, NL games barely existed outside of the WSOP and the WSOP side games. So was Doyles NL section in SS1 the first ever (or one of the first ever) piece ever published on NL Holdem. If yes, that goes some way to explain why it was so "ground-breaking" at the time, but certainly doesn't mean its good.

How come it is still held in high reguard by the general poker public. I'm sure the first ever publication on golf, or tennis, or nearly anything else has no relevance to today. Yet the NL section in Supersystem is still considered great by so many in the poker public.

Is it because Doyle himself is considered a great poker player by many. Perhaps he is, I wouldn't know, but there have been many examples throughout history of someone being great at something but being a poor teacher/coach at it (it goes the other way too, ie. someone being a great coach/teacher at something, but not great themselves).

The general "cop-out" answer of some people reguarding SS1 seems to be "at the time poker was different, it was great for that era". Possibly it was, although I think not, the rules haven't changed, and I don't think people were any "dumber" back then than now.

Is their any reason why the SS2 NL section was exactly the same??

- Was Doyle lazy and didn't feel like writing something else?

- Did he still believe the advice is valid today?

- Is he simply just greedy thinking something like "i'll get a new group of writers together to write about games not many people care about, i'll leave my NL section the same since it still works for me and add some more to my mind numbingly boring life story, and i'll watch the $$ roll into my bank account".

Like I said before, i'm not questioning Doyles own poker ability, I'm sure he's probally an amazing player, but he's a very bad poker writer who gets way way too much respect.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

[ QUOTE ]


The general "cop-out" answer of some people reguarding SS1 seems to be "at the time poker was different, it was great for that era". Possibly it was, although I think not, the rules haven't changed, and I don't think people were any "dumber" back then than now.


[/ QUOTE ]

The blind structure was different, often a single blind and antes. The players were much more likely to be weak tight.
[ QUOTE ]


Is their any reason why the SS2 NL section was exactly the same??

- Was Doyle lazy and didn't feel like writing something else?

- Did he still believe the advice is valid today?

- Is he simply just greedy thinking something like "i'll get a new group of writers together to write about games not many people care about, i'll leave my NL section the same since it still works for me and add some more to my mind numbingly boring life story, and i'll watch the $$ roll into my bank account".



[/ QUOTE ]

what?

[ QUOTE ]

Like I said before, i'm not questioning Doyles own poker ability, I'm sure he's probally an amazing player, but he's a very bad poker writer who gets way way too much respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt he would mistitle a thread like this. You posed it as an open question but clearly this is a thread on your dislike of Supersystem.

And then as proof you tell us that his system still wins for him. This makes no sense.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

[/ QUOTE ]

The blind structure was different, often a single blind and antes. The players were much more likely to be weak tight.
[ QUOTE ]


Any evidence that players were much more likely to be weak tight back then?


[ QUOTE ]


I doubt he would mistitle a thread like this. You posed it as an open question but clearly this is a thread on your dislike of Supersystem.

And then as proof you tell us that his system still wins for him. This makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very much an open question, got any suggestions of a more over-rated book? I fail to think of one that comes close. Mike Caro's book of tells is another which I think is over-rated, doesn't he put specific $ values on how much you can expect to make off knowing a tell?

I wouldn't have a clue how much $ Doyle has won or lost over his lifetime, I think its somewhat irrelevant. If he had won the WSOP main event 10 times in a row that wouldn't make the quality of the writing in the NL section of SS any better.

Just becuase someone is great at something it certianly doesn't make them a great teacher/coach at it. There are many sports examples of great athletes making poor coaches.

Lets say Doyle is a big winner over live cash games over his life time. You don't think this success is due to his "feel" for the game, ie. his ability to read situations, and read people. He talks about pushing his inside straight draws and well pretty much any draw etc.

It can work for Doyle becuase he likely knows exactly when to push, he knows when his opponent is weak and capabale of folding. This is the sort of ability that really can't be taught through a book.

You don't think that being good/ great at something and being a good/great coach at something is somewhat mutually exclusive.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

Yes, Supersystem is overrated, people say how great it is because they think they are supposed to and if they don't, they will be labeled a fish and told they have no idea. SSHE is not overrated- not at all. IMO it is the best limit book ever written.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

OK, people, Supersystem - that's just one [two] book. How about other titles you consider bad or overrated?

