[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Barry Greenstein:

Slightly off topic question. Is there a game that is played today (Badugi, Chinese Poker, pick your semi-obscure game of choice) that you would go our of your way to read about if a solid theoretical book was written about it? Did you look at Bill Chen's Mathmatics of Poker? If you were to read a book on a poker topic at this stage, what are you most interested in reading about?

I didn't think about this until your response, just curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am always curious to see what someone has written about a new game. Usually by the time it is written, I have played the game so much (being a mixed-game player) that I trust my own analysis over the author's. Generally, I find out that we mostly agree. The main difference is that the books are usually written in a way that makes sense against weak-tight players or bad players. I play against good aggressive players, so my methods have to take that into consideration.

I bought Bill Chen's book with FPPs on Pokerstars (plug), but I haven't looked at it yet. I have discussed some stuff with Bill and I don't expect any revelations that will elevate my game. I expect some accuracy in some artificial situations -- similar to the M concept in Harrington's book. As I mentioned to Dan, people like it, but it's actually less correct than talking about multiples of the big blind, since most people raise in for around three times the big blind and then proceed geometrically from there. Of course the antes matter and so you may open for slightly more, but the exactness isn't really important. It does make for interesting reading.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

In one of his books, Ciaffone makes the point that some of the great players (this was written before the current boom) are great because they have incredible handing reading skills. I'm not sure if he said this to, but I would add that they also know the %'s that an opponent will do X when you do Y (People reading skills).

Ciaffone also points out that he sees fundamental errors (leaks) that these really good players make.

It is this dichotomy (Fundamentals & Hand Reading)that DS is pointing out in this thread. But what I want to add now is that while someone like Greenstein and others are no doubt very intelligent, by not reading all the literature they are "leaving something on the table", so to speak. They are not playing perfectly, and they could improve their game. And even if a lot of the material is reinforcing already known and understood concepts, reviewing the material will surely prevent some mistakes.

It would be interesting to rate the top players based on Fundamentals vs Hand Reading Ability.

I would also imagine that along will come players that have that natural hand reading ability coupled with the intelligence and willingness to put the time in to master the game. Since it takes a long time (5-10 yrs) to determine how truly good a player is, we will have to wait to see who these people are. But I think we'll look back and the great players of the 80's and 90's will still be good, but only a few considered great.