Most over-rated poker book of all time?

[NickMPK]

Overrated:
Super System 2: Except for the Triple Draw Chapter and perhaps Limit HE, every other chapter could have been so much better. And where are 7-Card Stud and an update of the great statistic appendix from SSI?

Ace on the River: I have no problem with the content. It is what it is. But this book is badly overproduced. It looks like someone trying to design a coffee table book who had never designed a coffee table book. Way too much white space, and what is with have the title of the book on every other page?

Psychology of Poker: I guess I just expected a little more nuance than the same old four player profiles.

Hold-em Poker for Advanced Players: Just unreadable

Not Overrated (among famous books)
Super System (original)
SSHE
Harrington On Hold-em
Play Poker Like the Pros (Not a bad beginner's book if you ignore some of the specific LHE advice, and who rates this highly anyway?)

[Adman]

TT, please read my pm to you.

[Adman]

Mason, with regards to Winning Low Limit Hold 'em I was talking about the third edition since that is the only one I have read. I can't speak for the 1995 one that you refer to.

[Adman]

Wada, I have pm'd you a hand history where I raised 76s UTG in a 5 handed poker game with a couple of aggressive players yet to act. I then proceeded to outplay them after the flop. I have only sent you this to illustrate just how good I actually am. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Diana Ross Fan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
god,im so mad when i hear this:

i often red here, winning low limit hold'em by lee jones..,
is agreat book or it should be the first to read for limit poker....

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz how in the hell players recommended this book over intenet texas hold'em(ITH) by hilger or SSHE???

i mean comon...WLLH by lee jones makes u break even at most.....when ITH is very easy to read,tons of good info,and makes u easilly a winner,maybe not a big winner,but at least a winner for sure compared to WLLH...
not even talking about SSHE,wich even if its a bit outdated(in the sense at low limit,the players got signifinctly stronger compared from couple years ago)is still applicable in many games and teaches u how to play a lot better then WLLH.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps because it was out before ITH and SSH!!!

Secondly because WLLH is aimed at a (near) beginner audience while ITH and SSHE are aimed for a more advanced audience.

The books pretty much admit that themselves (WLLH advises people to read SSHE after reading WLLH, SSHE mentions its an advanced book and recommends you read other books first, in ITH, Hilger recommends people read something like WLLH first.)

But then having read those books you probably already know that!!

Also, on this forum more people probably recommend Millers beginner's book than they do WLLH (personally i like both, and think WLLH is fine for starting out but would recommend moving onto ITH as quickly as possible and then SSHE.

DB

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. I was beginning to wonder if anyone in this thread had heard of "context".

[Red_Diamond]

[ QUOTE ]
Way too much white space, and what is with have the title of the book on every other page?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wondered about that too. I've been told, black ink is cheap, it's the paper that costs money these days.

But to Greenstein's credit, 'Ass on the River' does have a chapter at least to deal with hand histories and a sort of quiz for them. So there is something in there.

[Diana Ross Fan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Winning low limit hold 'em was probably one of the best absolute beginners books

[/ QUOTE ]

Was it really? The first edition, which I think came out in 1995, was significantly revised twice.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason:

Adman seems to be someone who seems to think everything is the best book ever written.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just teach him that everything= what's published by 4.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
It has a a ton of hidden messages of why good solid poker players fail and what they should or should not do to succeed. Don't be like the UTG donk - think deeper.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I pay $30 or whatever for a book I shouldn't be required to look for "hidden messages." Maybe I'll give it another read wearing a tin foil beenie...

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

Here are two comments I have.

First off, I would argue that HPFAP is the most under-rated book as opposed to over-rated. No book in the history of poker impacted games like this book did. Remember, the original version came out in 1988 when the typical regular was extremely weak-tight, and we have sold over 250,000 copies. So it's influence was certainly felt.

Second, there is no question in my mind that Super/System is the most over-rated book of all time. Before the poker boom began it was basically a forgotten book. Our books, like Theory of Poker, Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players, and Seven-Card Stud for Advanced Players, as far as I could tell, far outsold it, and no serious player took the advice it contains seriously since there were better sources for all the games it discussed except for no-limit hold 'em which virtually no one played as a cash game for close to twenty years. Then when the boom started, the publicity machine began and you would hear over and over how it was the "bible of poker." If that would have been the case, there would have been no Super/System II.

By the way, don't misconstrue my remarks to say that Super/System I is a bad work. That was certainly not the case. But with the exception of the stud section, by 2003 (when the poker boom started), the rest of the book was completely obsolete. Draw poker, both jacks-or-better and ace-to-five lowball was dead, limit hold 'em had the old blind structure which makes the given strategy flawed for the double blind structure that has been the standard since the early 1980s, razz was basically a dead game, deuce-to-seven no-limit draw was only played by a very small number of people for high-stakes, stud high-low-split was now played as eight-or-better on those rare occasions (usually around a tournament) that it was spread, and no-limit hold 'em as a cash game essentially didn't exist. Yet I saw interview after interview, as well as constant write-ups, that this was the bible of poker.

Best wishes,
Mason

[brendons31]

[ QUOTE ]
I think everyone fails to realize that many of these books are obsolete because of the books themselves. If it wasn't for SS1, no limit would not have advanced in the coarse it has.

It is because with this information, that new information must be written, becasue the "typical" player is now the player described in these books.

Many of the books mentioned on this thread are still must-reads, because they a) bring you up to speed and b) still force you to think about the game, while suggesting a correct base strategy.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that the player described in SS1 is the typical player at all. In my experience the "typical" player is loose passive - they play too many hands and go too far with them. Applying the advice in SS1 too liberally will likely get you crushed by these players. Not good tactics going nuts with a draw against a guy who is calling down with top pair, or even any pair.

As a book to advance the course of NL holdem, perhaps it has been great, perhaps it has gone a long way to making NL Holdem by far the most played game these days. That alone certainly doesn't make the content any good though.