Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

My vote is Supersystem by a long way. Will give reasons a bit later, just wondering whether their are any other contendors for this title.

I'm sure their are other worse poker books out their, Play Poker Like the Pro's by Hellmuth certainly wasn't good. I haven't read Macevoy's and Cloutiers efforts but they generally seem to be considered pretty bad too.

However these books aren't nick named "the bible of poker". Wonder how many people have gone broke following Doyles NL section.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

Supersystem I was really pretty good considering what was out there when it came out. Supersystem II has some excellent chapters, so I wouldn't put it on this list.

But you're asking about overrated, not just whether the book is bad. Even though I think Supersystem is well worth reading I might agree that it is a tad overrated...

For the Oscars category of "Most Overrated of All Time" NLTAP and PNL Vol. 1 stand atop the pedestal. Hands down.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

- I only read doyle's book and I constantly beat NL 200

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

SuperSystem came out in the late 70s or very early 80s. There was really nothing else authoritative, and at the time it was the absolute nuts on most of the games it covered. To say it is over-rated today may be true, because it is no longer the Bible. But it was the best strategy book by miles for many years.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

Overrated is completely different from not good.

Super System
HPFAP
SSHE
possibly NLHTAP by some people

Play Poker Like the Pros can't be overrated, it sucks for limit and everyone knows it, for NL it's not raved about, for sure.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

Maybe I the title of the thread should be "Most over-rated writer", or "Most over-rated chapter", becasue the olny part of the book i've ever read are Doyles parts, not sure if the other games mentioned in the book were even played when I started poker.

However, it is Doyles book, and the NL part is is section, so maybe it isn't wrong to say the whole book is crap based on that section.

Also, I think the arguement that it was written 30 or so years ago doesn't really hold, the rules of the game haven't changed, and someone plese correct me if I'm wrong, but didn;t Doyle use exactly the same NL section in SS2, and say something like "the information is as relevant today as when SS1 came out".

Its been a while since i've read it, so my memory of specifics may not be great, but here are a few reasons why the NL section is very poor in my opinion:

- Doyle doesn't like AA much becasue its hard to get away from, but likes AK and suited connectors.

- Be prepared to fold bottom, sometimes middle set. - Not bad advice when playing very very deeps stacked poker with opponents you know very well. But in reality, it is extremely rare when folding bottom set is correct.

- Play any draw like its the nuts.

- Doyles idea when flopping a big hand is "you're always trying to win a big pot" or "break them", not that you're trying to maximise your EV. There are defintly times when trying to get the opponent all in isn't the most profitable play. Doyles techniqies for breaking them being; overbetting the pot, leading into preflop raisers etc.

- Doyle is a strong advocate of leading out into a pre flop raiser, he fails to mention the fact that if you're even in the position where you would be leading into a pre flop raiser on a regular basis you aren't playing well. Not good business to be playing out of position against raises on a regular basis.



- He believes in ESP. I remember him saying something like - "doctors and scientists will tell you ESP doesn't exixt, but what do they know about poker".

I could go on..

I'm not saying Doyle isn't good or even great at poker, i'm sure he is (I wouldn't know). I think he's a crap poker writer. I think Doyle is one of those rare guys whose technical game isn't great, but he has an amazing "feel" for the game, he reads situations well, reads people well, and knows exactly when to "push all in on an inside straight draw". In most cases the typical beginner-average poker player who would read this book doesn't have this feel, and this book would cost them a lot more than just the price of the book.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

It may help you that you're a member of a pretty useful forum for learning to beat NL200, and their for you head has been able to filter out the crap that Doyle taught you.

Or it may be that you have run good for a couple of weeks and don't understand variance, I don't know.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

I do believe he slightly changed his view on ESP in his later years. At least he altered the wording a bit in that respect so you can interpret it differently.

The same thing with streaks, and how the scientists are wrong. Well, actually he still DOES say the scientists are wrong. There's a lot of blackjack players who also think the same..

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

You really do have to look at Doyle's book in the context of 30 years ago. Back then, his n/l advice was on the money and he was a huge winner using it. Times have changed, and while his ideas are still very interesting and have validity, they aren't anything close to definitive now.

Re: Most over-rated poker book of all time?
 

The advice in SS1 & SS2 is quite good if you give everyone at the table 500-1000 BB. For a 100 BB game, the advice is pretty abysmal.