psychology of poker

[daveT]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that we can all agree that this book, like most others, will be valued differently by readers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

Trial by fire. If you like it, great. If not, return it. I do not think that this book should be weighted on any of the strategy advice it is giving (I doubt it says an 80% vpip is tight), but how useful the concepts are to you. This book is very helpful to some, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I can't comment on the strat advice because it has been a long time since I looked at it. I don't think it had any, and I doubt Mason and co. would allow blatant inaccuracies go to print, especially since this book is geared toward a limit player, their expertise.

As an example of what may be obvious to me, but not so much to someone else:

POP talks about the Stone Cold Killer, and how this sort of player could improve not only his game, but how to maintain a pleasant atmosphere. Many tight players have no chance of winning even a 2/4 game because he gets no action. There are plenty of people on the B&M forum that would have a large return on investment with this concept alone. To me, since I am such a nice person (?), how to play tight and not be a jerk is plainly obvious, so it holds no benefit to me. I also understand that being civil, not complaining, and holding an actual conversation with the scuzz balls at the table can be profitable. I don't really see people as scuzz balls. If you agreed with that sentence, then you are probably the target audience for this book.

[Doc T River]

Could it be that POP was written during a different time, does not translate to present day well, and people who don't like the book are judging it based on current conditions as opposed to looking at it from a historical perspective?

[ohio]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't comment on the strat advice because it has been a long time since I looked at it. I don't think it had any, and I doubt Mason and co. would allow blatant inaccuracies go to print, especially since this book is geared toward a limit player, their expertise.

[/ QUOTE ]

if the book doesnt contain strategy advice then why is sklansky listed as its strategy consultant? schoonmaker, at times anyway, seems to think the book contains strategy advice:

[ QUOTE ]
Your local [tennis] pro will watch the way you play, then tell you how to improve both your strokes and your strategy. This book will do exactly the same thing for your poker. (P. 2.)

[/ QUOTE ]

to his credit, schoonmaker doesnt claim to be a strategy expert.


[ QUOTE ]
(I doubt it says an 80% vpip is tight)

[/ QUOTE ]

you are right that it doesnt specifically say a player seeing 80% of the flops is tight. but thats the conclusion readers should reach if the rest of the table is seeing 90% of the flops...assuming you take schoonmaker's advice:

[ QUOTE ]
The average player varies from game to game, and the definition of the more extreme types should be adjusted accordingly. For example, if about half of the players in a game call on third street (in stud) or before the flop in hold 'em or Omaha), then the average player (on looseness) is someone who calls about half the time. If more or less players call, then the average and all other ratings must be adjusted upward or downward. (Pp. 78-79.)

[/ QUOTE ]

and

[ QUOTE ]
*Compare people to your usual game, not to some idea of how they "should" play.* If, for example, about half of the players see the flop in your hold 'em game, someone who sees about half the flops would be rated "5" [average] on the loose/tight dimension. You might think that only three people should see the flop, but you have to adjust to the players in your own game, not in some ideal one. (P. 82.)

[/ QUOTE ]

if schoonmaker had actually followed his advice to its logical conclusion, i hope he, malmuth, and sklansky all would have realized it was blatantly wrong. looseness and tightness shouldnt be measured relative to the rest of the table.

[SenecaJim]

To answer your question, this book is worth reading. You might get a lot from it, a little , maybe you personally will get nothing. You might see something that helps your game or helps you think or may not see how any of it applies.

But, it is worth reading. Asking advice is dicey from a large group of people you don't know. And it can be hard in some instances to advise someone you don't know.

Find someone's opinion you trust and value and ask that person. OR, find a publisher and or author you like and if it will apply to your game or poker in general, read it.

Ie. If it is published by 2+2 and not game specific to a game I don't play, I buy it. Or if it's by another author I have learned to respect, ie. Roy Cook, Bobby C. etc. I get it. Right now, awaiting 2+2's next release and Tommy's book.