[bustedromo]

[ QUOTE ]
There are three inherent issues.

First, most authors just don't have enough knowledge to write such a book. Many of the players who do know these types of things won't write the book because it takes a lot of time and energy (more than one would think). Even if they wanted to write the book, many of these guys would have a hard time writing something that can be understood.

Second, the market for books with only advanced knowledge is extremely small. Why make a tremendous book if five people are going to buy it? Beside this, my opinion on the best books for learning has always been that they start with fundamentals that most readers can grasp and then move you into the really advanced stuff. The best books for doing this transition so smoothly that you don't even know you've ever learned really advanced stuff. For example, Feynman's Lectures on Physics are unbelievably good books that start off really basic, but if you know understand the stuff in there, you've got all the tools you'd need to be a great physicist. That's one hell of a book, IMO.

Finally, poker is a game of incomplete information and this impacts how you can discuss it because the number of possible outcomes goes up too fast to consider every option. It's been years since I've read about chess, but I recall a lot of situational analysis. This isn't always what top poker is about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your (2) and (3).

Re (2) : There is a poker boom going on. And there is no reason why the book's audience must consist only of those who will get very far with the book. Actually, it's the opposite. Just like all the PXF and CR subscribers who almost never login. Just like during the day trading boom the number of people who bought expensive services, went to expensive seminars, and bought expensive books and never got much out of them. The financial incentive to write a truly advanced poker books is definitely there. No question about that.

Re (3) : incomplete information is exactly what makes an truly advanced book so compelling. Great players don't always put players on a definite hand. They might have them on 2,3 or even more possible hands. How do they decide the relative probabilities of each hand, and how does that then figure into their rough calc of expected value of calling (or other play).