Most over-rated poker book of all time?

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
The advice in SS1 & SS2 is quite good if you give everyone at the table 500-1000 BB. For a 100 BB game, the advice is pretty abysmal.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post had the makings of a good point, and there is a good point buried in there, but to counter that you have to keep in mind that people don't play with a 1,000BB stack like they did decades ago either. There's a reason you hear AK called "big slick" and not "walking back to Houston" nowadays. And you are not going to stack a guy with 1,000BB who holds AK when you hold 76s.

[brendons31]

That is a good point, back when the book was first written was the standard buy-in for nl games 1000 BB's? If so is their any reason why Doyle didn't change his advice for SS2 to suit the standared 100 BB buy in games these days?

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
You really do have to look at Doyle's book in the context of 30 years ago. Back then, his n/l advice was on the money and he was a huge winner using it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, by the time SSI came out, the no-limit games didn't exist anymore with the exception of some of the side games at the WSOP.

MM

[Oct0puz]

[ QUOTE ]
Overrated is completely different from not good.

Super System
HPFAP
SSHE
possibly NLHTAP by some people

Play Poker Like the Pros can't be overrated, it sucks for limit and everyone knows it, for NL it's not raved about, for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you think that SSHE is overrated? It's probably the best limit hold em book out there, no matter what stakes you are playing. (I haven't read stoxtraders book so I can't compare with that)

[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Overrated is completely different from not good.

Super System
HPFAP
SSHE
possibly NLHTAP by some people

Play Poker Like the Pros can't be overrated, it sucks for limit and everyone knows it, for NL it's not raved about, for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you think that SSHE is overrated? It's probably the best limit hold em book out there, no matter what stakes you are playing. (I haven't read stoxtraders book so I can't compare with that)

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly!! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[fraac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Overrated is completely different from not good.

Super System
HPFAP
SSHE
possibly NLHTAP by some people

Play Poker Like the Pros can't be overrated, it sucks for limit and everyone knows it, for NL it's not raved about, for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you think that SSHE is overrated? It's probably the best limit hold em book out there, no matter what stakes you are playing. (I haven't read stoxtraders book so I can't compare with that)

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly!! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

[daveT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Overrated is completely different from not good.

Super System
HPFAP
SSHE
possibly NLHTAP by some people

Play Poker Like the Pros can't be overrated, it sucks for limit and everyone knows it, for NL it's not raved about, for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you think that SSHE is overrated? It's probably the best limit hold em book out there, no matter what stakes you are playing. (I haven't read stoxtraders book so I can't compare with that)

[/ QUOTE ]

SSHE? If you don't like it, you are a fish.

[brendons31]

I have a question for Mason, or anyone else who might know (I wouldn't have a clue since its well before my time). As Mason said, at the time the book was written, NL games barely existed outside of the WSOP and the WSOP side games. So was Doyles NL section in SS1 the first ever (or one of the first ever) piece ever published on NL Holdem. If yes, that goes some way to explain why it was so "ground-breaking" at the time, but certainly doesn't mean its good.

How come it is still held in high reguard by the general poker public. I'm sure the first ever publication on golf, or tennis, or nearly anything else has no relevance to today. Yet the NL section in Supersystem is still considered great by so many in the poker public.

Is it because Doyle himself is considered a great poker player by many. Perhaps he is, I wouldn't know, but there have been many examples throughout history of someone being great at something but being a poor teacher/coach at it (it goes the other way too, ie. someone being a great coach/teacher at something, but not great themselves).

The general "cop-out" answer of some people reguarding SS1 seems to be "at the time poker was different, it was great for that era". Possibly it was, although I think not, the rules haven't changed, and I don't think people were any "dumber" back then than now.

Is their any reason why the SS2 NL section was exactly the same??

- Was Doyle lazy and didn't feel like writing something else?

- Did he still believe the advice is valid today?

- Is he simply just greedy thinking something like "i'll get a new group of writers together to write about games not many people care about, i'll leave my NL section the same since it still works for me and add some more to my mind numbingly boring life story, and i'll watch the $$ roll into my bank account".

Like I said before, i'm not questioning Doyles own poker ability, I'm sure he's probally an amazing player, but he's a very bad poker writer who gets way way too much respect.

[Diana Ross Fan]

[ QUOTE ]


The general "cop-out" answer of some people reguarding SS1 seems to be "at the time poker was different, it was great for that era". Possibly it was, although I think not, the rules haven't changed, and I don't think people were any "dumber" back then than now.


[/ QUOTE ]

The blind structure was different, often a single blind and antes. The players were much more likely to be weak tight.
[ QUOTE ]


Is their any reason why the SS2 NL section was exactly the same??

- Was Doyle lazy and didn't feel like writing something else?

- Did he still believe the advice is valid today?

- Is he simply just greedy thinking something like "i'll get a new group of writers together to write about games not many people care about, i'll leave my NL section the same since it still works for me and add some more to my mind numbingly boring life story, and i'll watch the $$ roll into my bank account".



[/ QUOTE ]

what?

[ QUOTE ]

Like I said before, i'm not questioning Doyles own poker ability, I'm sure he's probally an amazing player, but he's a very bad poker writer who gets way way too much respect.

[/ 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.

[brendons31]

[/ QUOTE ]

The blind structure was different, often a single blind and antes. The players were much more likely to be weak tight.
[ QUOTE ]


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


[ 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.

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.

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