Poker books

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
But I think that unless you are more of a math-minded player, this book will only be nominally useful.

[/ QUOTE ]You know, I felt like this book wasn't really THAT math oriented. Sure it had the odds and probabilities and stuff to prove some points; however, the content that was most useful was more focused on considering why I make some plays I do and how they really aren't getting me where I want to be

[ QUOTE ]
But Daniel argues Ted should have known his hand was good because there Was a 6 in Ted's hand and two on the board. The only Hand that Daniel could have played in the given situation would have been 66, not 6x. And since Ted knew 66 was impossible for Negreanu (because one in Ted's hand, two on the board), And that even Daniel wouldn't have played 6anything, he should have known he was good.

[/ QUOTE ]This in no way knocks "math guys".

[ QUOTE ]
The point is, the shortcomings of SOME math guys is that they see that said opponent will have hand that beats me XX percentage of the time, but they don't take into account if that particular hand would have been played by the opponent given the total action at the table. And that's what real poker is in my book.

[/ QUOTE ]Any poker player who doesn't take into account how a hand would be played isn't playing good poker. But this isn't the kind of poker 2+2 or Sklansky advocates. If you've read his material then you know he says math will only get you part of the way. Other skills are needed, and often more important (depending on the game).