[brendons31]

I have a question for Mason, or anyone else who might know (I wouldn't have a clue since its well before my time). As Mason said, at the time the book was written, NL games barely existed outside of the WSOP and the WSOP side games. So was Doyles NL section in SS1 the first ever (or one of the first ever) piece ever published on NL Holdem. If yes, that goes some way to explain why it was so "ground-breaking" at the time, but certainly doesn't mean its good.

How come it is still held in high reguard by the general poker public. I'm sure the first ever publication on golf, or tennis, or nearly anything else has no relevance to today. Yet the NL section in Supersystem is still considered great by so many in the poker public.

Is it because Doyle himself is considered a great poker player by many. Perhaps he is, I wouldn't know, but there have been many examples throughout history of someone being great at something but being a poor teacher/coach at it (it goes the other way too, ie. someone being a great coach/teacher at something, but not great themselves).

The general "cop-out" answer of some people reguarding SS1 seems to be "at the time poker was different, it was great for that era". Possibly it was, although I think not, the rules haven't changed, and I don't think people were any "dumber" back then than now.

Is their any reason why the SS2 NL section was exactly the same??

- Was Doyle lazy and didn't feel like writing something else?

- Did he still believe the advice is valid today?

- Is he simply just greedy thinking something like "i'll get a new group of writers together to write about games not many people care about, i'll leave my NL section the same since it still works for me and add some more to my mind numbingly boring life story, and i'll watch the $$ roll into my bank account".

Like I said before, i'm not questioning Doyles own poker ability, I'm sure he's probally an amazing player, but he's a very bad poker writer who gets way way too much respect.