Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
Umm... I've played with several world class players. (Not that that is really germane to the issue.)

[/ QUOTE ]If this issue is "What do world class players think about x", surely having played with those players is germane to making an educated guess as to their opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
Who is the other guy who supposedly has? Surely you're not thinking of Sklansky...

[/ QUOTE ]You don't think Sklansky has played with world class players?

[raistlinx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However I have read specific quotes from some of the great/supposedly great that they have never read any poker books (Ivey and Benyamine off the top of my head).

The Ivey quote is not accurate.

Before Phil Ivey started playing poker for a living, he worked as a telemarketer in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Someone that worked for me worked with Phil Ivey.

According to the fellow that worked for me Phil Ivey carried a copy of Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players with him, and would read the book whenever he was not on a phone call.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok I guess I have to concede the point that Ivey has read a 2+2 book in his life.

I honestly think he did say something that sort of implied the contrary, but w/e.

Anyway Ivey reading a 2+2 book DNE "great players love 2+2 books".

After all according to this thread Rugby has read everything by Ken Warren.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are sort of right about this point. He said "I skimmed through some books, but I never actually read a whole book. " Who knows just how much he read and how much he skimmed of course...

[SenecaJim]

I do believe David himself has stated in one of his books that a " talented " non-theorist player will beat an untalented theorist always. That statement alone tells you there is more to the game than theory (math) , the stuff David writes about, and he is the one telling you that.

So, a talented player (talent you MUST have to be great) that learns and understands theory will have an edge over another talented player that doesn't. AND talented players are hard to get an edge over. Ergo, great players are going to appreciate David's work even more.

This makes so much sense to me, (sports ,chess, etc. analogies just leap out at you), it seems painfully obvious.

That doesn't mean others aren't helped or don't appreciate the work, just supremely talented players appreciate it more. We all benefit from a golf instructor on the mechanics of the swing , how to adjust to conditions, strategy on the course, etc. But you can rest assured that it is not utilized or the changes in yours or my performance appreciated as much as by Tiger Woods.

2+2 books quickly made me a winning player, period. I have implemented them to the best of my ability and experience. If I had more of either, I'm sure they would have made an even bigger difference.

Instead of looking to argue you should just look at the common sense of the statement.

[Micturition Man]

This is getting too nitpicky for me.

For the record I was simply suggesting that if "having played with supposedly great players in the post 2+2 era" is considered to be relevant here, that criterion favors me over Sklansky.

Sklansky has not played anywhere near the biggest games since like the 70's or something, and back then 2+2 did not exist so his experience there is irrelevant anyway.

Also keep in mind that there is a difference between "educated guess" and "egotistical delusion".

[*TT*]

This would be a really good time for someone to post the classic photo of Doyle Brunson reading Sklansky on Razz. Since most of the people who post here never step foot in a card room or get to know world class players in real life, they need visual proof that the best of the top players all read 2+2 titles rather than trust in someone's statements. Or they can just call the Gamblers Book Club/General Store to ask who has been buying what books lately - they often sell 2+2 titles by saying XXXXX just stopped by to buy this book.

[Mike Gallo]

TT,

Because you asked

[Micturition Man]

The cruel truth that you are overlooking is that most great/supposedly great players *who are theoretically inclined* do NOT have an especially high regard for 2+2 books.

Because 2+2 books are better than most of the competition you guys assume that they represent the pinnacle of poker theory. But as I pointed out in my original post, the strongest theoretical players actually look down upon 2+2 books.

[SenecaJim]

heh heh. Nice dip into the archives , Mike. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Micturition Man]

[ QUOTE ]
This would be a really good time for someone to post the classic photo of Doyle Brunson reading Sklansky on Razz. Since most of the people who post here never step foot in a card room or get to know world class players in real life, they need visual proof that the best of the top players all read 2+2 titles rather than trust in someone's statements. Or they can just call the Gamblers Book Club/General Store to ask who has been buying what books lately - they often sell 2+2 titles by saying XXXXX just stopped by to buy this book.

[/ QUOTE ]


So you think Doyle just happened to be reading that book, at the table, in the middle of a game, and a photographer happened to be strolling through the pokerroom and took a snap shot?

That's a PR photo and Doyle and Sklansky are friends from way back.

Anyway I did not say no great players have read 2+2 books, I just said that contrary to David's statement they are virtually never the greatest 2+2 fans.

Plus SOR happens to be probably the single best 2+2 book.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
The cruel truth that you are overlooking is that most great/supposedly great players *who are theoretically inclined* do NOT have an especially high regard for 2+2 books.

[/ QUOTE ]This is not a "truth"- it is an assertion"made without any evidence to back it up.

Who do you think was buying 2+2 books before the poker boom?