Chan right about HPFAP?

[Gelford]

I'm no genius at chess (ELO 2040) .... But I say get a book with a lot of tactical puzzles. Get a basic endgame primer.

And get a good game collection, just pick a player you like.

Opening theory is overrated when below 2000, so you just want enough to get you by, but not more.

That amounts to three books and some openings stuff. No need to overdo it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
[quoteHis mainline from WWTD2 is still losing by force. /quote]

Source? Analysis? Link? ...I have both the WWTD books and I dont like his repertoire against the Bc4 lines, but losing by force? Goldmund

[/ QUOTE ]

P.77/78 17...Bxf5 loses to 18.exf5! Rab8 19.hxg6 hxg6 20.fxg6 fxg6 21.Qe3, just check it with an engine.

Ward himself dropped the Qa5-line and now plays a sideline with delayed castling and an early a6-b5.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the author of Mathematics of poker won 2 wsop bracelets one in limit and one in no limit this year, nobody out there comes remotely close to that. The other author placed very highly in a wsop event.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which mean nothing in regards to a book on side (ring)games.

Bracelets don't really mean much as far as whether a book will be any good or not. Especially when it comes to ringgames. In fact, I'd hesitate before buying a ringgame book written by a tourney player(not saying it can't be good, but the above far from qualifies it). Many people with bracelets, or winners of big tourneys get killed in the side games.

They look pretty and get you on the cover of a magazine, though.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

hey bernie. i respectfully disagree with your above statements. just look at phil helmuth's section on limit hold'em. numerous bracelets = ability to write solid limit literature [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

We'll call that exhibit: A. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

b

[Goldmund]

I'll look into it..been playing a line with an early Qc7 from one of the Sapi-Schneider-books fairly succesfully, bt my biggest beef with the Dragon is you're not really playing chess, you're playing a contest of opening knowledge. If you get caught off guard with black and white gets his attack going, even a 1700-player can kill a 2100-player like myself. Sac, sac, mate! as Bobby put it. Goldmund

P.77/78 17...Bxf5 loses to 18.exf5! Rab8 19.hxg6 hxg6 20.fxg6 fxg6 21.Qe3, just check it with an engine.

Ward himself dropped the Qa5-line and now plays a sideline with delayed castling and an early a6-b5.

[/ QUOTE ]

[samsdmf]

If this book ever gets taken out of the 'Must Read' books pile it will be because nobody plays Limited Holdem anymore, teh whole term 'Advanced Players' refers to someone who can take teh advice in and manipulate it to their game conditions

[CrayZee]

[ QUOTE ]
'I want to memorize a chart of starting hands and make poker into basic BJ strategy'

[/ QUOTE ]

Admittedly, I've only read the book once straight thru, but I doubt I'd read the pf section rigorously again. The book has more post-flop content, so I don't know what this guy is talking about.

No one book is going to make you play perfect poker, that's just delusional..otherwise poker would be blackjack. That should be obvious.

Also, is there such a thing as a perfect book anyway? That's subjective.

The pf section is useful to memorize to recite back to Sklansky. He likes that, I think.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

Here's my critique of HPFAP. It reads like a bunch of essays cobbled together and reworked into a book. Simply from the fact that learning styles differ, I think that some players would benefit from someone taking the book apart and regurgitating all the info contained within with no new content added, but I think there is some merit to the notion that the book could stand to be reorganized a little bit, although that reorganization isn't probably an efficient use of time for S&M.

I think that Chan's comments are an indictment of readers who take a cookbook approach to poker. HPFAP often follows the formula of "here's a lot of words about something that you should do in a typical game followed by relatively fewer words about what you should do in a non-typical game". The typical game as described by HPFAP is probably not quite as typical as it used to be, so unimaginative people who play "by the book" find themselves more often in situations where the "book" play is not the optimal play.

I believe that HPFAP could be revised and improved, which in no way means that it is not already a great book. If I were to do it, I would scrap most of the loose game section, integrating ideas into the main text, but retain a theoretical discussion of playing in loose games that is mostly devoid of examples. I would rework the assumption of a typical table to be looser than what is now used in the text, so that discussion of particular play involves how you would change depending on if the table is tighter or looser than typical.

For example, the text may give lesser readers the impression that a check-raise semi-bluff is going to be more successful than it is now. I gather that 20 years ago you had a better chance of making someone lay down top pair than you do now in the average game. On the one hand, I think those readers are stupid because they don't adjust their play to their opponents. On the other hand, I think that it is possible to better instruct players on how to adjust to different tables. The information is there for a thinking player to figure it out himself, so HPFAP is not lacking in information.

Since almost every poker strategy book is written with the assumption that there is a typical set of opponents you will be playing against, the book's worth is determined primarily by how well the strategy works against that typical table, how likely the reader is to actually play against that typical table, and how well the book covers changes in strategy to match deviations from the typical table. HPFAP actually covers the latter in more depth than other hold em books that I have read, but it's a subject where you can always write more.

[Borknagar]

That´s a nicely written review Pokr. Thanks.

[mattnxtc]

Stox trader is well documented as being a good player and maybe his book will be more suited for the modern conditions. That being said sshe is still a great book to go over fundamental concepts...it is still the book to learn and grasp the basic concepts of limit...then books like stock traders and wto can come in and expand your tool set....

Saying a book is great just b/c they did good in one world series is a bit naive as well...The book should be judged the same regardless of their results this year. So far it has gotten great reviews from people here and other places and it shoudl be based on that..not on how they did this world series