Why can no one write a truly advanced poker book ?

[bustedromo]

There are no truly advanced poker books.

What I mean by truly advanced is a book that does not copiously waste words explaining concepts that are intuitively obvious to talented players, and instead devotes itself steadfastly to the task of difficult problem-solving.

The serious chess players on here know what I'm talking about. There are literally 100s of advanced chess books, where from page 1 onwards your brain is put to work and it's typically a battle between wanting to continue reading and putting the book down because the author challenges your mind just as a fierce talented opponent does.

Instead, in the poker literature, the so-called advanced literature consists of excessive explanations of intuitive concepts with trivial 1-d examples that seem to have been chosen simply because they were the least work to think up.

Am I accusing poker's so-called advanced authors of intellectual laziness ? Yes, I am, because I think some of these people could do much better.

I agree with BG that most poker books are lame, but BG's book contains only a few well-discussed advanced hands which effectively serve as a tease since most of the book reads like an inane coffee house conversation with your aunt.

Sometimes I wonder if existing established poker authors are capable of writing an advanced book. Sometimes I wonder if most advanced players assume that if they write an advanced book it will serve to lesses their edge over the competition.

And I call bs on the advanced players who wrote totally lame-ass jokes on TP and dare to dump it on the poker-playing public.

Sorry to be so blunt. Maybe Gus' book will go in some small measure to remedy this sorry state of affairs.

[PJS]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe Gus' book will go in some small measure to remedy this sorry state of affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I very much doubt the above.

Anyway, I don't know if he still has plans to do it, but a couple of months ago Sklansky was considering doing a book dedicated to analysing hand problems (amongst other book ideas).

[Splossy]

Is it possible that chess style analysis of problems is not relevant to poker because it is not that sort of game? Maybe limit is a bit more like that but it seems to me that NL is only partly maths logic and a whole lot more about playing the person. Afterall a computer can put up a very tough game of chess but from what I've seen of NL programs they struggle to compete in a ring game.

Maybe the advanced players are not sitting their solving vastly complex chess style problems but are just better at reading people.

[Matt Flynn]

in the case of no-limit hold 'em:

1. there's a ton of "basic" stuff that isn't in print
2. the market is presumably small for such books
3. there aren't many people that are good enough to write one AND are sufficiently motivated to get the writing done AND can write reasonably well or find someone to do it for them.

however, i think easier-to-write versions will be out in the coming year or two - primarily hand example books.

also, motivation is interesting. there isn't enough money in books to outweigh a high-paying job or a skilled player's earn rate, assuming that person liked to play. interest or ego or something else has to motivate you.

[JackCase]

The comparison between poker and chess has been raised before, and shown to be pointless.

1. Chess is a game of perfect information, poker is not.

2. At any point in a chess game there is an optimal move. In poker there is not. In poker, the answer as to what to do next is always "it depends". That is never the answer in chess. Even after the fact, experts can disagree as to whether a poker hand was played correctly.

3. In chess, you are playing one opponent. In poker you are playing many, and the unknown future actions of one (which may or may not be "correct") affect the unknown future actions of others.

In short, the best a good advanced poker book can teach you is how and what to think about in a situation. It can't do your thinking for you.

[Montrealcorp]

sorry jackcase,ive attained a pretty good level(only master but still,far enough that i know what im talking about) in chess and let me tell u this...

there s a lot more similarities between chess and poker then u think!!

ure quote:"In poker, the answer as to what to do next is always "it depends". That is never the answer in chess. "

totally false...

quote:" Even after the fact, experts can disagree as to whether a poker hand "

as in chess as well !!

[skillzilla]

i agree

[scorer]

harrington books are advanced

[Sharagoz]

Have you tried Harrington's workbook?

[phydaux]

To the OP,

You've never read How Good is Your Limit Hold'em, have you?