[Galwegian]

[ 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?