|
|
|
|
#1
05-11-2007, 04:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
It really is true. And I'm not going to say something mean like the merely good players don't fully appreciate me. That's not the reason. It has to do with the fact that almost all poker plays combine your assumptions about your opponents possible hands and his playing proclivities with the logic and math required to exploit those assumptions. And my books don't focus on how to make those assumptions. For various reasons, the biggest one being that public disclosure can backfire once it is well known.
So most of my stuff involves the best way to extract money given you have accurate assumptions. And in small or medium size games that's not hard to achieve. But it is in bigger games. And if you screw that up the logic and math won't save you. Good as it is. But it IS still very useful if you are a good enough player to read even pretty tough opponents. Something only great players do well. 
|
|
#3
05-11-2007, 06:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
David,
I'm not a great or even a good player, but I quite like your "stuff". I have a question. Say you are heads up as the PFR against an intelligent player who called in the big blind. Flop comes A72r. He checks. How much do you bet if you are holding: a) AJ b) KQ c) TT
|
|
#4
05-11-2007, 06:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
Lol @ David's self-delusions.
You got that completely backward and I really find it hard to believe you don't know that. The great players, by whatever standard you define "great", are not 2+2 fans. The big 2+2 fans are more typically the 30-60 live nit types. The great (or supposedly great) old school live players like Chip and Doyle are either not book types or learned poker pre-2+2, or both. The younger generation great players like Ivey or Rugby or any random tough internet pro either have not read 2+2 books at all, or learned far more from experience and discussion with other pros. As for great tourney players, whomever they may be, I doubt any of them have been significantly influenced by 2+2 books. Even strong analytical nerd types have always loved to bash 2+2. From Abdul to Tom Weideman to Chen/Ankemann (though they are too nice to really bash.) I honestly can't think of a single really impressive poker player who is a strong enthusiast of 2+2 books*. Some of them probably started off reading 2+2 books but then they learn to move beyond them. Now keep in mind I am not talking about twoplustwo.com, just 2+2 book. This website has probably had a major influence on lots of the great young NL players. Also I'm not bashing 2+2 books here. They are valuable as far as they go. But to think that great poker players sitting around eagerly devouring the latest 2+2 text is nuts. Sorry David. * I have a feeling someone is going to offer Chris Ferugson as a rebuttal, based on his endorsements on the back of some 2+2 books. Not to digress too much but I have always strongly suspected he was just being nice. He's too into game theory to be a real 2+2 fan.
|
|
#5
05-11-2007, 09:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
[ QUOTE ]
I honestly can't think of a single really impressive poker player who is a strong enthusiast of 2+2 books*. * I have a feeling someone is going to offer Chris Ferugson as a rebuttal, based on his endorsements on the back of some 2+2 books. Not to digress too much but I have always strongly suspected he was just being nice. He's too into game theory to be a real 2+2 fan. [/ QUOTE ] I'd guess Greg would be the more popular rebuttal here. Did Chris really endorse a 2 book? I don't recall that.
|
|
#7
05-11-2007, 10:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
You have mostly missed the point of David's post FWIW.
He is saying that his books help you know what to do once you've got a good read on a situation and therefore great players are in a better position to use the material he presents (since they read situations better). Or to put it in a different way, knowing what the correct play is in a certain situation (what his books help with) does you no good if you cannot determine that you are in that particular situation (which his books do not help with). I'd also hazard a guess that more top players have read ToP than you think.
|
|
#8
05-11-2007, 12:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
[ QUOTE ]
You have mostly missed the point of David's post FWIW. He is saying that his books help you know what to do once you've got a good read on a situation and therefore great players are in a better position to use the material he presents (since they read situations better). Or to put it in a different way, knowing what the correct play is in a certain situation (what his books help with) does you no good if you cannot determine that you are in that particular situation (which his books do not help with). [/ QUOTE ] Yes, I understand the explanation David offers for why his premise should be true. (The premise being that great players often like his books more than good players.) And as I explained I think his premise is completely false.
|
|
#9
05-11-2007, 12:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
[ QUOTE ]
And as I explained I think his premise is completely false. [/ QUOTE ]Do you have evidence that the greatest players, many whom you have listed, have not read or have little regard for David's books?
|
|
#10
05-11-2007, 12:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Great Players Often Like My Stuff More Than Good Players
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] And as I explained I think his premise is completely false. [/ QUOTE ]Do you have evidence that the greatest players, many whom you have listed, have not read or have little regard for David's books? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, I have right here signed affidavits from the 20 winningest players... Um, no. I don't have 'evidence'. However I have read specific quotes from some of the great/supposedly great that they have never read any poker books (Ivey and Benyamine off the top of my head). I believe Barry G. on 2+2 expressed a similar lack of interest in poker books. Others I am virtually certain based on common sense likely haven't read any 2+2 books at all. Chau, Doyle, Chip. Many others from the Internet generation I know for a fact do not feel they have gotten much from 2+2 books, if they have read any at all. Trust me, I'm right on this one. Like I said before I'm not bashing 2+2 books, just DS's absurdly exaggerations.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
