Re: psychology of poker
 

Ohio, this is the second time that you have tried to debunk me with incomplete arguments.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you learn to take the sentence you do not seem to like, and take the time to understand it, you will see the wisdom of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

apparently i understand the sentence better than you do. it says you should gauge how loose or how tight a player by the looseness/tightness of the other players at that table. that is absurd and pointing that out is hardly nit-picking. if you think/play that way, you'll lose lots of money at poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope that you don't believe every one on this forum for more than 2 years knows less than you. I also play poker for a living, and I can assure you that I would have to do some very bad things with my bankroll for you last sentence to be true.

The thinking is not absurd. I cited why it is not absurd. You have to get it out of your head that a LAG will go to a tight table and destroy them. This is a terrible myth, that no matter how much it is debunked on this forum, in books, and with actual stats, many players will never be able to wrap their brains around.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is doubtful that the average Vegas 2/4 game looks like the VFW picnic you describe.

[/ QUOTE ]

i never said it the average game was like the described game. the described game is an extreme example used to illustrate the dangers of thinking about poker in the way schoonmaker suggests. if you understand the dangers of playing in the described game then you stand a better chance of understanding the dangers of schoonmaker's bad advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I defer you to my previous points.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In final, I think that this book would be good for you. It seems like you need to learn how to balance different concepts and learn how to apply them .You are taking great examples and smearing them based on what, I assume, are losing player's opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks, but i'll go with the general consensus and skip this book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not fault you in your choice. I do not know the exact target of this book. But it is clearly a beginner's book (hint, hint).

I do not understand why you feel the need to sling mud and argue with me. I am taking the time to tell you things that many players will never understand, yet, you, a new poster, living in a state where gambling is heavily frowned upon, and playing poker is illegal, feel the need to argue with people that have more experience and knowledge than you.

What is dangerous is not realizing that poker, even at small stakes, is a subtle game that takes a lot of time to master. It is also dangerous to look at something, read misguided opinions, and state that you are correct because someone wrote something that made sense to you. The reality is that this game makes absolutely no sense to a beginner, even though you think it does at this point. Every new thing I learn, I am faced with another mystery. There is no point where I will tell you I know it all. Please hold the same respect for other posters.

Re: psychology of poker
 

To answer your question, this book is worth reading. You might get a lot from it, a little , maybe you personally will get nothing. You might see something that helps your game or helps you think or may not see how any of it applies.

But, it is worth reading. Asking advice is dicey from a large group of people you don't know. And it can be hard in some instances to advise someone you don't know.

Find someone's opinion you trust and value and ask that person. OR, find a publisher and or author you like and if it will apply to your game or poker in general, read it.

Ie. If it is published by 2+2 and not game specific to a game I don't play, I buy it. Or if it's by another author I have learned to respect, ie. Roy Cook, Bobby C. etc. I get it. Right now, awaiting 2+2's next release and Tommy's book.

Re: psychology of poker
 

[ QUOTE ]

Your post reads like you had an assumed idea of what the book should be about before you read it. Then you read it and found out that it was not about what you thought it should be. Then you didn't like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sums up half of the criticism that is posted daily on this forum.

Re: psychology of poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Your post reads like you had an assumed idea of what the book should be about before you read it. Then you read it and found out that it was not about what you thought it should be. Then you didn't like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sums up half of the criticism that is posted daily on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be true. And that's just a shame.
[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]