Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

[Splossy]

I think there is a point here. It is easy to become too reliant on books and other sources of other people's thinking. You see lots of posts here from people who are looking for a book for for level, then another for a slightly different level, another for a loose table, another for limit, another for pot limit, another for no limit, another for short handed table, another for a cash game etc etc.

[SNOWBALL]

Hellmuth is a fish in the high stakes UB cash games.
Hansen is a fish in the high stakes bellagio cash games.
Who cares about either of them?

[Lanzalot]

I just want to echo what Gelford and Shandrax are saying here. Players like Negreanu, Hansen and Flack have all said that they have never read poker books or at least very few of them. But NONE of these players or others who make the same claim have got where they are without extensive study and thinking about the game. They have thought a great deal about strategy and plays away from the table and possibly discussed same with other more knowledgeable players. Some very intelligent players can become experts without reading books, but nobody has ever become an expert without extensive thinking about the game. Nobody. Never.

[ECDub]

Yeah, who needs books when you can just go ask Chip Reese or Doyle Brunson a question. These guys have worked hard to get their game to the level it is. Plus, playing is very important. Quite a few of these guys were recognized for their talent and mentored by some of the established players early in their careers. They might not read the books, but they got solid information to get them where they are.

[bk1]

they are still better than the other 90% of pro poker wannabes... [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
they are still better than the other 90% of pro poker wannabes... [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Says the latest poker magazine...

I'm not sure they're better than 90% of the winning players though. Especially the winning players you never really hear about.

b

[CrayZee]

Studying pokers tends to be a sufficient but not necessary condition in being successful at poker. Phil Ivey being the typical example of not studying books.

However, players that do not study poker books tend not to be good general practitioners of poker. Successful players in this group tend to be specialists in a particular game or structure. Being good at cash games and bad at tournament play (and vice versa), for instance. A player may also be good at a particular game or structure partly because his/her personality fits well.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
"ceteris baribus" is not even close to being correct. You need to read Latin for Dummies.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's one letter off. You need to learn the meaning of the word "close."

[shmoosh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they are still better than the other 90% of pro poker wannabes... [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Says the latest poker magazine...

I'm not sure they're better than 90% of the winning players though. Especially the winning players you never really hear about.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

But it said it in a magazine! [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[mikeevans12]

Expierence coupled with a natural ability to fill in the gaps of a game with incomplete information can make a player good. I have read the heck out of books, and strive to read and study almost everyday. There is a huge learning curve to poker. Only expiernce can get you moving to the highest levels of that curve. Poker books assist people in moving past the first levels of the curve, but past that, expierence is your guide. For Example, I play and study limit mostly, but play live NL with my friends. I have studyed some NL, and can beat them out of thier money, but when in a game with expierenced players, I don't do as well as them. Most of them have not read any books, but have played enough of it, to have an edge over me. If those unread expierenced NL player had to take a NL multiple choice test against me, I would kill them. However, they play better than I do. Mostly because they have a lot more expierence than I do.

Example: Sitting in a 1-2 limit hold'em game you have either David Sklansky or Ed Miller, sitting with8 other typical 1-2 players. Who will preform better over 20K hands, David or Ed?

David is most likly better than Ed, but Ed has played more small stakes games than David. That is why Ed is the lead author of SSHE.

I could be wrong, these are just my opinons.