PNL vrs. NLHTAP

[Master_Shake]

[ QUOTE ]
Ed Miller has stated that writing PNL made him understand NLHE. So there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you explain this?

[Senator7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ed Miller has stated that writing PNL made him understand NLHE. So there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you explain this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Was wondering the same thing. Ed is my favorite poker author, but if he didn't understand NLHE, why or how did he help write NLHETAP?

[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]

Was wondering the same thing. Ed is my favorite poker author, but if he didn't understand NLHE, why or how did he help write NLHETAP?

[/ QUOTE ]

Editing and language [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ed Miller has stated that writing PNL made him understand NLHE. So there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you explain this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Was wondering the same thing. Ed is my favorite poker author, but if he didn't understand NLHE, why or how did he help write NLHETAP?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it makes it easier to understand consider Ed a ghost writer who got equal credit. Davids concepts and ideas, transcribed and communicated by Ed. I think he did a fairly good job, and I am in no way dismissing Ed's importance in the work, Ed was the glue for David's thoughts. David could have written he book on his own, but can you blame him for turning to someone who is a good editor/communicator of hard to understand concepts?

[MarkD]

My understanding was that the Mid and High Stakes posters on this site thought there was a fair amount of bad advice in Sklansky's book. I got the impression that it was not the TOP for NL and could be entirely misleading at times.

I read it, but don't play NL so can't really comment on it, but based on memory I think PNL will become the more important work. /shrug - just a hypothesis

[Senator7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ed Miller has stated that writing PNL made him understand NLHE. So there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you explain this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Was wondering the same thing. Ed is my favorite poker author, but if he didn't understand NLHE, why or how did he help write NLHETAP?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it makes it easier to understand consider Ed a ghost writer who got equal credit. Davids concepts and ideas, transcribed and communicated by Ed. I think he did a fairly good job, and I am in no way dismissing Ed's importance in the work, Ed was the glue for David's thoughts. David could have written he book on his own, but can you blame him for turning to someone who is a good editor/communicator of hard to understand concepts?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK...that makes sense. Thanks TT.

Can't blame them at all. With the advanced concepts covered in NLHTAP, I couldn't even imagine reading that book had Ed not "translated" it. Now that I think of it, NLHTAP does seem to read more like SSH instead of TOP...

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ed Miller has stated that writing PNL made him understand NLHE. So there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you explain this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Was wondering the same thing. Ed is my favorite poker author, but if he didn't understand NLHE, why or how did he help write NLHETAP?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it makes it easier to understand consider Ed a ghost writer who got equal credit. Davids concepts and ideas, transcribed and communicated by Ed. I think he did a fairly good job, and I am in no way dismissing Ed's importance in the work, Ed was the glue for David's thoughts. David could have written he book on his own, but can you blame him for turning to someone who is a good editor/communicator of hard to understand concepts?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK...that makes sense. Thanks TT.

Can't blame them at all. With the advanced concepts covered in NLHTAP, I couldn't even imagine reading that book had Ed not "translated" it. Now that I think of it, NLHTAP does seem to read more like SSH instead of TOP...

[/ QUOTE ]

It would never happen for numerous reasons, but I have said more than once if Ed was to re-write TOP for David.... wow. Ed has an uncanny ability to explain complex concepts, as a community we need more writers with that ability.

[sincityalpha]

TAP is a great book, but it's definitely more theoretical, and people who lack proper experience or motivation will simply not get the most out of it. But those few who do have the brains, the experience, and the motivation, TAP is invaluable. Personally, just the part on multi-level thinking alone, and how you should stay exactly one level ahead of your opponent, not two, is worth 100 times the price of the book. Also, all the tedious math, even though you are unlikely to perform similar calculations at the table, it does point you towards what you ought to consider. With experience, as long as you have the right framework for analysis, your brain starts to perform much of this stuff on its own, which translates into intuition or gut-feeling... Just my $0.02...

SCA

[Poker Clif]

[ QUOTE ]
what are the main differences between the two books?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be great if at least once on threads like this, the actual title(s) of the book(s) could be given.

I have read somewhere between 10-15 poker books, but I certainly don't know the title of every book from the initials. For example, I know that NLHE must mean no limit hold 'em, but I have no idea what TAP might mean.

[Senator7]

[ QUOTE ]
It would never happen for numerous reasons, but I have said more than once if Ed was to re-write TOP for David.... wow. Ed has an uncanny ability to explain complex concepts, as a community we need more writers with that ability.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Ed re-wrote TOP and poker got a carveout or the UIGEA was overturned (unlikely, but possible), the book would be 2+2's best selling book in a LONG time.

So if you're listening, Mason, I know a lot of people who would pony up $40 or $50 for a book like that...