[brendons31]

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.