Why can no one write a truly advanced poker book ?

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
in the case of no-limit hold 'em:

1. there's a ton of "basic" stuff that isn't in print


[/ QUOTE ]

Matt - I hear people say this all the time. I'm hoping your book will address these issues, and I'm planning on purchasing it asap. Could you just give even a brief generic of one such concept? I'm always curious as to what people mean when they make a statement like this. Thanks, and looking forward to the book.

[/ QUOTE ]


sure. in PNL we really had to start from the beginning. bet sizing, stack sizes, commitment, position, pot control. all are basic concepts that you can't build a good pro game without.

take commitment = willing to get all in. how many players actually ask, on every street, "Am I committed?" or better "Under what conditions will I commit here?" there is no more important question, but how many people ACTUALLY think about that at the start of every betting round? if you want to be a strong MSNL player you should hardwire that question into your game.

take pot control. the main concept has two parts. first if you're happily committed do what it takes to build a big pot. default is make a big bet, and you modify from there as the situation dictates. the other half is when you aren't committed but want to see a showdown, keep the pot small UNLESS you have reason to do otherwise. we detail some of those potential reasons, and discuss that checking and making smaller bets are the main strategy for keeping pots small. also, we define what a big pot is: that's key. i have seen a great many hands similar to "the pot is $30. we have $60 left on the flop. i check the flop for pot control." no you don't. not with a stack-to-pot ratio of 2. the pot is already too big for keeping the pot small.

these aren't new but we lay them out with examples as simply as we could.

getting more into it, we discuss range / equity / maximize (REM). that's how you should think. what range does my opponent potentially have? what does he think of my range? what's my equity against his range? how do I maximize against his range? raise? check? bet small? what line should i take? etc.

again, this is all basic, but it's not sufficiently covered in print imo. keep in mind i haven't read most of the nl books including much of Largay, How to Dominate, etc.

there are so many such topics it's astonishing that there aren't more books out. plenty of low-lying fruit to pick.

[Wilco23]

Thanks, Matt. All that makes sense, and I don't think I've seen you're examples covered in text (at least not that way). Can't wait for the book. Thanks for opening up your knowledge and game to those of us who need it.

[J.A.Sucker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are three inherent issues.

First, most authors just don't have enough knowledge to write such a book. Many of the players who do know these types of things won't write the book because it takes a lot of time and energy (more than one would think). Even if they wanted to write the book, many of these guys would have a hard time writing something that can be understood.

Second, the market for books with only advanced knowledge is extremely small. Why make a tremendous book if five people are going to buy it? Beside this, my opinion on the best books for learning has always been that they start with fundamentals that most readers can grasp and then move you into the really advanced stuff. The best books for doing this transition so smoothly that you don't even know you've ever learned really advanced stuff. For example, Feynman's Lectures on Physics are unbelievably good books that start off really basic, but if you know understand the stuff in there, you've got all the tools you'd need to be a great physicist. That's one hell of a book, IMO.

Finally, poker is a game of incomplete information and this impacts how you can discuss it because the number of possible outcomes goes up too fast to consider every option. It's been years since I've read about chess, but I recall a lot of situational analysis. This isn't always what top poker is about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your (2) and (3).

Re (2) : There is a poker boom going on. And there is no reason why the book's audience must consist only of those who will get very far with the book. Actually, it's the opposite. Just like all the PXF and CR subscribers who almost never login. Just like during the day trading boom the number of people who bought expensive services, went to expensive seminars, and bought expensive books and never got much out of them. The financial incentive to write a truly advanced poker books is definitely there. No question about that.

Re (3) : incomplete information is exactly what makes an truly advanced book so compelling. Great players don't always put players on a definite hand. They might have them on 2,3 or even more possible hands. How do they decide the relative probabilities of each hand, and how does that then figure into their rough calc of expected value of calling (or other play).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll leave the market/demand questions for Mason (and to a lesser extent David and Ray), but rest assured nobody will be able to say that the book Zee and I have writen will not have enough advanced material. I don't know of many players who won't learn a few things when they go through it - heck, when I read through it for editing recently, a few things were triggered with my own game. It's a book of how to think like a top player and how to implement a top-level thought process at your game, whether it's 5/10 or 500/1000 limit. As for your hand range argument, don't worry - we talk all about the myriad of situations that you will normally encounter. Also, you may see that we think about these things different than many do.

That said, my philosophy has always been that any book with advanced material should have enough general material so most can get into the meat of the material. Not many books do this (in any subject).

[J.A.Sucker]

[ QUOTE ]
Sucker,

Can you give an objective overview of how your book will turn out in terms of beginner / intermediate / advanced? I'm not looking for hype and will buy the book regardless, but would appreciate a real objective point of view as to your target audience and the level of your book.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I did my job, my book will be approachable for a moderately-experienced poker player but will also teach high-limit veterans some truly outstanding things.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
ITH?

[/ QUOTE ]

Internet Texas Holdem forum (Matt Hilger, of ITH book fame)

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Because there is no absolutely correct line of play. Bad beats are proof of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely incorrect. Bad beats are not proof at all that you should not take a $1 bet with a $1 payoff if you have >50% chance of succeeding.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, poker is a game of incomplete information and this impacts how you can discuss it because the number of possible outcomes goes up too fast to consider every option. It's been years since I've read about chess, but I recall a lot of situational analysis. This isn't always what top poker is about.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's interesting you say that because "the number of possible outcomes goes up too fast to consider every option" is precisely the reason you can't prove much in chess either (and there are far fewer options in poker). The only reason chess masters can analyze things is that they've learned by experience that certain positions look fundamentally good or bad to them by eye. For example, "If white does this and black does this and white does this and black does this, I can't think ahead any more moves than that but the position looks pretty good for white at that point." They don't have any proof of anything at all (except, as I mentioned before, when they can prove forced checkmate in a short number of moves).

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
take commitment = willing to get all in. how many players actually ask, on every street, "Am I committed?" or better "Under what conditions will I commit here?" there is no more important question, but how many people ACTUALLY think about that at the start of every betting round? if you want to be a strong MSNL player you should hardwire that question into your game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Angel Largay writes about a similar way of thinking. It's not as fleshed out as yours is in terms of analysis, but he says for every hand you're in, you should be asking who's more likely to go broke with this hand - me or my opponent? That question can guide you to play the hand.

[Landlord79]

I was looking at Largay's book and the reviews on it were excellent. What do real poker players think about it? I don't even buy books anymore due to the fact that every book just rehashes the same idea. My game has plateau'd, so I think I need to start doing something differently. Is this a good book to start back with since I am playing $1/2NL?

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
Players who can learn a style or technique (such as many of the moves associated with the Gus Hansen style) and would actually pose a real threat to the livelihood a world-class players who successfully practice that style or technique probably don't need a book to learn it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gus Hansen is not the best example for modern book knowledge because he is quite different from the average person. He was into speed math since his early childhood and his brain works like a human Pokerstove. Stuff like that is a natural gift and you can't learn it from books, at least not books on Poker.