why do u never hear about some book authors winning anything?

[PokerPaul]

If they are such experts at the game, and are writing and selling all these books and the advice they dispense, wouldnt you think you'd hear about them more often in poker circles.

Specifically, i'm talking about the likes of Mcevoy, Caro, Vorhaus, silbenstang. They ahve tons of books out, yet i have never heard any of their names amongst big tournament finishes over the last 5-6 years, and i don't hear about them being in any huge ring games either.

Don't mean any disrespect, just an honest question...are they maybe just experts for lower limits type players?

[Cleveland Guy]

This uy Brunson also wrote a book - wonder if he is any good.

I do believe Mcevoy was at at least 1 of the Televised Final tables at the WSOP this year.

[jakethebake]

More to life than tournaments...Ever hear about this new thing called cash games? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[jakethebake]

This is exactly why I'm not going to buy Harrington's book. He never wins. Those back-to-back final tables don't mean anything because he didn't win. Loser. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

In case anyone needs this: Sarcasm Detector (http://sarcasmdetector.com)

[Demana]

The answer is simple:
No matter how good you are, there is an element of luck in winning a tournament.

Look at the Tournament of Champions.

Howard is all in with 77
Annie calls with 66

She spikes a 6 and takes him out.

She was a HUGE underdog, yet she caught her set and Howard did not.

There are no guarantees in poker until all the cards are face up on the table.

[PokerPaul]

OK jake..thanks for the sarcasm explanation, i don't think the rest could have figured it out otherwise.

Hmm, lets see if i can explain it at a level you may comprehend.

I said SOME of the authors who have many books out, and then went on to mention a few of those i meant, not ALL of the authors.

Obvioulsy, harrington, doyle, hellmuth, sklansky and other authors have obviously been able to back up adn demonstrate their expertise...but others not.

So, are those ones big cash game players then?? Hence i said i dont mean disrespect, just an honest question.

[daryn]

those guys make their living from playing poker.. that's about it.

the best poker player in the world is probably some guy you've never heard of or seen.

[Jaquen H'gar]

If winning more WSOP bracelets than just about everybody doesn't guarantee your book is really good, then why would not winning any bracelets mean that the book is no good?

Whether a book is good or not depends on what it contains, not the winning tournament record of the author. That being said, there have only been twenty WSOP champions in the past two decades. Are there more than twenty poker experts who have played in the past twenty years? Are these non-winners allowed to dispense their wisdom?

Is Dan Marino allowed to advise youngsters on becoming an NFL quarterback despite not having a Super Bowl ring?

But on the other hand, those who can, do; those who can't, teach. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

That being said, many people can put clear, straightforward logical guidelines down on paper yet be unable to follow their own guidelines when under the gun. I guarantee you this applies to quite a few posters on this website. Most posters are not as good as they come off in their posts, myself included. Not because of bragging, but because when taking the time to think through situations before posting, better decisions are made than those made at the table with the clock ticking.

Knowledge is not power, it is merely potential. APPLIED knowledge is power.

[old crow]

My guess would be that Doyle Brunson sells copies by appearing on televised tournaments; while a 60-120 player may have a better EV than a tournament player, what kind of of book profits is Sklansky leaving on the table by not shooting for a few WPT final tables?

[Michael Davis]

The "those who can't do, teach" quip does not apply to poker. To be an effective teacher you must be able to play the game really well. This isn't true in, say, basketball.

Actually, the more I think about it, I'm not sure this ever applies.

-Michael

[Joboo]

[ QUOTE ]
Specifically, i'm talking about the likes of Mcevoy, Caro, Vorhaus, silbenstang. They ahve tons of books out, yet i have never heard any of their names amongst big tournament finishes over the last 5-6 years, and i don't hear about them being in any huge ring games either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm not really interested or qualified to debate the issue you raise, but I'd like to point out that Tom McEvoy was the 1983 WSOP main event champion and has won 4 bracelets overall, so even if you believe that an author who hasn't won anything shouldn't be trusted, you can take him off of your list.

[BugSplatt]

Greg Raymer won the 5 million dollar event - would you buy a book from him? If his terrible play at the Table of Champions didn't prove the theory that really great things can happen to really bad players, I don't know what would.

I don't recall ever seeing Roy Cooke's name anywhere in tournament play, but the guy is a damned good writer, and a winning ring game player.

What about Ed Miller? His name doesn't seem to pop up in tournament play, but I've yet to hear anyone who has something bad to say about his book.

Then there's Phil Helmuth, a winning tournament player but his book - for the most part - is a total waste of ink and paper.

TJ (and McEvoy) have won their fair share, but I am not all that impressed with their books, either.

Say what you will about Vorhaus, Sklansky, Malmuth, etc. Just because they don't win big tournaments does not lessen their abilities to convey winning poker strategies.

Bug

[PokerPaul]

sklansky and malm are well known to be hi ring game players.

And their books are very good....i never questioned their pedigree.

Mcevoy did win the big one way back, and has played hundreds and hundreds of tourneys since. I would expect him to have a couple of bracelets, just by the sheer number of tourneys he has played, but lately i don't hear his name often. He is a nice guy, and a well respected columnist, but all im saying is he has not lately been playing up to the levels i would expect for someone of his reputation.

maybe i'll bump into some of these guys next week at foxwoods, and i'll ask them about this.

[La Brujita]

[ QUOTE ]
Greg Raymer won the 5 million dollar event - would you buy a book from him? If his terrible play at the Table of Champions didn't prove the theory that really great things can happen to really bad players, I don't know what would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you pm him, he might be interested in taking some lessons from you.

[BugSplatt]

That came out worse than it was meant and I am sure Greg Raymer will come across it in his own time. Why don't you PM him and tell him about my terrible "crime" and we can speed up the process?

My point is that you can do many wrong things in a tournament and have a positive result. That does not mean you are capable of writing a book. In Raymer's case - and I think even he would admit to this - he won more than his fair share of 50/50 confrontations on his way to the title. I did not mean to single HIM out as a terrible player. While I thought he played well and conducted himself with a great deal of class in the five million dollar event, he was also getting great cards.

