Most over-rated poker book of all time?

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Nor did i say WLLH was a great book, merely that it was a (good) book that pretty much does what it sets out to do. I dont think it is over-rated, as i pointed out earlier you will see more people on this forum recommend GSIH ahead of WLLH.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's probably what I'd say now too. For a beginner I'd recommend GSIH (replacing WLLH), then ITH, then SSHE, as your basic "syllabus" for to cash limit Holdem. Add Stoxtrader if you play tough/shorthanded. If you have a little experience already and are decent at math, then if you wanted to skip a step and start straight with ITH.

While the influence of HPFAP cannot be denied, in a modern list I don't think it would have to be included. If you did read it, I'd read it 4th after SSHE. Virtually everything in there is going to be covered in ITH or SSHE, but in a more readable fashion. This isn't to say that HPFAP wasn't important in the development of the author of ITH, but a modern reader doesn't necessarily need it.

[bellatrix]

I will follow this up with an analogy.

When Ed Thorp brought out "Beat the Dealer" it was revolutionary. People now could actually beat the casino in blackjack. "Beat the Dealer" is now sometimes called the bible of blackjack. Not often, but rather as revolutionary material that proved mathematically that there was a way to beat the casino. Now, have any of you every read "Beat the Dealer"? It's quite hard and good luck trying that 10-count in the casino --> impossible. There are hundreds of better books out there with the two most popular probably being "Professional Blackjack" and "Knock Out Blackjack" as introducing the most popular counts hilo and KO.

However, the many following books would have not come out in this form had it not been for "Beat the Dealer". AFAIK prior to SS1 there was no serious poker book out there. No guide on how to play. So SS1 was like the "Beat the Dealer" of poker. Both books make it hard for you to get a grasp of the money, but they were there first and invited to great follow-ups.

[chucky]

I love how people think Hellmuth's book is overrated. Next someone will say W. is the most overrated president of all time.

[fraac]

Exactly, chucky. Few here have much clue what is rated before deciding what is overrated.

ToP and SSHE are vastly overrated. Both good books.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi bellatrix:

[ QUOTE ]
AFAIK prior to SS1 there was no serious poker book out there. No guide on how to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're completely wrong and this is an example of what a strong publicity campaign can do.

Hold 'em Poker by David Sklansky first appeared in 1976, well before Super/System. It is the first modern poker book and discusses stuff like semi-bluffing, the free card, odds and implied odds, inducing bluffs, and readig hands. Most of this wasn't even mentioned in Super/System and what was isn't very thorough.

Then two years later in 1978, Sklansky on Poker Theory was published. You know this book today as The Theory of Poker. All the good modern poker literature can trace its roots back to these two books. Not to Super/System.

By the way, a while back I started a thread about the most influential poker book of all time. There is no doubt that it is Hold 'em Poker by David Sklansky. Nothing else is even close.

Best wishes,
Mason

[jsbjoe]

Sklansky is probably the most UNDERRATED poker author. I've always thought that the reason he started writing books with co-authors was just because he was busy with other stuff.


His ideas of course were always what mattered, not the writing. His ideas were miles ahead of what others were writing, in each of his early books (even Razz!). But they were always very clearly and cogently expressed. Without the assistance of other authors...

[bellatrix]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi bellatrix:

[ QUOTE ]
AFAIK prior to SS1 there was no serious poker book out there. No guide on how to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're completely wrong and this is an example of what a strong publicity campaign can do.



[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, I guess you are right about the publicity campaign, because I bought it. Oh well, at least I can cover myself in the "AFAIK" and I didn't know better. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

But boy, then those guys can do very good publicity!

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi bellatrix:

[ QUOTE ]
AFAIK prior to SS1 there was no serious poker book out there. No guide on how to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're completely wrong and this is an example of what a strong publicity campaign can do.



[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, I guess you are right about the publicity campaign, because I bought it. Oh well, at least I can cover myself in the "AFAIK" and I didn't know better. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

But boy, then those guys can do very good publicity!

[/ QUOTE ]

MM should have given you an example of a great poker book before Supersystem. I think the book, Winning Poker Systems, 1974, by Norman Zadeh qualifies.

[Diana Ross Fan]

[ QUOTE ]


Any evidence that players were much more likely to be weak tight back then?

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of evidence do you want? Anecdotes? Yes. Hand Histories? probably not.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]


I doubt he would mistitle a thread like this. You posed it as an open question but clearly this is a thread on your dislike of Supersystem.

And then as proof you tell us that his system still wins for him. This makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very much an open question, got any suggestions of a more over-rated book? I fail to think of one that comes close. Mike Caro's book of tells is another which I think is over-rated, doesn't he put specific $ values on how much you can expect to make off knowing a tell?

I wouldn't have a clue how much $ Doyle has won or lost over his lifetime, I think its somewhat irrelevant. If he had won the WSOP main event 10 times in a row that wouldn't make the quality of the writing in the NL section of SS any better.

Just becuase someone is great at something it certianly doesn't make them a great teacher/coach at it. There are many sports examples of great athletes making poor coaches.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]

Lets say Doyle is a big winner over live cash games over his life time. You don't think this success is due to his "feel" for the game, ie. his ability to read situations, and read people. He talks about pushing his inside straight draws and well pretty much any draw etc.

It can work for Doyle becuase he likely knows exactly when to push, he knows when his opponent is weak and capabale of folding. This is the sort of ability that really can't be taught through a book.


[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence that Doyle knew his opponents were playing weak-tight?

[ QUOTE ]

You don't think that being good/ great at something and being a good/great coach at something is somewhat mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

no

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]

Hold 'em Poker by David Sklansky first appeared in 1976, well before Super/System. It is the first modern poker book and discusses stuff like semi-bluffing, the free card, odds and implied odds, inducing bluffs, and readig hands. Most of this wasn't even mentioned in Super/System and what was isn't very thorough.

Arguably, Winning Poker Systems by Norman Zadeh in 1974 is the first modern poker book as he assigns seat by seat playing standards for draw poker. In my opinion, it is the seat by seat playing standards that separates the modern poker texts from what came before.

Then two years later in 1978, Sklansky on Poker Theory was published. You know this book today as The Theory of Poker. All the good modern poker literature can trace its roots back to these two books. Not to Super/System.

The book we all now know as The Theory Of Poker was not originallly entitled that and was repeatedly revised until we get to the present edition which became standardised some time ago. This great book became greater with its later revisions/expansions. As for the claim that all of the poker literature derives from it is clearly incorrect as Mike Caro's Book Of Tells is in no way dependent upon anything written in TOP. Moreover, the no limit hold'em literature is hardly beholden to TOP for much if anything and would all nod to SS.

By the way, a while back I started a thread about the most influential poker book of all time. There is no doubt that it is Hold 'em Poker by David Sklansky. Nothing else is even close.

This is hyperbole. The no limit literature would not acknowledge Hold'em Poker which originally dealt with single blind limit hold'em: a game which no longer exists. Both The Education Of A Poker Player and Supersystem would compete for that award. The former because it was read by a generation of poker players and the latter for that reason and its influence on no limit hold'em.



[/ QUOTE ]


Best Wishes Mason,

Al Mirpuri.