|
|
#11
03-16-2007, 08:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Whats their problem?
[ QUOTE ]
Am I the only one who thinks most poker books are useless? [/ QUOTE ] I think that any poker book is only as good as the effort you're prepared to put into it. For me, the truly awful books are the unimaginative ones that teach you how to play set hands in the same ABC style time and time again. At the risk of sounding like an advert for David and Mason, the converse is true for most of the 2+2 books I've read, which don't simply spell everything out and often require you to think about why certain plays and actions are best. They're certainly not an easy read, but I know for sure it's been worth the time and effort. I don't think that any poker book I've ever read (however bad) has been 100% useless, because it's made me think more about my own game and why I disagree with what the author's says. Also, I might try out certain tactics which end up not working out, but having read about them makes me more aware of when players are trying to pull those same tactics on me in future games. As for the OP's point: I wouldn't be concerned if your friends turn down your offers of books - just make sure you keep inviting them to your home game... 
|
|
#13
03-16-2007, 01:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Whats their problem?
[ QUOTE ]
For me, the truly awful books are the unimaginative ones that teach you how to play set hands in the same ABC style time and time again. [/ QUOTE ] This probably depends a lot on your level of play and experience. If you are just starting out having a book that spells out how to play certain hands in certain positions (and at least break even) is a good thing. As you gain more experience you are are obviously (assume you are somewhat curious) going to deviate from the template, experiment, and adjust your strategies-plays. This is how learning and improvement occurs (at least for me). If you have been playing for a while you don't need a book to provide a template for how to play. You need a book for some other reason. [ QUOTE ] At the risk of sounding like an advert for David and Mason, the converse is true for most of the 2+2 books I've read, which don't simply spell everything out and often require you to think about why certain plays and actions are best. They're certainly not an easy read, but I know for sure it's been worth the time and effort. [/ QUOTE ] I actually own several 2p2 books: NLHETAP, TOP, and HEFAP. I didn’t find any of them to be difficult reads. Dry? Yes – all of them. Difficult? No. My issue with the 2p2 books is that they largely reiterated what was obvious to me by the time that I purchased and read them. The Fundamental Theorem of Poker is pretty obvious. If you are bluffing the turn and plan to fire again on the river, you should size your turn bet so you leave enough for a river bluff – obvious. Check raise when your opponent will bet but not call a bet – obvious. Your implied odds with a drawing hand are higher the more disguised the draw – obvious. Sometimes bluff to stop a bluff – obvious. Slansky-Chubukov rankings – utterly useless. Game theory and poker – utterly useless. These are just a few examples of the authors stating the obvious or irrelevant. I’m not in a position to disagree (as some have done) with anything that David, Mason, or Ed write. I’m just saying I personally haven’t found it useful (they still have my $ though). Also, in fairness, I probably could get something out of HEFAP if I played limit. If you find the books valuable – more power to you. I wasn’t claiming that the books are (or should be) useless to everyone. There are different learning styles and what works for, or appeals to, one person might not work for another: To each his own. [ QUOTE ] If so why are you on this web site? [/ QUOTE ] The 2p2 website (as distinct from the publishing company) is a community of poker players. I am a poker player. I never made the claim that I thought thinking about poker strategy or reviewing hands was useless – I spend a lot of time thinking deeply about poker strategy and I also do quit a bit of experimenting with my own play. I simply stated that didn’t get anything (which I should probably amend to much) out of the poker books that I’ve read (with the exception of SS which I read when I first started playing). I certainly wasn’t trying to pick a fight. Peace, Lucky
|
|
#16
03-19-2007, 08:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Whats their problem?
[ QUOTE ] I actually own several 2p2 books: NLHETAP, TOP, and HEFAP. I didn’t find any of them to be difficult reads. Dry? Yes – all of them. Difficult? No. My issue with the 2p2 books is that they largely reiterated what was obvious to me by the time that I purchased and read them. The Fundamental Theorem of Poker is pretty obvious. If you are bluffing the turn and plan to fire again on the river, you should size your turn bet so you leave enough for a river bluff – obvious. Check raise when your opponent will bet but not call a bet – obvious. Your implied odds with a drawing hand are higher the more disguised the draw – obvious. Sometimes bluff to stop a bluff – obvious. Slansky-Chubukov rankings – utterly useless. Game theory and poker – utterly useless. These are just a few examples of the authors stating the obvious or irrelevant. Peace, Lucky [/ QUOTE ] OMG, if you understood the comments about top prior to reading it, i think you would be in the top 1% of poker players. I needed several reads, and i consider myself very intelligent. Perhaps you are more intuitive than myself, and almost all others. I would also like to make a suggestion with regards to the SC numbers. You found them useless, i think they are welll woth the price of the book in itself I assume you play mid or deep stacked ring games? In which case, you will never need them. I play tourneys, and you are often short stacked, on or near the button, with no one yet in. The sc numbers are a really nice way of knowing that shoving ai is profitable, EVEN if sb and bb knew exactly what sort of crud you will shove with. sb and bb are almost always too tight, so you steal more often. Give it a go, and you will like the results, i promise!
|
|
#17
03-19-2007, 11:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Whats their problem?
[ QUOTE ]
OMG, if you understood the comments about top prior to reading it, i think you would be in the top 1% of poker players. I needed several reads, and i consider myself very intelligent. Perhaps you are more intuitive than myself, and almost all others. [/ QUOTE ] Understanding TOP does not place you in the top 1% of poker players, particularly NLHE cash games where being good requires (first and foremost) being tune with the flow of the game, understanding how to recognize and exploit different types of opponents, and not tilting (something I struggle with). [ QUOTE ] I would also like to make a suggestion with regards to the SC numbers. You found them useless, i think they are welll worth the price of the book in itself I assume you play mid or deep stacked ring games? In which case, you will never need them. [/ QUOTE ] Yes - I play deep stack ring games and the occasional sit-n-go (for fun). For ring games, which were the basis for the SC numbers (a NLHE game with 1/2 blinds) the numbers are pretty useless. The general concept (it is often correct to move-in over folding) is certainly more useful for tourneys where there are a lot more push or fold situations and where you are not playing against the same opponents in standardized situations. That said the numbers, as they are computed, do not apply directly to tourneys. A literal interpretation of the SC numbers applied to tourneys may lead one to the conclusion that you should almost always push when your short stacked. This clearly isn't true as busting out is worse than losing the equivalent amount of chips in a cash game. There is also an implicit assumption in the SC numbers that your opponents have you covered. In tourneys this may or may not be the case. If it is not your opponents are getting better pot odds than the (adjusted) SC numbers presume and you are (thus) less likely to get folds. Lucky One other thing I want to add - The videos that sites like Cardrunners are putting out are great learning tools - much better than the books for most players IMO. I wish these were available when I started playing.
|
|
#18
03-19-2007, 02:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Whats their problem?
yes they can get great, lots of the stars are self taught and dont read, it can help u grasp concepts earlier on tho and easier. They arent mean not reading, so i'd stop pushing it at them.
|
|
#20
03-20-2007, 03:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Whats their problem?
[ QUOTE ]
"They say I already know how to play good enough." [/ QUOTE ] lol. Thank you. I appreciated this.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