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK, people, Supersystem - that's just one [two] book. How about other titles you consider bad or overrated?

[/ QUOTE ]

Professional No Limit Holdem V1
Secrets of Professional Pot Limit Omaha
High-Low-Split Poker For Advanced Players (O8 section)

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

Hold em poker for advanced players?

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

[ QUOTE ]
SSHE? If you don't like it, you are a fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Always fun to watch the idiots come out of the woodwork....

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

I guess for a book to be over-rated, it has to be rated in the first place. Perhaps this excludes NLHTAP as I don't think its well recognised in the first place. Not a bad book, but certianly doesn't live up to expectations.

Another that comes to mind in Psycology of Poker, can't remember much about it, it probally isn't a bad book either, but no where near lived up to expectations.

Like I said before, Mike Caro's Book of Tells comes to mind too, not a bad book at all, but no where near as good as many would have you believe.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

I agree that Supersystem is very over-rated. Ace on the River sucks as well but i don't know if anyone rates that at all.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

[ QUOTE ]

"i'll get a new group of writers together to write about games not many people care about, i'll leave my NL section the same .

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very funny.

Actually, there are thousands of the 21 year old hot shot punkies who don't know how to play anything except 1-2NL. They wonder; what are those people doing at those other tables. I guess the games that "no one cares about" are Limit Holdem, Omaha/8, Stud/8, PLO and TDL.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

What's wrong with PNL v1?

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

Ace on the river

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that Supersystem is very over-rated. Ace on the River sucks as well but i don't know if anyone rates that at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ace on the River is one of the best books on poker I've ever read.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that Supersystem is very over-rated. Ace on the River sucks as well but i don't know if anyone rates that at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

A friend of mine has dubbed it 'Ass on the River'.

It should be noted the book was written quite a few years ago now. Over-rated? I don't think many rate it that high in the first place. But what I see as clearly over-rating, are the rediculous advertisement adds I see for this. They are blowing it up to be one of the most advanced strategy books out there.

Hmmmm...

The only thing I remember seeing new that other's don't cover is.

#1 he mentions a few small things about insurance, and how your decision should alter when a set is vs a draw.

#2 he mentions the other books use 47 for calcs, when in reality the tables for 45 is much more accurate.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

You don't remember his poker and sexuality chapter... thats about the only thing I do remember from the book for the fact that it was so amusing.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

god,im so mad when i hear this:

i often red here, winning low limit hold'em by lee jones..,
is agreat book or it should be the first to read for limit poker....

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz how in the hell players recommended this book over intenet texas hold'em(ITH) by hilger or SSHE???

i mean comon...WLLH by lee jones makes u break even at most.....when ITH is very easy to read,tons of good info,and makes u easilly a winner,maybe not a big winner,but at least a winner for sure compared to WLLH...
not even talking about SSHE,wich even if its a bit outdated(in the sense at low limit,the players got signifinctly stronger compared from couple years ago)is still applicable in many games and teaches u how to play a lot better then WLLH.....

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

[ QUOTE ]
god,im so mad when i hear this:

i often red here, winning low limit hold'em by lee jones..,
is agreat book or it should be the first to read for limit poker....

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz how in the hell players recommended this book over intenet texas hold'em(ITH) by hilger or SSHE???

i mean comon...WLLH by lee jones makes u break even at most.....when ITH is very easy to read,tons of good info,and makes u easilly a winner,maybe not a big winner,but at least a winner for sure compared to WLLH...
not even talking about SSHE,wich even if its a bit outdated(in the sense at low limit,the players got signifinctly stronger compared from couple years ago)is still applicable in many games and teaches u how to play a lot better then WLLH.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps because it was out before ITH and SSH!!!

Secondly because WLLH is aimed at a (near) beginner audience while ITH and SSHE are aimed for a more advanced audience.

The books pretty much admit that themselves (WLLH advises people to read SSHE after reading WLLH, SSHE mentions its an advanced book and recommends you read other books first, in ITH, Hilger recommends people read something like WLLH first.)

But then having read those books you probably already know that!!