However, having watched the Table of Champions Tournament last night, I was totally disappointed in much of his play. I expected more from him, and expectations are what people have to live up to when they are placed under the microscope of televised play and celebrity status. And I can only judge his play from what I have seen on television, but he has yet to show me he has the capability of laying down a mediocre pre-flop hand when the signals suggest that maybe he should save his chips for another confrontation. As an example, on one hand, Helmuth raised pre-flop with an A9 suited, Raymer went all-in with a KQ off suit, (which I didn't think was terrible play) and Helmuth let his hand go. I am not so sure (based on Mr. Raymer's confrontations with Annie Duke) that if you reversed the situation, Greg Raymer would have done what Helmuth did. Of course, I have a very small sample size.

Bug

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
That came out worse than it was meant and I am sure Greg Raymer will come across it in his own time. Why don't you PM him and tell him about my terrible "crime" and we can speed up the process?

My point is that you can do many wrong things in a tournament and have a positive result. That does not mean you are capable of writing a book. In Raymer's case - and I think even he would admit to this - he won more than his fair share of 50/50 confrontations on his way to the title. I did not mean to single HIM out as a terrible player. While I thought he played well and conducted himself with a great deal of class in the five million dollar event, he was also getting great cards.

However, having watched the Table of Champions Tournament last night, I was totally disappointed in much of his play. I expected more from him, and expectations are what people have to live up to when they are placed under the microscope of televised play and celebrity status. And I can only judge his play from what I have seen on television, but he has yet to show me he has the capability of laying down a mediocre pre-flop hand when the signals suggest that maybe he should save his chips for another confrontation. As an example, on one hand, Helmuth raised pre-flop with an A9 suited, Raymer went all-in with a KQ off suit, (which I didn't think was terrible play) and Helmuth let his hand go. I am not so sure (based on Mr. Raymer's confrontations with Annie Duke) that if you reversed the situation, Greg Raymer would have done what Helmuth did. Of course, I have a very small sample size.

Bug

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize that the TOC was a winner take all competition, so the typical tournament strategies do not apply. Greg made those decisions based on pot odds which is the correct thing to do in this case.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not so sure (based on Mr. Raymer's confrontations with Annie Duke) that if you reversed the situation, Greg Raymer would have done what Helmuth did.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean lay down the best hand getting a pretty good price fromt he pot? Maybe not, I guess that why he will never be as good as Phil.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
Greg Raymer won the 5 million dollar event - would you buy a book from him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, yeah.

Can't believe I would ever read such a dumb question on a 2+2 forum. Perhaps you should post on the tourney forum and improve on the rubbish advice Raymer has been giving these past 5 years.

[Sephus]

isn't it amazing how easy it is to know what poker players "should have done" when you get to see all the cards as well as the results?

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
what kind of of book profits is Sklansky leaving on the table by not shooting for a few WPT final tables?


[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome back to the forum Gary Carson.

Jimbo

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Greg Raymer won the 5 million dollar event - would you buy a book from him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, yeah.

Can't believe I would ever read such a dumb question on a 2+2 forum. Perhaps you should post on the tourney forum and improve on the rubbish advice Raymer has been giving these past 5 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

who cares how long a guy has been posting here? that does'nt mean you go plop down $30 beans on a book of tournament essays. WTF! let's be real here. Greg is no David Pham, Daniel Negreanu, John Juanda, Barry Greenstein, "Miami" John Cernuto, Men Nguyen, or even Paul Phillips. i mean, DAG! at least have a player who perenially does well year after year in tournament play and final tables writing this type of book. the guy won ONE big tournament and his previous tournament resume does'nt even stack up to all the cojones-blowing that folks are giving him on this site. C'MON already!

* /images/graemlins/grin.gifthat's not saying Greg is'nt a GOOD player (for all the folks who think i think the guy can't play)*

[CrisBrown]

Hi B.S.,

For that matter, what qualifies you to pass judgment on any other poker player?

Cris

[ClaytonN]

The plays Raymer made were all +EV at the TOC when you consider the pot odds (and the only payout at the top). Getting reraised is just a bitchy thing when your style is chopping away.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
The plays Raymer made were all +EV at the TOC when you consider the pot odds (and the only payout at the top). Getting reraised is just a bitchy thing when your style is chopping away.

[/ QUOTE ]

and? are you answering me or somebody else?

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi B.S.,

For that matter, what qualifies you to pass judgment on any other poker player?

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

ain't no more special than the next player. we all eat, sh#t, breathe, sleep, and fornicate like all mammals. the beauty of being able to pass judgement is that no man or woman is above another and that we have the capacity, (being of the highest intelligence), to do just that.

[Mason Malmuth]

The answer is none. I'll let others elaborate as to the reason why.

MM

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
who cares how long a guy has been posting here? that does'nt mean you go plop down $30 beans on a book of tournament essays.....the guy won ONE big tournament and his previous tournament resume does'nt even stack up to all the cojones-blowing that folks are giving him on this site.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would buy Fossilmans book even if he hadn't won the wsop. Same goes for anyone that demonstrates a very good knowledge of the game over a long period of posts on here or rgp. Especially as that means they will have shown a willingness to sincerely share info, in contrast to most pros who write books and hold back their best. i.e. Hellmuth and Cloutier.

I wouldn't be that interested in a book written by Miami John or Men Nguyen, or any number of players that have had tournament success.

[sillyarms]

Please someone elaborate on this. I can't see why. I think if he got on tv the show would trump up the fact that he was a respected author to the point of making me sick, thus selling lots of books. What am I missing?


silly

[Nfinity]

For the record it applies in dance, mostly ballet. Most ppl who do it for years don't have the figure/height/weight/feet to work in a professional company so they teach it. That's why they are always mean old ladies.
But that's the extent to which I've seen it applied.

[Smoothcall]

your dissapointed in greg's play cause he didn't get played off his hand like phil did. what sense does that make. who wants to play like phil anyway. greg would be better choice to emulate. although i think one of his calls against any was bad. hellmuth is overated period.

