|
|
#31
05-10-2007, 05:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the Johnny Chan one, but I hear that's good too. [/ QUOTE ] You hear wrong. The others are great however, even if they have minor flaws the overwhelming content is good. 
|
|
#32
05-10-2007, 06:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
[ QUOTE ]
Seems they've taken the place of RGP as far as adversary. Only a matter of time until Carson joins that site... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] I wonder how he can stand not getting the attention. [/ QUOTE ] Well played
|
|
#33
05-11-2007, 12:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
I like this post from one of the threads that you posted a link to:
[ QUOTE ] Sklansky/Malmuth tend to make players overthink poker posted by StevenG on 04-14-2007 01:10 which is the problem. The principles on pot odds and betting with purpose are good ones, but they get TOO mathematical and it gets to the point where players are performing trig in their heads to try and figure out whether to call, fold or raise their hand postflop. The truth is in the middle. You need some of the knowledge they impart, but you need not take it so seriously that you forget you're playing poker, which is a people game played with cards. [/ QUOTE ] Using trig to figure out the right poker play, priceless. Yeah and all that math stuff is an impediment to playing well...
|
|
#34
05-11-2007, 01:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
The real big problem with Ed Miller and NLHTAP is that by his own admission, he gained true understanding of NLHE way after NLHTAP was published. It's not like we needed Ed's admission, though, the book itself is teeming with disclaimers that makes authors sound unsure of what they're saying.
|
|
#35
05-11-2007, 03:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
Once again, this discussion is ridiculous. There are two ways to win a hand. One is by winning a showdown and one is if the other guy folds. Snyder puts emphasis on sheer aggression and position to put maximum pressure on the opponent in order to make him fold, David and Ed are talking about the technically best way to play to hand. So who is right and who is wrong? In my opinion they are not even talking about the same subject.
|
|
#36
05-11-2007, 03:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
[ QUOTE ]
The real big problem with Ed Miller and NLHTAP is that by his own admission, he gained true understanding of NLHE way after NLHTAP was published. It's not like we needed Ed's admission, though, the book itself is teeming with disclaimers that makes authors sound unsure of what they're saying. [/ QUOTE ] He wasn't required to understand anything that wasn't covered in the book. At least 85% of the ideas were mine and I wasn't unsure of anything. Dozens of world class players raved about the book to me. Ed Miller's main job was to take the concepts I taught him and explain them excellently to the readers. Cookbook ideas about how to play specific type hands in specific situations, was not meant to be part of that book for the most part. His new book will cover stuff like that so he had to learn more.
|
|
#37
05-11-2007, 09:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: confused with the reason for the post ?
[ QUOTE ]
I think most of the criticism of Sklanners is not that his maths is wrong, it's that it sometimes doesn't apply very well to real world poker. His idea to raise preflop different amounts based on hand strength is rejected as exploitable by people who play more than DS, for example. [/ QUOTE ] No, most people can't apply it well at the table, but it applies fine. That's not Sklansky's fault, most people just aren't winning players.
|
|
#38
05-11-2007, 09:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: confused with the reason for the post ?
What is the purpose of this post? You are copying criticisms of 2+2 publications without engaging them at all. Are you suggesting that readers should find 2+2 literature so unassailably perfect that we should automatically hate anyone who dares to criticize? What does this say about your level of respect for your audience?
|
|
#39
05-11-2007, 09:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
[ QUOTE ]
Using trig to figure out the right poker play, priceless. Yeah and all that math stuff is an impediment to playing well... [/ QUOTE ] I prefer geometry for my poker decisions. Poker is all about angles. Do you see why?
|
|
#40
05-11-2007, 11:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Big Problems with Ed Miller
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The real big problem with Ed Miller and NLHTAP is that by his own admission, he gained true understanding of NLHE way after NLHTAP was published. It's not like we needed Ed's admission, though, the book itself is teeming with disclaimers that makes authors sound unsure of what they're saying. [/ QUOTE ] He wasn't required to understand anything that wasn't covered in the book. At least 85% of the ideas were mine and I wasn't unsure of anything. Dozens of world class players raved about the book to me. Ed Miller's main job was to take the concepts I taught him and explain them excellently to the readers. Cookbook ideas about how to play specific type hands in specific situations, was not meant to be part of that book for the most part. His new book will cover stuff like that so he had to learn more. [/ QUOTE ] David, there's been countless other threads that I wished you would have posted this in. Permission to cut and paste where appropriate? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