Also, on this forum more people probably recommend Millers beginner's book than they do WLLH (personally i like both, and think WLLH is fine for starting out but would recommend moving onto ITH as quickly as possible and then SSHE.

DB

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

"Perhaps because it was out before ITH and SSH!!!"

well , i often heard that read WLLH b4 other book like ITH(wich im sorry but....ITH can easilly be a greta first book since ther s not much difference between ITH and WLLH for lot of subject ,just that ITH explain it better and more info as well with a nice Q/A after each chapter.....much beter book over all and can easilly a great first book for the majority) LATELY, so your point doesnt stand!

i mean they still recommended NOW, when ITH or the miller on eis out now...that makes it even worste i think!

couple years ago,fine WLLH was ok,no problem with that, but god,now im still hear people to suggest this book over ITH or strat in hold'em (i think) from miller...

i think its time it stop....WLLH should be gone now....

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You don't remember his poker and sexuality chapter... thats about the only thing I do remember from the book for the fact that it was so amusing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was not helpful to me. I do remember the part, about trying to make an agreement with your lover/spouse about having a sex partner when off on a poker trip, to keep you focused on the game.

Now I understand what he is saying here... but i've tried this arguement with my girlfriend before. Sad to say, she doesn't agree with it.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Perhaps because it was out before ITH and SSH!!!"

well , i often heard that read WLLH b4 other book like ITH(wich im sorry but....ITH can easilly be a greta first book since ther s not much difference between ITH and WLLH for lot of subject ,just that ITH explain it better and more info as well with a nice Q/A after each chapter.....much beter book over all and can easilly a great first book for the majority) LATELY, so your point doesnt stand!

Montreal corp ,


Have you read all three books in question?
WLLH can only be over rated if it fails to achieve what it states for its target audience... You have not shown that it does fail in that regard, and i am happy to argue with you that it does work, as that is how i learnt the basics behind limit hold em. WLLH is about giving a new player to hold em a basic foundation in which they learn to play tight, and trying to minimize difficult decisions while trying to learn the basics. At the lowest limits it works, I havent had any problems with it, but then I only play online as there are no live limit games where i live (in the UK).
perhaps you read an earlier edition of WLLH? or maybe you had experience of poker or limit hold em before reading the book (i had none, except watching NL games on the TV a couple of times).
In my first reply, I was simply stating that the target market for the books are different, and that the authors themselves support that point of view. Of course you can read ITH before WLLH, but some people may get more out of reading WLLH or GSIH before ITH. AS i pointed out earlier Matthew Hilger in his book recommends reading WLLH before ITH...and Miller recommends reading other books before reading his....are you saying they are wrong too?
Furthermore, most threads on this forum regarding limit books discuss the relevance of ITH and SSHE and WTO...GSIH and WLLH are not discussed as much as those three...try searching the threads and see how often they are talked about!
I mean they still recommended NOW, when ITH or the miller on eis out now...that makes it even worste i think!

couple years ago,fine WLLH was ok,no problem with that, but god,now im still hear people to suggest this book over ITH or strat in hold'em (i think) from miller...

No-one recommends it over those books (at least i havent heard or seen anyone post on this forum to that affect) only that it should be considered reading before those books (depending on the experience of the player concerned)

I'll say it again, SSHE, WTO and ITH are aimed at different audiences to that off WLLH...your argument is like comparing a york notes on Shakespeare with a peter and jane book!

i think its time it stop....WLLH should be gone now....

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, dont read any beginner limit threads as i will be probably recommending it to complete newbies like i was.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

I think everyone fails to realize that many of these books are obsolete because of the books themselves. If it wasn't for SS1, no limit would not have advanced in the coarse it has.

If it wasn't for HEFAP, many of the tactics of Limit would still be unknown to a mass audience. It is because with this information, that new information must be written, becasue the "typical" player is now the player described in these books.

Many of the books mentioned on this thread are still must-reads, because they a) bring you up to speed and b) still force you to think about the game, while suggesting a correct base strategy.

No single book, or any collection of books, is going to make you a winning player.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

[ QUOTE ]
No single book, or any collection of books, is going to make you a winning player.

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone reads Bill Chen's book, and takes the time to re-read it until he understands it... then I don't understand how he could NOT be a winning player.