[alittle]

[ QUOTE ]
The answer is none. I'll let others elaborate as to the reason why.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, for one, almost every "player's" book will mention Sklansky in some way and he gets "indirect" advertising that way. The man behind the man if you will.

Since he is known for the analytical approach, being a "personality" probably won't help him too much. I think there are a few reasons why people buy books. One is "how to play" and another is "why I play like I do". I think that people are interested in material from Raymer, et al because they want insight into their style more than the mechanics.

Maybe if there was a way for TV to read David's mind and show the calculations as he made them, then maybe TV exposure would be great. Otherwise though, it seems like it would be hard for celebrity to work for him. Everyone seems to want to know "Why did [Phillips, Hansen, etc] do that? Why do they play like that?" When the answer is "because it was mathematically correct" would not be so compelling.

Now obviously David is not an automaton (I don't think), and has to play with "feel" in addition to great mechanics, but I think celebrity works better in this context when the subject is a bit of a character or wins in spite of perceived "not-by-the-book" play.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
For the record it applies in dance, mostly ballet. Most ppl who do it for years don't have the figure/height/weight/feet to work in a professional company so they teach it. That's why they are always mean old ladies.
But that's the extent to which I've seen it applied.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you calling Sklansky a mean, fat old lady whose feet hurt? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Wayfare]

You saw like 5% of the hands on TV. You think that it is possible, just possible, that a judgement about a player's skill might be inaccurate when you have only seen 5% of the plays? Did you see the dozens of hands that raymer raised and no one called? If you had watched the simulcast on pokerstars (almost no way that you did this or you wouldn't be saying these things), you would realize the error of your ways.

You also realize that the TV format is slanted towards the time when people have big hands and go all-in, or simply the times that suckouts occur?

I think your statements are out of line with the information that you have based them on. Re-evaluate.

[sillyarms]

In TPFAF on page 135 near the bottom.
[ QUOTE ]
About the only person who should consider playing two aces in this spot is me, since the extra book sales a World Championship would give me might swing the decision to a call.

[/ QUOTE ]

It says right here in a 2+2 book that extra publicity means more book sales. What am I missing?

silly

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
who cares how long a guy has been posting here? that does'nt mean you go plop down $30 beans on a book of tournament essays.....the guy won ONE big tournament and his previous tournament resume does'nt even stack up to all the cojones-blowing that folks are giving him on this site.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would buy Fossilmans book even if he hadn't won the wsop. Same goes for anyone that demonstrates a very good knowledge of the game over a long period of posts on here or rgp. Especially as that means they will have shown a willingness to sincerely share info, in contrast to most pros who write books and hold back their best. i.e. Hellmuth and Cloutier.

I wouldn't be that interested in a book written by Miami John or Men Nguyen, or any number of players that have had tournament success.

[/ QUOTE ]

i would definitely be more inclined to buy a poker tournament book written by Men "The Master" rather than Greg Raymer. you want a testament to what Men can teach you does? all you have to do is take a look at the tourney success of Van Pham, Minh Nguyen (2 time WSOP bracelet holder), and his cousin, David Pham (one of the best tournament players in the world). i doubt very seriously that any tutelage or advice from Greg has produced any where near the success in other players than Men's has in these three. BAR NONE! buy a book by Greg over Men. yeah, right! sounds more like who you know and who you're familiar with. where i come from, that's still not worth spending $30 beans. you gotta come with more than that.

[shaniac]

alittle, your argument seems to miss a basic principle about marketing and completely misses the most "compelling" aspect of any poker player/personality--winning.

Mason,
I really have little idea of what you mean and I'd love for you to explain it rather than throw out the haughty "I'll let others elaborate..." that you and Sklansky are so fond of putting out there. Reading your mind should not be a prerequisite for trying to study your thoughts and strategies. Not sure what the idea is there...

Anyway, any publicity is good publicity as far as I can see. Just ask Ashlee Simpson.

This is not to say that if Sklansky busted out first of every tournament it would be beneficial to book sales, but...

Perhaps what Mason is pointing out is that Sklansky's value as an author exists independently of his performance in high profile tournaments. Fair enough. But Mason, if you are asserting that high profile/big cash finishes for David would not be good for 2+2 book sales, I think you need to hire a publicist.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, maybe the language of the original post that Mason responded to leaves room for interpreation. While Sklansky's book sales might not be hurting as a result of his absence from TV Final Tables, there's no way to argue that performing well in such a setting would be -EV for book sales.

Shane

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
alittle, your argument seems to miss a basic principle about marketing and completely misses the most "compelling" aspect of any poker player/personality--winning.

Mason,
I really have little idea of what you mean and I'd love for you to explain it rather than throw out the haughty "I'll let others elaborate..." that you and Sklansky are so fond of putting out there. Reading your mind should not be a prerequisite for trying to study your thoughts and strategies. Not sure what the idea is there...

Anyway, any publicity is good publicity as far as I can see. Just ask Ashlee Simpson.

This is not to say that if Sklansky busted out first of every tournament it would be beneficial to book sales, but...

Perhaps what Mason is pointing out is that Sklansky's value as an author exists independently of his performance in high profile tournaments. Fair enough. But Mason, if you are asserting that high profile/big cash finishes for David would not be good for 2+2 book sales, I think you need to hire a publicist.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, maybe the language of the original post that Mason responded to leaves room for interpreation. While Sklansky's book sales might not be hurting as a result of his absence from TV Final Tables, there's no way to argue that performing well in such a setting would be -EV for book sales.

Shane

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe this is part of the reason i ask why he [David] is considered a tourney poker guru.

[M2d]

have you ever read anything Greg posted here prior to his win? Greg's proven, time and again, here and on RGP that he understands poker in general, and tournament poker specifically. He's also proven that he can clearly and concisely relate that understanding in writing.
The fact that he won a big tournament means nothing when assessing the value of his book (assuming he writes one). the only thing that matters is whether the reader can trust that the information related is accurate and relavent. Greg has proven, time and again, that his book would be.
Men, et al, have not.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
have you ever read anything Greg posted here prior to his win? Greg's proven, time and again, here and on RGP that he understands poker in general, and tournament poker specifically. He's also proven that he can clearly and concisely relate that understanding in writing.
The fact that he won a big tournament means nothing when assessing the value of his book (assuming he writes one). the only thing that matters is whether the reader can trust that the information related is accurate and relavent. Greg has proven, time and again, that his book would be.
Men, et al, have not.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe that's because Men has'nt shown an interest in writing one. yet and still, your argument seems to be based on him posting on 2+2 than anything else. tournament for tournament, i'd pick Men any day. it's no comparison.

