Comment on Greenstein Rating

[barryg1]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I am interested in *someone* would point out the previously unpublished "next level" ideas without falling back on the argument of, "You are an unsophisticated internet player that is looking for basic strategy...that is why you don't see the Emperor's clothes."

Many people have made such statements. One of them should be able to provide an example of a "next level" idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason you will move up a level from where you are is because after reading my book you will manage yourself better preparing to play poker, and at the table. I consider other books on poker to be more like blackjack books, teaching you a basic strategy. You will not be able to compete at high levels of poker, no matter how well you learn how to play your cards. You will only excel at poker when you learn how to play the other players and how to manage yourself.

People in the game I play in would likely be able to beat the games most people play in without looking at their cards until after the flop (if their opponents didn't know).

Barry

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
I looked at the negative reviews also, because I wanted to understand what kinds of players I didn't resonate with. It seems that a lot of my material isn't relevant to players who play solely on the Internet and who don't value my advice on personal interaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was disappointed with your book also. Not that it isn't a good poker book. It's just that putting the words "Barry Greenstein" and "An advanced poker guide" on the cover led me to picture a much different type of book. It's just misleading, IMHO.

I wasn't even thinking that it would necessarily fit or improve my mid to high limit games/play. I just thought it would be more about how the game changes at the higher limits. I was thinking it would be about how you make adjustments for the high caliber of opponent in the big game. I was hoping to see more of play involving you and some of the players in the "big" game.

[bobdibble]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason you will move up a level from where you are is because after reading my book you will manage yourself better preparing to play poker, and at the table. I consider other books on poker to be more like blackjack books, teaching you a basic strategy. You will not be able to compete at high levels of poker, no matter how well you learn how to play your cards. You will only excel at poker when you learn how to play the other players and how to manage yourself.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I thought that the sections that covered such material should be fairly obvious to a winning player at the mid-limits and above.

Maybe one of the readers that gave this aspect of the book high marks can weigh in here with a specific example that AOTR opened their eyes to.

p.s. Once again, I did enjoy the book.. I just don't understand why this aspect is being so heavily hyped.

[barryg1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I looked at the negative reviews also, because I wanted to understand what kinds of players I didn't resonate with. It seems that a lot of my material isn't relevant to players who play solely on the Internet and who don't value my advice on personal interaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was disappointed with your book also. Not that it isn't a good poker book. It's just that putting the words "Barry Greenstein" and "An advanced poker guide" on the cover led me to picture a much different type of book. It's just misleading, IMHO.

I wasn't even thinking that it would necessarily fit or improve my mid to high limit games/play. I just thought it would be more about how the game changes at the higher limits. I was thinking it would be about how you make adjustments for the high caliber of opponent in the big game. I was hoping to see more of play involving you and some of the players in the "big" game.

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't play much hold'em in the big game, so I ended up using tournament examples, mainly against relatively weak opponents. I thought of discussing how we play Omaha eight-or-better or how we play pot limit Omaha and how you cope with someone who plays almost every hand, but even the mention of these games is over most readers head. I had hands from the big game I might have included, but instead I tried to explain some of my ideas without using hands -- for example, my chart on how to adjust to opponents styles. I'm surprised this didn't provoke more thinking.

Also, I felt that I did a good job chronicling my thought processes during poker hands. Most readers have been happy with that, although I have often been asked for more hands.

There is no question that one of the drawbacks for two plus two'ers is that I wanted to make the book readable by a mainstream audience so these readers could apply my poker ideas to their own world. I think I achieved this, but it left some poker players hungering for more intensive poker. On the other hand, editors at the different publishing houses that I rejected said the poker in the play lessons was too sophisticated and was limiting my audience.

I have considered making a book with only hand examples, but it would be a lot of work for not that large an audience. Frankly, I still make my living playing poker, not writing books. I just had a book in me that I decided to get out. (I am of the opinion that we all have a story to tell.)

Barry

[MicroBob]

very nice post barry.


[ QUOTE ]

Also, I felt that I did a good job chronicling my thought processes during poker hands.

[/ QUOTE ]


Undoubtedly.


[ QUOTE ]

I have considered making a book with only hand examples

[/ QUOTE ]


No telling how much I would pay to read more of your thoughts on various hands....including the omaha hands from the 'big game'. even though my omaha knowledge is limited I feel I would start picking up on the ideas of 'expert' omaha play just via your thought-process if it the writing is anything like the hand-examples in AotR.



