Comment on Greenstein Rating

[MicroBob]

I don't recall whether it was limit or no-limit but I also remember this part from Phil's book.
I want to say that it was limit though.

This was back before I had even heard of Phil Hellmuth or Ted Forrest.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
This does however bring up an interesting point about your writings. An impression I get is that you put a lot of emphasis on the "skill to play loose." Perhaps in time you'll talk (and write) more about this area.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason:

Thats an interesting comment. Deep down inside every solid tight aggressive hold'em player is a loose player dying to break free of the shackles of oppression. I have personally (to both my benefit and to my detriment) experimented with loose and totally blind play to further explore my boundary's and understandings of my opponents as a whole. Although I know fully this is a silly chip-spewing exercise, I have also found it almost zen-like in a long term unprofitable way. If nothing else it gave me a better understanding of how to counteract my loose opponents by putting myself in their shoes.

As an author of books that strive to train students to play in a manor that is profitable in the long run, do you feel there is some benefit to understanding the loose aggressive mentality through personal experience? Do you feel it would be irresponsible for Barry to encourage this exploration?

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[stud7champ]

Actually I think he is quite an interesting writer. If we look at his play and results, except for Stud I believe he is very strong in most games. His book was geared towards beginners and is an excellent resource for new players. His anecdotes (Scotty's a2 in O8 and Ted Forrest's experiment are also very interesting).
I Play most of the main games with Stud and Omaha being my weakest so i can appreciate the effort in writing a book on all the main games.
It's a different kind of book which is not as mathematical and a bit more biographical than most.
Let's put it this way the newbie is going to understand more from Phils book that HE for AP

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi champ:

First off I gave Hellmuth's book a dual rating of 1 and 6. The 1 was for the limit hold 'en advice and the 6 was for everything else. I also agree that it is a beginner's book and not a "play like the pros" book.

But my point is slightly different. For reasons which would take too long to explain here, I don't believe that this book, regardless of what you may think of it, would sell well if it was released today.

When the poker boom began, there was actually a shortage of poker books. Many books which sold pretty well two years ago have quit selling now and there are also many new books coming to market. In my opinion Hellmuth got very lucky with the timing of his book. That won't happen again to anyone.

Best wishes,
Mason

[stud7champ]

lets think outside of the box the two plus two books are basically the best in terms of theory particularly theory based on mathematics. The weakness of the two plus two books in the past was not enough examples and large gaps in the psychology of play, the more practical aspects. Put it another way. Let a mathematician who's interested in poker get All the two plus two books on HE then study it for a year and play for the next 5 years then put him against Greenstein of Phil. Who will you bet your house on?
OK Phil or Greenstein, its not just the books there's other factors out there that make a great player. Hopefully Barry addresses some of that.
Finally its not in poker players best interest to recommend the Greenstein book if it is a great book. why get your competitor to read up on your new learning's

[eric5148]

[ QUOTE ]
I have considered making a book with only hand examples, but it would be a lot of work for not that large an audience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but that small target audience would easily pay $100 or more for such a book. I think it would be well worth your time and effort.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
The weakness of the two plus two books in the past was not enough examples and large gaps in the psychology of play, the more practical aspects.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may want to read Inside the Poker Mind and The Psychology of Poker.

As for examples, you may want to read Small Stakes Hold 'em, Tournament Poker for Advanced Players, and the Harrington books.

MM

[Willy]

Very well said. Fully agree.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion Hellmuth got very lucky with the timing of his book.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's part of it, but I think there are a few other factors as well. For one thing, Phil is very good at self-promotion. Many people think he's the best poker player in the world (based on Phil's own say-so).

Perhaps more importantly, his book has very little competition in a rather large segment of the poker-book market -- namely, the segment catering to beginners who want to learn a variety of different games.

Most people who play poker do not take it very seriously. They don't play in casinos. They may play online a bit, but mostly they play in home games. What they need is a basic overview of how to play many different games -- hold 'em, Omaha, stud; fixed-limit, no-limit; high only, hi-low split; etc.

There are very few books that provide such an overview. TOP and SS1 & SS2 are too difficult. Most other books concentrate only on a single game.

If I know somebody who plays in a weekly home game and is willing to spend an hour and a half reading to improve his game (but not much more than that), what book would I recommend? I think there are only a few choices:

Poker For Dummies by Krieger
Play Poker Like the Pros by Hellmuth
Complete Guide to Winning Poker by Moorehead
Thursday Night Poker by Steiner

Of those books, Hellmuth's is by far the easiest to get hold of.

[DrPhysic]

It's on Amazon for $16.50.

Doc