[shaniac]

A few things Desdia:

I don't know that anyone has ever called Sklansky a 'tournament guru.' I don't think tournaments have ever been his forte or his passion.

Also, his performance in tournaments is not the sole indicator of his value as a tournament author, it's how well he describes strategic concepts.

I think that TPFAP contains some essential concepts but the work on the whole is half-hearted; something necessary to read and understand as PART of one's tourney game, not the entirety.

Elsewhere in the thread you indicated that you'd rather read a book by Men the Master over FossilMan. The only way I'd choose a book by Men over a book by Greg is if Greg was the ghostwriter. In other words, Greg's ability to describe situations and analyze essential concepts of tournament poker thoroughly and clearly made him a valuable literary resource a long time before he won $5 Million.

Check TJ Cloutier's book. It seems unlikely that TJ does as well as he does by subscribing to the advice he peddles. TJ is undoubtedly a great tournament player but his writing on the subject paints an incomplete picture.

The good news is that the poker market has ripped wide open, which is excellent for the consumer (us). It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that the three books by Harrington and FossilMan due to hit the market will render most of the printed literature on tournament poker obsolete.

Shane

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
you want a testament to what Men can teach you

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me get this straight. You'd rather read a book written by a guy who's allegedly the leader of the most notorious tournament cheating team in history? What is it you are trying to learn?

If only Raymer had his own chip dumping team, not only would he have won more tournaments, but ironically, perhaps your respect as well.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
A few things Desdia:

I don't know that anyone has ever called Sklansky a 'tournament guru.' I don't think tournaments have ever been his forte or his passion.

Also, his performance in tournaments is not the sole indicator of his value as a tournament author, it's how well he describes strategic concepts.

I think that TPFAP contains some essential concepts but the work on the whole is half-hearted; something necessary to read and understand as PART of one's tourney game, not the entirety.

Elsewhere in the thread you indicated that you'd rather read a book by Men the Master over FossilMan. The only way I'd choose a book by Men over a book by Greg is if Greg was the ghostwriter. In other words, Greg's ability to describe situations and analyze essential concepts of tournament poker thoroughly and clearly made him a valuable literary resource a long time before he won $5 Million.

Check TJ Cloutier's book. It seems unlikely that TJ does as well as he does by subscribing to the advice he peddles. TJ is undoubtedly a great tournament player but his writing on the subject paints an incomplete picture.

The good news is that the poker market has ripped wide open, which is excellent for the consumer (us). It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that the three books by Harrington and FossilMan due to hit the market will render most of the printed literature on tournament poker obsolete.

Shane

[/ QUOTE ]

clearly, once again, here's a situation where one's ability to DESCRIBE and ANALYZE strategic tournament situations is more valued than ACTUAL TOURNAMENT SUCCESS in having these situations work. you're gonna tell me that you're basing this [Greg's ability to describe and analyze] over Men's 75+ tournament wins and at least 5 WSOP bracelets? let's be real here. hell, if that's the case, maybe i should become a guru at describing and analyzing tournament situations without very much tournament success to show for my knowledge....then have the majority of 2+2 clamor to buy my book.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you want a testament to what Men can teach you

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me get this straight. You'd rather read a book written by a guy who's allegedly the leader of the most notorious tournament cheating team in history? What is it you are trying to learn?

If only Raymer had his own chip dumping team, not only would he have won more tournaments, but ironically, perhaps your respect as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

look, if you're trying to use that as a basis for why you think Greg is a better player or that he would be a better teacher, i think that's real weak. the proof is in the pudding. forget Van, Minh, or David Pham. Men's tourney record alone, overshadows any success in poker that Greg has had, EXCEPT for his WSOP ME win. let's not forget, Greg, from the stats i've seen, has had less than 5 legitimate live casino poker tournament wins (most of which are small and hold no comparison to the WSOP ME), Men has had at least 75+ (with at least 5 being WSOP bracelets). sounds to me like nothing but clear favoriticism.

[Joboo]

Saying that Men would be a better teacher of tournament play than Greg due to greater success in tournaments is akin to saying that Michael Jordan would be a better basketball coach than Phil Jackson because he was a better player. The ability to perform well in a situation and the ability to teach others to perform in that same situation are not directly related to one another. It is entirely possible to be both a worse player and a better teacher than someone, and many believe that Greg Raymer is just that in comparison to Men Nguyen.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
you're gonna tell me that you're basing this [Greg's ability to describe and analyze] over Men's 75+ tournament wins and at least 5 WSOP bracelets?

[/ QUOTE ]

Quick answer: yes.

Also, you don't have to put paraphrased thoughts in [brackets].

Greg wrote about poker tournament theory for a long time, had scattered success in tournaments over the years while holding down a full time job and then he hit the big one. How many thousands of tournaments do you think Men the Master played while Greg filed Pfizer's patents, cultivating a well-thought out approach to the game, waiting for his time to come?

The thing is, none of that is even relevant. Do you really believe that Men the Master could explain his winning ways as well as Greg could explain how to, say, change a tire? Have you ever read anything FossilMan wrote? I find Sklansky's prose a challenge on the best days, but Greg wrote in the most clear, straightforward language available. Same with Paul Phillips. The collective contribution of Phillips and Raymer (all online, free for anyone) make up what I consider the bulk of the good tournament theory publicly available.

If you choose to ignore the valuable resources afforded you, that's a fine choice. It's clear though that you are barking up the wrong tree trying to discredit people like FossilMan and books like Theory of Poker because they do not correspond with your lofty standards of poker success (as represented apparently by Men's "75+ tournament wins.")

Shane

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you're gonna tell me that you're basing this [Greg's ability to describe and analyze] over Men's 75+ tournament wins and at least 5 WSOP bracelets?

