Big Problems with Ed Miller - Page 3

bernie · #1 05-10-2007, 03:14 PM

Not suprising coming from Radar.

I gave up early when I saw this quote from another thread about books:
[ QUOTE ]
Overall, I think the poker literature is pretty bad. There are a number of books that do an adequate job of explaining the basics of things like pot odds, and the importance of things like kickers, but there are virtually no books on limit or no-limit cash games that will actually make you a winner at the game.

[/ 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.

b

phydaux · #2 05-10-2007, 03:51 PM

No books on limit cash games that can make you a winner?

Even if you ignore every 2+2 book, that statement is STILL ignorant.

Weighing the Odds
Real Poker II
Hold'em on the Come
How Good Is Your Limit Hold'em

Those are all excelent. I haven't read the Johnny Chan one, but I hear that's good too.

bernie · #3 05-10-2007, 05:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No books on limit cash games that can make you a winner?

Even if you ignore every 2+2 book, that statement is STILL ignorant.

Weighing the Odds
Real Poker II
Hold'em on the Come
How Good Is Your Limit Hold'em

Those are all excelent. I haven't read the Johnny Chan one, but I hear that's good too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the fact that even though they're at odds with 2+2, it kinda hurts credibility to just ignore their stuff so completely. I understand they're competing, but c'mon. You still have to give credit where credit is due.

b

*TT* · #4 05-10-2007, 05:24 PM

[ 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.

sethypooh21 · #5 05-10-2007, 06:14 PM

[ 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

jeffnc · #6 05-10-2007, 03:50 PM

Mason,
You're a 5 year old trapped in a man's body.

adios · #7 05-11-2007, 12:55 AM

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...

Dima2000123 · #8 05-11-2007, 01:52 AM

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.

Shandrax · #9 05-11-2007, 03:38 AM

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.

David Sklansky · #10 05-11-2007, 03:59 AM

[ 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.