Most over-rated poker book of all time?

[Red_Diamond]

The only thing that impressed me in SS was Sklansky's chapter. Unfortunatly, it is somewhat hard to find a game of such today. But nevertheless, I was VERY impressed by his chapter.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Al:

I agree. Zadeh's book was very good and it did influence some of our work. See the chapter "Betting and Game Theory" in my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics. Here's part of the second paragraph from that chapter:

[ QUOTE ]
Many of the ideas that follow are either based upon or are extensions of those given by Norman Zadeh in his excellent book Winning Poker Systems. Some of this material is extremely complex and may be difficult for many readers to follow. But what is important are the conclusions at the end, not the mathematics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't accurate. Sklansky on Poker was published in 1978. In 1981, the book was rewritten with the help of a professional writer and republished as Winning Poker. In 1994, David (with some help form me) went through the book and made some changes and updates. We also changed the title of the book to The Theory of Poker and re-typeset it. That's all the changes it has gone through.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about that. Doesn't Hold 'em Poker talk about tells? Also, in terms of poker knowledge evolution, caro's book is sort of a dead end in that you can't add much to it.

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, the no limit hold'em literature is hardly beholden to TOP for much if anything and would all nod to SS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here I disagree. This is like saying that concepts like implied odds, inducing bluffs, betting for value, semi-bluffing, etc. have no part in no-limit hold 'em. If anything they are more important there.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

But Hold 'em Poker is the first book to discuss ideas like semi-bluffing, implied odds, inducing bluffs, reading hands, and so on. Isn't this what no-limit is all about.

best wishes,
Mason

[Al Mirpuri]

Dear Mason,

I am sorry for unintentionally misrepresenting the evolution of TOP which I had thought was more radical than it was but I must take you to task for calling Mike Caro's Book of Tells a dead end as if writing the definitive book on a subject (tells) was a crime! What makes Caro's work revolutionary was that it produced a meta-theory for tells. Zadeh mentioned the 'strong when weak, weak when strong' hypothesis but Caro centralized the notion and produced a framework for understanding all, or nearly all, tells. I also think you do John Feeney a slight injustice as he added to the theory of tells in his book, Inside The Poker Mind, which posits the idea of micro-tells which accurately indicate the state of a player's hand without that player showing any of the 'classic' tells. Schoonmaker in his book Psychology of Poker made a distinction - though I will not comment on the merit of it - between 'telegraphs' and 'tells' with telegraphs giving away intentions and tells giving away the quality of the hand. I would imagine telegraphs and tells point to the same thing but would clearly be divergent in a bluff situation where a player may telegraph his intention to bet but a tell may give away that he holds nothing.

I was very pleased you acknowledged that Zadeh influenced what came after. Some of two plus two's acolytes make exaggerated claims for two plus two: eg someone said Sklansky invented the term semi-bluff but Morehead uses it in his book of 1973. S&M did not invent poker and people often forget that. Like Isaac Newton, you stand on the shoulders of giants.

Best Wishes,

Al Mirpuri.

[fraac]

It's just a card game, kids.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
S&M did not invent poker and people often forget

[/ QUOTE ]

You're entitled to your opinion. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Best wishes,
Mason

[Shandrax]

I leaked a lot of money on books, but when I watch videos of some very successful players, I find that they play a totally different style. Just take blind defense as an example and try to remember what HEFAP said about it.

Even the much praised Theory of Poker has some severe shortcomings from todays perspective. For instance, the chapter on bluffing is absolutely inconclusive if you play a game with community cards and/or with the last card coming face up.

[JustCuz]

Summary of SS: "I raise."

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Theory of Poker and SSHE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you play online? If so, please tell me the site and your screen name. If you think these two books are overrated, I would love to play with you.

[SenecaJim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Theory of Poker and SSHE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you play online? If so, please tell me the site and your screen name. If you think these two books are overrated, I would love to play with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy CORed. You forget to run the post through the translator machine. Let me do it, I downloaded it yesterday.

overrated ---> )*%%#~~#^^~~ ----> I don't get it