[/ QUOTE ]

Quick answer: yes.

Also, you don't have to put paraphrased thoughts in [brackets].

Greg wrote about poker tournament theory for a long time, had scattered success in tournaments over the years while holding down a full time job and then he hit the big one. How many thousands of tournaments do you think Men the Master played while Greg filed Pfizer's patents, cultivating a well-thought out approach to the game, waiting for his time to come?

The thing is, none of that is even relevant. Do you really believe that Men the Master could explain his winning ways as well as Greg could explain how to, say, change a tire? Have you ever read anything FossilMan wrote? I find Sklansky's prose a challenge on the best days, but Greg wrote in the most clear, straightforward language available. Same with Paul Phillips. The collective contribution of Phillips and Raymer (all online, free for anyone) make up what I consider the bulk of the good tournament theory publicly available.

If you choose to ignore the valuable resources afforded you, that's a fine choice. It's clear though that you are barking up the wrong tree trying to discredit people like FossilMan and books like Theory of Poker because they do not correspond with your lofty standards of poker success (as represented apparently by Men's "75+ tournament wins.")

Shane

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't care how many patents Greg filed and i'm sure neither does Men. besides, what Greg does outside of poker has nothing to do with this conversation. you're trying to lend credibilty and weight to your argument that a PART-TIME tournament player with SCATTERED success writing about
poker tourney theory for years before winning ONE BIG tournament as a reason to why his book would be more valuable than a player who HAS a NATIONWIDE track record of success. that's like trying to hold a leaning telephone pole up with a kickstand. *hint- you need something stronger*. i'm more inclined to listen to what a guy like Men has to say, who's had consistent winning success, than a guy who, THEORY-WISE, maybe able to EXPLAIN and ANALYZE success, yet not back it up. i come from an environment where it's all about SHOW AND PROVE! talking, explaining, and analyzing don't mean nothing unless folks see a LEGITIMATE pattern of you REAL-izing what you speak. other than that, you just selling wolf tickets as if they were to the Super Bowl.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
Saying that Men would be a better teacher of tournament play than Greg due to greater success in tournaments is akin to saying that Michael Jordan would be a better basketball coach than Phil Jackson because he was a better player. The ability to perform well in a situation and the ability to teach others to perform in that same situation are not directly related to one another. It is entirely possible to be both a worse player and a better teacher than someone, and many believe that Greg Raymer is just that in comparison to Men Nguyen.

[/ QUOTE ]

to each his own. we can agree to disagree. i've benefited more from guys who were consistent successes in their chosen field or medium than i did in someone who just TAUGHT and TALK. if what you teaching has'nt CONSISTENTLY made YOU a success, then why would i need you to teach me anything? something does'nt look right about that picture. i respect folks who are a personification of what they speak, not someone who can merely come off that way. where i'm from, the kind of logic being displayed on 2+2 at times would seem like someone who took a thousand pounds of ganja, lit it up, then blew it through the air vents of an elementary school.

[Joboo]

The only way to judge who's book would be more valuable is by asking ourselves who can impart the most valuable tournament knowledge in the clearest way. While Men may be able to do this, his tournament record doesn't prove that he can any more than Raymer's tournament record proves that he can't. Men's tournament record has very little to do with how good a book of his would be.

EDIT: ^^Well if you disagree with that then I guess I'm done, though I don't really think your logic is sound.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
The only way to judge who's book would be more valuable is by asking ourselves who can impart the most valuable tournament knowledge in the clearest way. While Men may be able to do this, his tournament record doesn't prove that he can any more than Raymer's tournament record proves that he can't. Men's tournament record has very little to do with how good a book of his would be.

EDIT: ^^Well if you disagree with that then I guess I'm done, though I don't really think your logic is sound.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, but y'all are up in here trying to say that Greg's would. if the end result is, WHO'S TO SAY (which way or the other)!!???, fine. but, that's not what or how y'all are coming off. i clearly see that, "Greg would be and is better (although his record does'nt show it but he can damn well TALK IT!) than Men, therefore, that's the basis for why we would buy his book [end quote]". i feel a guy who can DESCRIBE and ANALYZE tournament poker situations, yet not have the stats to support all the describing and analyzing, does'nt guarantee anything either.

[Joboo]

I'm not trying to say that Greg's book would be better than Men's (though I certainly see why you'd say that since most everyone in this thread is), I'm just saying that your reason why it wouldn't be is misdirected, in my opinion. I don't think that the most successful player would necessarily make a better teacher than some more eloquent, yet less skilled other player, that's all.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

Here's a partial explanation.

Why does McDonalds advertise. part of the reason is that their product relatively equal to their competition. But suppose their hamburgers were really ten times better than what Wendy's or Burger King had to offer. Everyone would eventually understand that this was the case, and they wouldn't need to advertise.

That's what we believe is happening with our books. Demand has been so great that we are having trouble keeping up. This includes filling orders and keeping books in print. And the reason is that new players who want to get better quickly hear that our books are the ones that you have to read.

Now with this being said, we do do some advertising and promoting. For example, right now we have a promotion going in Borders for a couple of our titles. Furthermore, it would certainly be nice if David or I won a big tournament, but I don't think the long term impact is that important.

In addition, since we do have books by Dan Harrington and "Fossilman" coming, we will have that area covered. But the main reason (I belive) that these books will do well is that they will be terrific books. That will allow them to stand the test of time and have great "legs."

Best wishes,
Mason

[M2d]

[ QUOTE ]
the proof is in the pudding.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, Greg has proven that he understands both poker and tournament poker. He's proven on these and other forums, that he has the ability to relate these concepts to a larger audience. He's proven in large limit and big bet cash games as well as local and global tournaments that he can apply these concepts.

[RowdyZ]

So you would rather buy a book by a proven tournament pro. I guess if you wanted a book by Men you would love a book by Phil Hellmuth with all his success he could write a great book on poker, maybe even make some DVDS to teach the game. I am sure with all his tourament success he would be the best person in the world to write a poker book.
<insert that sarcasm meter thing here if I knew how>.

