psychology of poker

[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
general consensus was that it was a worthless read.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Where were you guys when I wrote stinging reviews of this book and read about how much of an idiot I am?

I admit that I wrote the review in the psych forum a few years back. They did NOT appreciate my thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]


Hehe ... well here in the books forum, I've always flamed this book (that and the suzuki ... from an otherwise excellent 2+2 library)

[Red_Diamond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
general consensus was that it was a worthless read.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I just completed reading it this weekend. It is not my hobby to insult 2+2 or its writers, but I will not hold back the warning to my friends to not waste their time or winnings on this book.

I don't know, I assume i expected something along the lines of levels of order thinking, or combating psychological wars in tuff poker games. Perhaps a few indepth chapters on the whole, 'He's thinking what I'm thinking what he's thinking...' sort of thing. Or at least something new...

Unfortunatly it was rather a simplistic "Rate what kind of of the 4 possible players you are." And then, a repeat of what is good/bad about that style.

ARggg, this is really rather basic. Even if there was a part II book to this primer book, I don't think I could pick it up now.

[deacsoft]

I think it's a bit unfair for you to say, "I will not hold back the warning to my friends to not waste their time or winnings on this book" given the circumstances you listed.

Your post reads like you had an assumed idea of what the book should be about before you read it. Then you read it and found out that it was not about what you thought it should be. Then you didn't like it.

[DeadMoneyWalking]

[ QUOTE ]

Your post reads like you had an assumed idea of what the book should be about before you read it. Then you read it and found out that it was not about what you thought it should be. Then you didn't like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sums up half of the criticism that is posted daily on this forum.

[Albert Moulton]

I thought it was a great book.

It makes a lot more sense if you play live since it was written for and about live play. For examples, the loose-passives described in his book are a fixture at B&Ms, but not so much on-line.

I think a new edition that examines the same issues but includes why people play the way they do on line in addition to why and how people play live might be a good update. I think there are similarities, but they are not the same.

[deacsoft]

I think this is a book that every poker player should read early. There are plenty of books to help you with strategy but this book can fill some other voids. If you're at all familiar with psychology you might have heard of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. The pinnacle of the hierarchy is self-actualization. This book can bring you closer to self-actualization in a poker sense. It's important to understand the things Dr. Schoonmaker describes in this book. The fact that so many people give it such a bad rep on this forum leads me to believe the quality of regular posters we have is continuing to decline. How can so many read a book about poker psychology and then trash it when they know little to nothing about psychology?

[daveT]

I think that many posters have a pop psych. I study Jungian psychology, and whatever model works for people is what works for them. If they cannot agree with his thinking, then that is on them.

My reviews were not pleasant, but I exaggerate when I say they were stinging. I basically said that much of it was common sense and a safe read. As in, you could not possibly disagree with it. I think that something that will not make you think is less valuable than something that you may disagree with when you are talking about soft science.

When you read a real psych book, you will disagree with it at one point, or accept the harsh reality it is trying to present. This is why there are several camps of psychology.

I do not like POP because it does not present anything that cannot be found with simple common sense, cannot be argued with, and does not challenge the reader to think.

[deacsoft]

You make some very valid points. I wish others were as descriptive when stating their opinions. I think that we can all agree that this book, like most others, will be valued differently by readers. That is a fact that I believe should be stated when recommending it or not. Posts that say something like "worthless" and not much else give the person posting the question very little to work with and are, of course, completely incorrect. It may have been worthless to them, but the person looking for opinions may find it to be the most valuable book they've read. What's common sense to one may be rocket science to another.

[ohio]

[ QUOTE ]
How can so many read a book about poker psychology and then trash it when they know little to nothing about psychology?

[/ QUOTE ]

perhaps people are trashing its non-psychological advice. when the book might lead you to conclude a player who sees 80% of the flops is a "tight" player, then that is just wrong. and theres plenty of other bad strategy suggestions as well.

[deacsoft]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can so many read a book about poker psychology and then trash it when they know little to nothing about psychology?

[/ QUOTE ]

perhaps people are trashing its non-psychological advice. when the book might lead you to conclude a player who sees 80% of the flops is a "tight" player, then that is just wrong. and theres plenty of other bad strategy suggestions as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the case it should be clearly stated in their post.