[Heisenb3rg]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to comment on the winrates too much because it's not worth a big discussion, but I will say this. It is my opinion that if the winrates were higher OR lower, the text/conclusions/analysis would not suffer in either case. Our biggest internal worry was sample size, NOT winrate total.

I guess it's human nature to talk about money/winrates, but for our purposes with the text, higher winrate did not mean better book. I'm curious if anyone disagrees, and if so, why.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with the usefulness of the advice itself.

It has to do with the psychology of the reader understanding the advice. Shaping the lens at which they view your material.

People expect solid advice from a solid pro.

If you've proven that by implementing your ideas, you've achieved some sick win rate. People are going to open their mind as wide as possible to these "winning" ideas.

For example It's not common to disagree with something you read in the poker book using a limited/flawed perspective.

If the author who proposed the idea skills were under question, a reader disagreeing with this idea can then assume that the author is just incorrect. Learning little in the process. If they respected the authors word, they are more likely to think harder about the idea. Therefore, they learn more, therefore, the book is more useful.

However, It is a double edged sword . If people never stop to fully understand a concept, but rather mimick it because they respsect the person too much.. This is bad too.

I think the first situation comes up a lot more than the second in poker books, especially given the whole everyone thinks they're better than they really are mentality. There's also a high correlation between poker players and narcissim.

This is just human nature, it's especially true in the sciences. If you've had an idea for a while and einstein came along and told you , you were wrong as well as gave you a complex argument.. How likely would you rethink your idea? If a homeless dude came along and gave you the same argument, would you give it as much merrit?
Assuming of couse you didn't fully understand what they were saying at first.