[PokerPaul]

hi mason,

never thought this thread would generate as much discussion as it has, although it has drifted a bit.

Your explanation has merit in that superior quality products will basically advertise themself in time through word of mouth and sell well.

However, that doesnt mean that many additional sales could be generated by a more visible presence.

Compare the movie industry. Most movies are marketed huge before they even open, showing trailers and promotions on TV and at fast food chains in the weeks prior to realease. And lets face it, the majority of movies are not nearly as good as the hype they create...heck they mostly suck.

Yet still, the top selling movie each week is very rarely the best...it is usually the most heavily marketed one, and then it stops selling rapidly within 2 weeks as word gets round that its not that good. Quality wise its crap..but revenue wise huge success...

Now there are the few really good movies that come out, and those obviously then have staying power, as word of mouth carries those box office receipts further weeks.

So some movies that do not market heavily which are good, will also generate revenues (ex. full monty, scream, il postino, bigfat greek weddding), but in most cases not close to amount of big marketing flicks...

However, the biggest revenue generators by far, are the ones which are BOTH: heavily marketed, AND top notch quality (Forrest Gump, Braveheart, fill in what u want here).

So if what your saying is that you want to let your quality and reputation speak for itself to sell your books, that will surely work. But you can't say that additional marketing $$$ spent in the right places won't add significantly to it.

[jonjonmacky]

back when there was more skill than flukish dead money, and cash games duh, you think these guys play just to be on tv, they have to make an actual cash game living. Funny Web page.

[Joboo]

Well if they truly are having trouble keeping up with filling the sales, then in the short run the revenue gained from advertising would be nothing or close to it. However, in the long run, assuming that they can expand their production to fill all the orders they're currently recieving and more, it would be to their benefit to advertise, whether by Sklansky being on a TV tournament or by some other method. I knew those Economics classes would be good for something someday.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Men's tourney record alone, overshadows any success in poker that Greg has had, EXCEPT for his WSOP ME win. let's not forget, Greg, from the stats i've seen, has had less than 5 legitimate live casino poker tournament wins (most of which are small and hold no comparison to the WSOP ME), Men has had at least 75+ (with at least 5 being WSOP bracelets). sounds to me like nothing but clear favoriticism

[/ QUOTE ]

Desdia,

I think you are missing my point. I'm not saying Men is a cheater, but it's a commonly repeated claim (search RGP for Daniel N's first hand account). The allegations are that in those tournaments Men had groups of his acolytes dumping chips to him, both at the table and at night in their rooms. If there is any truth to those claims, then how many of his wins are legitimate?

Aside from that, you need to consider how many (and what kinds) tournaments Men has entered, and the average field size of each. Bracelets were a bit easier to come by in most years that Men was competing than in the last few years.

[Drac]

You sure talk a lot with no credentials. You must have been laughed at a lot where you are "from".

[banditbdl]

You drag on and on about the fact that Greg doesn't win "CONSISTENTLY", or have the "proven track record", or has only "One big win from the WSOP ME". The fact of the matter is that while these statements may be true at face value they do not in fact mean anything at all. Up until the WSOP ME win Greg didn't play in all that many tournaments, certainly only a fraction of the events that Men, and Pham, and some of the other guys you mentioned have played in. In the tournaments Greg has played in his quality of play has produced results with a tremendous return on investment and has drawn favorable reviews from a number of highly respected players. Throw that in with the fact that Greg has consistently made great, informative, and easily digestible posts here for quite some time and its no wonder people would be interested in buying and reading his book. This isn't to say that Greg has the market on tournament poker teaching cornered in any way shape or form. Hell, maybe Men the Master could come up with a better book, but since I have no idea what his teaching and writing style are like I'm not exactly holding my breath on that one. But to ignore the Return on Investment that Greg gets in tournaments (big or small) and his history of informative instruction in this and other formats because he hasn't racked up enough WPT wins to satiate your demands reveals the true depth of your ignorance.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Paul:

While what you're saying is certainly correct, you are comparing apples to oranges. No matter how good a movie is, in a relatively short time it is out of the theatres. That's not the same with books where some titles can be top sellers for year after year. That makes all the difference in the world.

However, we do spend more than you think on promotions, etc.

Best wishes,
mason

[PokerPaul]

yes, could have used another example instead of movies, but thats what just came to mind.

anyways, congrats on all the success you guys are enjoying lately with this boom.

Im sure you know how to run your business over all these armchair CEO's posting their opinions.

And hey.....i just ordered theory of poker after reading HPFAP and TPFAP.....looking forward to it.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
i would definitely be more inclined to buy a poker tournament book written by Men "The Master" rather than Greg Raymer. you want a testament to what Men can teach you does? all you have to do is take a look at the tourney success of Van Pham, Minh Nguyen (2 time WSOP bracelet holder), and his cousin, David Pham (one of the best tournament players in the world). i doubt very seriously that any tutelage or advice from Greg has produced any where near the success in other players than Men's has in these three. BAR NONE! buy a book by Greg over Men. yeah, right! sounds more like who you know and who you're familiar with. where i come from, that's still not worth spending $30 beans. you gotta come with more than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt Men would share the secret of his teams success in a book.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
It is entirely possible to be both a worse player and a better teacher than someone, and many believe that Greg Raymer is just that in comparison to Men Nguyen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say Greg is a better player than Men. I have no idea who the better teacher is.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Men's tourney record alone, overshadows any success in poker that Greg has had, EXCEPT for his WSOP ME win. let's not forget, Greg, from the stats i've seen, has had less than 5 legitimate live casino poker tournament wins (most of which are small and hold no comparison to the WSOP ME), Men has had at least 75+ (with at least 5 being WSOP bracelets). sounds to me like nothing but clear favoriticism

[/ QUOTE ]

Desdia,

I think you are missing my point. I'm not saying Men is a cheater, but it's a commonly repeated claim (search RGP for Daniel N's first hand account). The allegations are that in those tournaments Men had groups of his acolytes dumping chips to him, both at the table and at night in their rooms. If there is any truth to those claims, then how many of his wins are legitimate?

