Most over-rated poker book of all time?

[chicagoY]

Cloutier=Bee Gees Greatest Hits, a real blow a rama.

[chicagoY]

Never read Hellmuth after seeing him on TV. Figured he'd be the type to never share what he knew anyway.

[chicagoY]

Mason, great effort by you and the Don. Even if something is no longer relevant it does not deny that it was once VERY relevant and important.

[Michaelson]

[ QUOTE ]
HOH series is the most overrated

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read the second or third HOH books, and I suspect the second in particular is very useful (it introduced M's and inflection points into the discussion, didn't it?), but I thought the first was pretty terrible. Not that it presented unsound advice, but it was so rigid in its presentation. It felt to me like a list of what to do in this situation and that situation, rather than a useful guide to thinking about tournament poker situations in general.

Anyway, I know that's not a sentiment likely to find much support on here, but I was very surprised when I finally got around to reading HOH the extent to which it failed, in my mind, to live up to its reputation.

[DoubleDog]

[ QUOTE ]
Cloutier=Bee Gees Greatest Hits, a real blow a rama.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. His "Good ol' boy" narratives are tedious, to say the least.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Our books, like Theory of Poker, Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players, and Seven-Card Stud for Advanced Players, as far as I could tell, far outsold it, and no serious player took the advice it contains seriously since there were better sources for all the games it discussed except for no-limit hold 'em which virtually no one played as a cash game for close to twenty years. Then when the boom started, the publicity machine began and you would hear over and over how it was the "bible of poker." If that would have been the case, there would have been no Super/System II.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, so the poker boom came and NLHE started to boom with the televising of NLHE tournaments. Now if you wanted to learn to play NLHE, would you read a 2+2 book? No, because 2+2 didn't publish NLHE books, since the game was dead. Therefore, you would read Brunson's chapter in SS, which was by far the best material on NLHE available. Therefore, on TV they referred to it as the "Bible", and made drama by pointing out how the young players at the table with Brunson had learned from his book.

[kudzudemon]

Betgo makes an excellent point: Super/System’s rep is as much as result of timing as anything, but it‘s influence is probably greater than the 2+2 books, regardless of it‘s technical, uh…”blurriness“..

The fact that it’s most noticeable hallmark, an aggressive “power poker” style, particularly pre-flop, was well suited to the burgeoning online game that seeds today’s enormous poker community, shouldn’t be ignored either. The young players of today have taken it to near absurd lengths, to be sure. Super/System doesn’t teach the unalloyed aggression that saturates the game today, but the book’s emphasis on avoiding “weak/tight” play in the no-limit context (as well as Doyle’s successful and aggressive style) has had a more visible influence on today’s game than the rigorous, highly structured strategy that limit poker rewarded, and, as such, 2+2 seemed to be endorsing .

Interesting note, though: even Doyle has commented on the hyper-aggressive minefields he’s had to maneuver through thanks to his influence. He’s adapted well, don’t you think?

Also, for all the balloon juice we’ve spewed about how “overrated” Super/System and HPFAP are, let’s not forget their inherent and monumental contributions. Many concepts that poker aficionados now accept as always-been-there common sense (the importance of position, TAG play, etc.) were until then basically abstract ideas that were not articulated as productively or digestible as they were by these two monumental volumes. The very “well, duh” attitude we take to some of those ideas are only there due to the excellence and influence of these books.

Poker today cannot be won with any “system” or “style”, but by taking these tools and using them to adapt to the immediate environment. Because poker is not strictly and purely quantifiable, it is more art than science. The art of poker is the manipulation of circumstance, and poker literature, even that which is not strictly strategy based, helps develop the skills necessary for success.The value of such literature is not simply in it’s content, but in it’s ability to make the reader think about the game in more depth and from every perspective. Given that criteria, it’s probably a little harsh to consider any quality poker book, regardless of it’s anachronistic quirks or shaky tactical underpinnings, as overrated.

Positively Fifth Street=Born To Run by Bruce Springsteen
Pure aesthetic joy in and celebration of it’s subject’s artistic construct

[betgo]

I think they overstated the importance of SS in that TV interest spot. Brunson is also a little egotistcal, but not as obviously so as Sklansky or Caro. There was some truth when he said all these kids were using his plays on him. Certainly everyone has read the chapter, particularly LAG NLHE players.

I think some of the aggressive play comes from kids who started out playing shoot em up video games. It is also easier to be aggressive multitabling online than live where people stare you down and you have to physically leave the tournament if you bust out.

Still, that chapter was trendously influential and not the most overrated. It is hard to say what is overrated, because the books rated highly by good players are generally good books.

[Sushiglutton]

[ QUOTE ]
My vote is Supersystem by a long way. Will give reasons a bit later, just wondering whether their are any other contendors for this title.

I'm sure their are other worse poker books out their, Play Poker Like the Pro's by Hellmuth certainly wasn't good. I haven't read Macevoy's and Cloutiers efforts but they generally seem to be considered pretty bad too.

However these books aren't nick named "the bible of poker". Wonder how many people have gone broke following Doyles NL section.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree with this. Ty for saying it out loud. The book is a joke. The modern NL-books like harrington, and Millers work are simply crushng that dinosaur. The limit holdem sectio is so awwwwful.

[Adman]

God I forgot about TJ Cloutier and Tom McEvoy's books. They are some of the worst poker literature ever.