Theory of Poker -- Obvious information and boring as hell to read

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

Hi, Devil's Advocate here. If all other poker books got their concepts from TOP, then claims of "revolutionary" new concepts--words I have heard several times by 2+2 and other authors--would be false.

[/ QUOTE ]


Hello DA,

Me saying that some writers have expressed concepts that they got from TOP does not mean that they haven't also extrapolated on those lessons and/or written material not include in TOP. By way of example, Small Stakes Hold 'em has material in it that you won't find in TOP ... but that doesn't mean that you won't also some find lessons in it that have their roots in Sklansky's teachings. The problem is when people don't give props to those that paved the way; Ed Miller numerous times has said that he owes a great deal to David Sklansky and to Mason Malmuth ... many non-2+2 writers, who likewise owe to their poker literary forefathers, don't stand-up like they should.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reminds me of the literature thread where someone said that Shakespeare is overrated

[/ QUOTE ]


By definition, in my book, Shakespeare IS overrated ... Sklansky is not.

And it's not even close.

But I don't think you see why.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, I don't see why. Will you elaborate or will others do it?

I will say that Sklansky is to poker literature what Shakespeare is to English Literature.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
What is that supposed to mean? I'm not trolling you know, just stating my opinion and seeing if anyone agrees with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Despite what you may think, people here aren't just 2+2 devotees, as you can see by the criticism of other 2+2 books (just on the front page, you can see criticism of HOH 3). Thing is, the criticism is informed criticism. Not "HOH3 sucks." But "I don't agree with the analysis in problem X. Here's why"

So if you're honestly not trolling, point to a chapter of your choosing and make a legitimate criticism of the book. Not "it's obvious." But "Chapter X is obvious BECAUSE xxxx" or "I disagree with Chapter Y because yyyyy".

[AaronBrown]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting point. In another thread, I mentioned how TOP was not as groundbreaking to me as I had previously read Morehead, Wallace, Scarne, Livingston and such. These books in their own way cover much of the material of TOP, at least to my way of thinking. (For the record, Aaron Brown had the opposite view which is something that should carry a lot of weight).

Undoubtedly TOP is superior to any of the above and deserves its just due, but there is much in TOP that would have been known to an experienced, well read card player so the OP's remarks aren't completely baseless (assuming the OP is not trolling).

Unfortunately one of the basic failings of TOP is the writing. Maybe if Bill Robertie co-authored the next version it would be finest poker book on the market.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the kind words. I agree that a lot of things in TOP were known to thoughtful players before its publication, but only after years of play, thinking and discussions. Putting it in print in a logical exposition was an enormous advance.

It's hard for younger players to understand how lonely it was to be an intelligent poker player in the 1970s. Most poker players had no interest in theory, and most theoreticians either had no interest in poker or didn't understand it. You had couldn't be sure if your ideas were obvious errors, well-known truths, ground-breaking innovations or any combination. When you ran into a Sklansky or Caro, it was like water in the desert.

I'm even going to defend the bad writing. Sklansky and Malmuth have always been defiantly proud of it. They didn't try to make the game pretty for a mass audience, they wrote books for people who wanted to understand play. Most real poker players wore sloppy clothes, were less than buff in the physical department and less than gracious in their manners; why should they try to pretend in a book that they care about literary elegance? The key to poker is to know yourself and know how others see you, not to put everything in pleasant soft focus.

I know people today will never appreciate that. I certainly can see preferring books that have the same ideas with modern advances, better production values, better literary styles and more rigorous math. But to me the remakes will never touch the original.

Don't believe anything John Scarne wrote, see the post:Why Was John Scarne.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

I will say that Sklansky is to poker literature what Shakespeare is to English Literature.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100% -- but this has nothing to do with my point, and it's a digression not suited for this particular forum.

[jfk]

Aaron,

Thanks for the link and info on Scarne. I knew he was a bit of a hustler and self promoter. I was also under the impression that he was a professor somewhere.

His works were never the definitive guide for poker, but he did a great job of branding himself. I'm sure he sold a lot of books.

I was digging around for my Morehead today just for fun.

[JJNJustin]

If someone who didnt read a lot of poker literature asked me to give him the name of one single book to read, I would tell him to read "The Theory of Poker."

-J

[Dendrite]

ToP is great and all, but does anyone wish there was a limit version of NLHE: T&P? I know HEPFAP and TOP are supposed to be it, but for some reason I found NLHE: T&P much more informative and interesting than those two books.

[skillzilla]

i agree that TOP is very hard to read, especially if your only game is HE

[caretaker1]

SSHE?