Aside from that, you need to consider how many (and what kinds) tournaments Men has entered, and the average field size of each. Bracelets were a bit easier to come by in most years that Men was competing than in the last few years.

[/ QUOTE ]

c'mon, dude!!! you can't be serious. Greg won ONE HUGE tournament, to which ANY player would've been LUCKY to win. now you're trying to discredit Men having more bracelets by asking to consider the size of the fields he played in. that's ridiculous!! Men has won tournaments in Omaha, Omaha 8 or Better, Stud, Stud 8 or better, PLH, Limit, and No Limit! that's damn near ever form of poker except draw, Razz, pineapple, and Chinese. what point are you trying to make with the comment, "consider the TYPE of tournaments he [Men] has entered"? i know you're not using this as a defense for Greg winning a tournament so huge that not only will he probably not win again, but quite possibly never even make it back to the final table.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
You drag on and on about the fact that Greg doesn't win "CONSISTENTLY", or have the "proven track record", or has only "One big win from the WSOP ME". The fact of the matter is that while these statements may be true at face value they do not in fact mean anything at all. Up until the WSOP ME win Greg didn't play in all that many tournaments, certainly only a fraction of the events that Men, and Pham, and some of the other guys you mentioned have played in. In the tournaments Greg has played in his quality of play has produced results with a tremendous return on investment and has drawn favorable reviews from a number of highly respected players. Throw that in with the fact that Greg has consistently made great, informative, and easily digestible posts here for quite some time and its no wonder people would be interested in buying and reading his book. This isn't to say that Greg has the market on tournament poker teaching cornered in any way shape or form. Hell, maybe Men the Master could come up with a better book, but since I have no idea what his teaching and writing style are like I'm not exactly holding my breath on that one. But to ignore the Return on Investment that Greg gets in tournaments (big or small) and his history of informative instruction in this and other formats because he hasn't racked up enough WPT wins to satiate your demands reveals the true depth of your ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]

of a player having a large ROI over a SHORTER SAMPLE of tournaments as a testament to his greatness knowing full well none of this means or guarantees the same current level of ROI over the long run playing more tournaments? am i correct? if you wanna talk about ignorance, then you need to reread your statement to see what you are implying. this is not about just WPT wins. this is about WINS PERIOD! IMO, there should be no one up in these forums defending Greg's success in a limited sample of tournaments as a testament of anything. and let's not forget, probably 95% of his tournament dollars won and profit (ROI) came from that ONE BIG TOURNAMENT. the only thing that says is that people can misconstrue and exaggerate that off the deep end.

[Freudian]

If you have trouble keeping up with orders, wouldn't it be more logical to increase supply and not try to keep demand down? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Although I understand why you wouldn't want to go on the tournament circuit in the hopes of winning a tournament for tonnes of reasons.

Desdia - I think you fail to understand that most posters here focus more on Greg Reymers past poker writing over his past poker tournament success in this discussion. Which seems somewhat relevant when talking about a poker book. I am sure that if Men worked with someone good with poker writing he could produce a very intersting poker book.

But simply assuming someone will produce a great book because of their tournament success is nonsense. Some of the worst poker books available have been written by players with much poker success.

[Fitz]

It's really not fair using this Brunson character as an example. He is obviously a flash in the pan who got lucky a few times. Let's see if he shows any real staying power over the long term.

I'd prefer to my advice from someone who has been around a little bit. Any yoyo off the bus can catch a hot run and win 9 WSOP bracelets. Don't waste your money on Supersystem; save up until you can afford the DVD's by Chris Moneymaker.

What do you wanna be?

Good luck all,

Fitz

[jakethebake]

Watch it! That's the most feared player on the Internet you're talking about.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
Watch it! That's the most feared player on the Internet you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! i was thinking, "he can't be serious".

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Watch it! That's the most feared player on the Internet you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! i was thinking, "he can't be serious".

[/ QUOTE ]
In the past 2 years, Chris Moneymaker has made more money than everyone else in the world except 2 players (I think), and that includes this "Doyle Brunson" guy!

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Watch it! That's the most feared player on the Internet you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! i was thinking, "he can't be serious".

[/ QUOTE ]
In the past 2 years, Chris Moneymaker has made more money than everyone else in the world except 2 players (I think), and that includes this "Doyle Brunson" guy!

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think anybody is fearing him online though, especially good PS players.

[lastchance]

Just kidding around. I don't know how good MM is. I think he's decent, not amazing. Probably can hold his own, but can't destroy tables like Ivey and Brunson can.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
If you have trouble keeping up with orders, wouldn't it be more logical to increase supply and not try to keep demand down? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Although I understand why you wouldn't want to go on the tournament circuit in the hopes of winning a tournament for tonnes of reasons.

Desdia - I think you fail to understand that most posters here focus more on Greg Reymers past poker writing over his past poker tournament success in this discussion. Which seems somewhat relevant when talking about a poker book. I am sure that if Men worked with someone good with poker writing he could produce a very intersting poker book.

But simply assuming someone will produce a great book because of their tournament success is nonsense. Some of the worst poker books available have been written by players with much poker success.

[/ QUOTE ]

i understand fully that most of these posters look at Greg's past writing/posting on this site over his actual/past tourney success but, IMO, simply going by past posts on 2+2 does'nt mean much to a guy like me when you can't back up all that poker analysis and application with irrefutable tournament success results. hell, Greg does'nt even have to be a Daniel Negreanu or Men Nguyen...he could be a Can Kim Hua or David Levi (yet he's not even that). the simple fact is, Greg is a poker player, not a poker COACH, he's no Phil Jackson or Red Auerabach in the poker world, he's still a player who's goal to to win and make money. i could care less how his past posts would translate
into a viable tournament book. as i stated earlier, i see no need in spending my money on a tournament essay book from a guy who's had so-so tournament success (with the exception of the WSOP ME) to date, simply because he can discuss and analyze poker tourney situations good.

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
as i stated earlier, i see no need in spending my money on a tournament essay book from a guy who's had so-so tournament success (with the exception of the WSOP ME) to date, simply because he can discuss and analyze poker tourney situations good.

