Poker books

[captain2man]

I can't recall ever seeing a thread where the OP was a "one hit wonder" - but the thread was 2 weeks old.

[fungaimike56]

Well, who am I to quibble? Nontheless, I'll start by observing that the typical 10-20 limit holdem game I've played for ten years has about three speeds: semi-loose (2-6 limper/callers of big blind or 1 raise, normal loose: 5-10 callers of big blind and/or ALL raises, and normal crazy: 5-10 players, capped on every street with 3 callers on the river. Occasionally, like a disease, tightness infects the game and, if it keeps up for an hour or two while the table gets ominously short, someone will shout "Yamaha!" and three guys who were heading down the stairs sprint back in the room for a little Omaha with the remaining 5 players and game-type categories 1 and 2 above don't threaten to apply. In other words I play in a good game with more than a tad of variance--as in a ton.
It took me longer than it should've to beat the game--years to figure out, among other things (some about myself), that the turn and the river were where the money is made in limit hold-em. And I couldn't tell you which book I read made me realize this, if any did, and then understanding this, how to play. (Certainly your, the Grand Poohbah's essays vols. 1, 2 and 3, helped.) Point is, if such a thing exists, I don't play in a 'typical' game and not one to which Doyle's limit structure applied. Ever.
And it did not ever matter. While he described the structured limit game of his day as 'mechanical' it was not in the context of the blind structure entirely. It was described 'mechanical' compared to his great love: No Limit Hold-Em! I never read SuperSystem 1's limit holdem suggestion without being aware of the obscolete blind structure. I have read my Theory of Poker. Many times. (My copy really did fall apart just like it's supposed to.) Playing in a different game did not invalidate SuperSystem's advice, it's soothing, mentoring voice.
You bring a book to the table with you in your head. What I did at the table, despite immersion in SuperSystem 1 and Theory of Poker among others, was not pretty. I don't attribute my failings to them, only my successes.
It is simply criminal that in this thread, SuperSystem 1, limit and no-limit chapters, are not listed in the top 3 of any and all posted lists of essential reading. You'll just have to figure out for yourself what adjustments your game's structure requires.
(In a bit of a footnote, though you can see that my romance with Super System 1 has never faded, the great man's own feelings have changed. In a recent interview, Doyle Brunson was asked about the state of his favorite game and stunned the reviewer (and this reader) with his reply. Of course, I can't find the interview but he named no-limit lowball as his best game. Deuce to Seven maybe, I can't remember. No-Limit Holdem, he said, had had 'too much work done on it'. Versus the internet-schooled barely post pubescent player of today (experienced in more tournaments than he) he had no edge. Say it ain't so Doyle! Say it ain't so...

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
It is simply criminal that in this thread, SuperSystem 1, limit and no-limit chapters, are not listed in the top 3 of any and all posted lists of essential reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be tough for you to take, but I don't believe that either of those chapters is a winning strategy in today's games. In my Poker Essays series, there is some discussion as to why the limit chapter won't win anymore.

As for the no limit chapter advice, are you really going to get all your money in with the worse hand as often as Doyle suggests?

You say you did poorly for ten years. Perhaps this is part of the reason.

Best wishes,
Mason

[7n7]

fungai,

Just curious as to how you view the limit section in SS2? Better? Worse? Same? Indifferent?

From what I can tell (at least on this forum), the only part from the limit HE in SS2 that received any praise was Jennifer's section on short-handed games.

7n7

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi 7n7:

While poorly written, the information in the limit hold 'em SS2 is very similar to our own HPFAP. So in that sense its pretty good, and Harmon is certainly a very good limit hold 'em player.

You need to understand that the limit hold 'em in SS1 was fine for the particular game that it was addressing. However, that game no longer exists. I assume that this is one of the reasons why Doyle wanted a SS2.

Best wishes,
Mason

[fungaimike56]

According to the late A. Alvarez in 'The Biggest Game In Town' Doyle Brunson's lifelong winning streak came to an end with the publication of SS1. He had given his game away and was being looked up by guys who would have never dreamed (or dared) of calling pre-publication. Presumably he recovered, made adjustments and to this day has maintained his place in 'The Big Game'.
What do I know about no-limit Holdem? I gotta tell ya, I wonder sometimes. The No-Limit spread around my town is principly 1-2 $100 buy-in and 2-5 $300 buy-in. Small games. I have played in them and done well following SuperSystem1. Earlier in this thread I quoted at length Brunson's distinctive approaches to no-limit and will refrain from doing so here. His big game advice does not apply to my small local games so Mason I guess I'm just not moving in all the time on air.
Brunson's style lives on. In media and internet coverage of big tournaments, 'the big game', and blogs notice the references to pros such as Ted Forrest being a 'hand playing machine'--as long as he can get in cheap pre-flop he's there. Negreano's blog described a visit to Niagara Falls. He burned through four $2000 buyins, giving a ton of action. Then, receiving two tons of action, he made a few hands. Won big. Classic Brunson or do I need to get technical and point out the implied odds were there. And that his aggressive play created them.
Mason M. has written in this months 2+2 magazine about a movement among some casinos to spread no-limit hold-em without capping the buy-in. Which means the readers of this thread may well soon have this fortunate choice: to rush out to buy the latest 2+2 NL Holdem work to deal with this development, or not, because the definitive text on big stack, unlimited buy-in no-limit hold-em already exists!
I remain a tireless advocate of 2+2 publications. It's just that in terms of no-limit and limit hold-em preparation--the knowledge from books you bring to the table--without SuperSystem 1 you will never play holding the mental equivalent of the stone cold nuts. Something will be missing.
Mason, that was a cheap shot about my ten years of losing. I did not say that. I've played ten years, was loser the first 4, even the next 2, and am just finishing up my fifth consecutive year winner. I couldn't have done it without you.