Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players

[Mike Gallo]

Hi Barry G,

4. Many of the successful players say that they are doing fine without poker books, so they don't want to be messed up by reading. That is the reason The Grinder gave me when he said he hadn't read my book. I think they are wrong, especially the younger players. At the least, it should help to know what other people are reading.

You make an excellent point in the bolded statement.

I have a friend who reads all poker books, so he has a handle on how other players play.

He has enough knowledge of the game to make an educated decision on which author has a correct handle on the game.

I once played in a game that had two buddies who I would call opponents who wanted to play well. They would comment on hands and classify players as animals. A mouse here, a jackal there, an elephant.

I asked the guys who made the comments what the comments meant. The fellows told me to read Phil Hellmuth's book Play Poker Like a Pro book. They had high praise for Mr. Hellmuth and his book.

I asked what animal I would be and they agreed on a bald eagle.

I remember feeling offended at first. However after looking through the book, I came to realize an eagle isnt a bad thing.

[7n7]

[ 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 ]

Quoting in hopes that Barry will answer. Finally a question that he probably hasn't been asked 1000 times already.

[curious123]

double post

[curious123]

[ QUOTE ]
I just had a conversation with one of our authors who was given an advance copy of:

The Full Tilt Poker Strategy Guide: Tournament Edition (Paperback) by Andy Bloch (Author), Richard Brodie (Author), Chris Ferguson (Author), Ted Forrest (Author), Rafe Furst (Author), Phil Gordon (Author), David Grey (Author), Howard Lederer (Author), Mike Matusow (Author), Michael Craig (Editor)

He called me to tell me that our books were mentioned positively in many places. Now I haven't seen the book yet but I suspect that you may want to look at it.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

Craig mentions that Howard told him Hold 'Em Poker was responsible for him becoming a poker pro. Howard talks more about this in his chapter. I'm sure there's other references, but I haven't read much other than Chris and Andy's chapters.


[ QUOTE ]
3. Phil Ivey told me someone recommended Theory of Poker to him, so he read it. He also read my book. He has not read any other poker books.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

In the same chapter he (Craig) says that Phil told him the only poker book he ever read was Hold 'Em Poker. Not questioning you Barry, just sayin'.

[Headblader]

Many of pros write their own books, or may in the future. Why would they go on record endorsing 2 + 2 or anybody else's book? Bottom line you have to find what works for you, and that is usually found out through several sources, of which books are just one source. No single author has bottled the be all end all strategy for poker. If it even existed, they'd be fools for publishing it.

[Micturition Man]

So between Barry's post, Rugby's quote, and David's restating his claim more modestly, I guess I won the thread?

Good times.

[JackCase]

[ QUOTE ]
So between Barry's post, Rugby's quote, and David's restating his claim more modestly, I guess I won the thread?



[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe anything that a professional poker player says, you are a loser, big time. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[barryg1]

[ 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

[TheReaver]

I think that in the end it really depends on the type of player and their own learning styles. Some people are naturally talented at things, they can understand the concepts quite easily without much thought, and these players tend to become cream of the crop. Books may not help them as much, however many times reading books can help them reinforce their own ideas as well as for them to challenge the ideas to decide whether they agree or disagree.

But there are also other players, who may have less natural talent, and they are able to take in lots of information and analyze the information to form their own ideas of the game. These players may be less talented naturally but it does not mean they are necessarily worse players. These players might gain more useful information from reading books than the naturally gifted players.

It kind of reminded me of professional race car drivers: On the one hand the naturally gifted driver who drives by instinct, and the intellectual driver who computes the various data of the racecourse, car, and inputs in the head - they both achieve the same lap time.

[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.