Again - I wasn't just in it for the hand-examples or to become a better player.
I found many of your ideas and stories very interesting.


[ QUOTE ]
I just had a book in me that I decided to get out.

[/ QUOTE ]


In spite of my criticisms I am very glad you did and hope that you might do another one someday.

Perhaps 'tales from the big-game' or 'barry on the tourney scene' (with hand-examples and more stories from major tournaments plus more details on your work with various charities and how you got involved with it and why it's so important to you and hoping that others will join you, etc).
Just a couple of ideas.

You hit a lot of different areas with this book. I suspect that if you wanted to pick one of those areas and take a more detailed book out of it you could and I, for one, would certainly look forward to it.

[bobdibble]

[ QUOTE ]
In spite of my criticisms I am very glad you did and hope that you might do another one someday.

Perhaps 'tales from the big-game' or 'barry on the tourney scene' (with hand-examples and more stories from major tournaments plus more details on your work with various charities and how you got involved with it and why it's so important to you and hoping that others will join you, etc).
Just a couple of ideas.

You hit a lot of different areas with this book. I suspect that if you wanted to pick one of those areas and take a more detailed book out of it you could and I, for one, would certainly look forward to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto.

[raisins]

Barry -

Despite the majority of my play being on the Internet I enjoyed your book. I was impressed with the table giving the equity of hands with backdoor outs and redraws. I haven't seen it before and it's very important for the game runners of private games who do insurance. Many times I've seen insurance laid with nowhere near the correct equity.

Anyway I want to give some support to whatever side of you is motivated to create another book devoted to the play of hands. The section on Lessons in Play is one of the meatiest and if it was expanded into a few hundred pages would be of interest to many of us here. It may not have the reading audience that this one does but I think it would sell as well. I for one would love examples from all the games and especially hands played against loose aggressive tough opponents. I thought the most interesting part of Stewart Reuben's PLO and PLH books was the perspective of exactly that kind of player.

regards,

raisins

[MaxPower]

bodibble, anything that we point out will be deemed trivial and obvious by you. It will also be different things for different people.

Everything is obvious in hindsight and just knowing what you should do is not enough to ensure success. The more I move up, the more I realize I see that my success is heavily determined by factors other than my knowledge of how to play my hand and my opponent.

Maybe your experience is different.

[MaxPower]

Barry,

In case you read this, I want to say that I loved your line about the starting hand policemen and the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval - Hilarious.

[bobdibble]

[ QUOTE ]
bodibble, anything that we point out will be deemed trivial and obvious by you. It will also be different things for different people.

[/ QUOTE ]

sigh...can't anyone give a straight answer? Here... I'll do it for you.

I'll give you a potential example. Barry talks about taking a break when he is playing badly and going to the bathroom to wash his face and telling himself that if he doesn't start playing better, he is going to leave. He makes a commitment to himself, and sticks with it. If he doesn't play better, he quits.

Now.... hopefully that should be obvious to most people. Barry's, however, places a lot of stress on the fact that he really does quit if he breaks his commitment with himself. The that extra emphasis on the commitment to quit may be what sets this appart from the obvious in people's minds. This extra emphasis may help them remember the next time they are at the table.

Now, if this helps you next time you start tilting to really stop, great. AOTR helped improve your game.

However, either ITPM or POP covers this paritcular topic in more depth. I don't remmeber which, but in addition to the commitment to stoping, it is suggested that you note your mood prior to this as well as any triggers that could have caused the poor play in the first place so that you can avoid this feedback cycle in the future.

In addition, one of them discusses setting checkpoint times to evaluate your play prior to any such event. If the table is great, keep playing past your planned session time, but set planned self-checks to evaluate your overall level of play (in addition to during and after each hand) to make sure you are still playing with an edge.

Ok.. so there is a concrete example of a non-strategy topic that I think POP and/or ITPM handled in more depth.


[ QUOTE ]

Everything is obvious in hindsight and just knowing what you should do is not enough to ensure success. The more I move up, the more I realize I see that my success is heavily determined by factors other than my knowledge of how to play my hand and my opponent.

Maybe your experience is different.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, my experience is the same. I just think that Inside the Poker Mind covers these better, as does Mastery (although, Mastery isn't about poker, per se.)

So, can anyone provide an example of a non-strategic concept from the book that was eye opening for them, or drove a topic home that previous literature didn't?

p.s. Once again, I want to say that I enjoyed the other topics in the book and I recommend it, even if I am being critical of this one aspect.