[/ QUOTE ]
What the hell do you want from a tournament essay book than being able to "discuss and analyze poker tourney situations good?" That seems to me to be the entire point of a tournament essay book.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
as i stated earlier, i see no need in spending my money on a tournament essay book from a guy who's had so-so tournament success (with the exception of the WSOP ME) to date, simply because he can discuss and analyze poker tourney situations good.

[/ QUOTE ]
What the hell do you want from a tournament essay book than being able to "discuss and analyze poker tourney situations good?" That seems to me to be the entire point of a tournament essay book.

[/ QUOTE ]

why the hell would i spend $30 bones on that when i can discuss or read it for free on 2+2 everyday? is everybody in the business of padding Greg's pockets with $30 apiece just on the strength of reading about hands in tournaments that more than often than not went nowhere? heck, dudes do that at no cost on 2+2 everyday. c'mon!

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]

i understand fully that most of these posters look at Greg's past writing/posting on this site over his actual/past tourney success but, IMO, simply going by past posts on 2+2 does'nt mean much to a guy like me when you can't back up all that poker analysis and application with irrefutable tournament success results. hell, Greg does'nt even have to be a Daniel Negreanu or Men Nguyen...he could be a Can Kim Hua or David Levi (yet he's not even that). the simple fact is, Greg is a poker player, not a poker COACH, he's no Phil Jackson or Red Auerabach in the poker world, he's still a player who's goal to to win and make money. i could care less how his past posts would translate
into a viable tournament book. as i stated earlier, i see no need in spending my money on a tournament essay book from a guy who's had so-so tournament success (with the exception of the WSOP ME) to date, simply because he can discuss and analyze poker tourney situations good.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are supposed to spend the money because of the quality of his poker advice, which is top quality. Use the search function on these forums to find out for yourself.

Anyway, I think you are mostly arguing for the sake of arguing. I have seen that coming from you in pretty much every thread you post in.

Do as you please. Don't buy the Fossilman book. I don't particularly care either way.

[USCSigma1097]

I'll give you the answer to this question... The reason why the book authors don't play in tournaments is that they can not afford to have their image cracked as an expert player. If you wrote a poker book and were busted out of ten straight tourneys on the first day, I dont' know if I'd buy it. To put it another way, we had a "Tough Man" contest in college to raise money by boxing. All of the guys who were supposed to be brawlers wouldn't enter because they were afraid of what would happen to their reputation if they lost. Same thing for these book authors.

Sigma

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll give you the answer to this question... The reason why the book authors don't play in tournaments is that they can not afford to have their image cracked as an expert player. If you wrote a poker book and were busted out of ten straight tourneys on the first day, I dont' know if I'd buy it. To put it another way, we had a "Tough Man" contest in college to raise money by boxing. All of the guys who were supposed to be brawlers wouldn't enter because they were afraid of what would happen to their reputation if they lost. Same thing for these book authors.

Sigma

[/ QUOTE ]

hold up, David Sklansky is the author of THE "IT" Book on tournament poker right now. he is pretty much unchallenged when it comes to the mathematics and theorums of tournament poker-- an expert if you will. surely you could'nt be thinking he would be afraid to be shown up with his superior skill and all.

[tripdad]

[ QUOTE ]
Greg Raymer won the 5 million dollar event - would you buy a book from him? If his terrible play at the Table of Champions didn't prove the theory that really great things can happen to really bad players, I don't know what would.

[/ QUOTE ]

to say that Raymer played terribly in this event is to show ignorance in the correct strategy in a winner take all event.

cheers!

[ricdaman]

I'm going to try and summerize some of what has been said, and see if we can wrap this up. I also want to make a few marketing points of my own (from a business perspective).

There are two questions in this post. (1) Why do big book sellers not win in tournaments, (2) Why don't big book sellers play tournements to boost book sales?

First of all, what is the purpose of playing in tournaments? Most of the book writers say they still make the majority of their money from poker, yet we don't hear about them. What you must understand is, there are two types of poker players. Those that mostly play tournaments, and those that mostly play ring games.

Let's break this question up. Why do those that mostly play ring games not play tournaments? ,and Why don't we hear about the tournament players winning anything big in the past 5-6 years?

Let's start with the ring players, since it is easier to answer. I believe David said in another thread he plays 300-600 all the time, so I'll use him in this example. The only reason for someone like David to play in a tournment would be to boost book sales, since he is so good at ring games. (This assumption is based on the posts in this thread and other threads). Without getting into the supply/demand problem that Mason mentioned, the question is this: how much would winning a televised tournament boost David's book sales?

Here's the answer: Let's say there are Xa number of people who will buy at least 1 poker book in the next year. The only other variables are: how much someone would want to purchase one book over another - We'll call this Xb, or "suggested value" (the amount the book has been suggested), and how much the book is marketed - We'll call this Xc, or "marketing boost." It would show that the number of times David's book (Xd) is purchased is:

Xd = Xa * Xb * Xc

or

Book Puchases = # of buyers * Suggested Value * Marketing Boost

In a numerical represation, say there are 10 buyers, and let's say David's book is suggested 4 to 1 (80% of the time someone suggests a poker book, it's David's book they suggest). Finally, we'll make marketing boost (Xc) a numerical value of +/- 1 with 1 being neutral. So that little to no marketing hurts (say, 0.5), and a lot of marketing helps (say 1.5).

Xd = 10 * .80 * .75 = 6

In this example, David sells 6 books to 10 buyers. Now, how much can winning a tournament boost his book sales? The answer is... not enough to make it worth it. Do you see why? Winning a tournment would affect marketing boost. It might bring it up to 1, so that

Xd = 10 * .80 * 1 = 8

David sells an extra 2 books. So here's the question... would the cost of playing multiple televised tournaments to win one (this would be a loss assuming he makes less in those tournaments than he would have playing his regular ring game) be less than his increased profits from his book sales? In this case, I think the answer is no. I think David's "suggestion value" is so high, that marketing will not help that much.

Ok, on to the next question... what about the tournament players? Let's look at 2 examples. Example one is Tom McEvoy who has not won a major tournament in the past 5-6 years, and Phil Helmuth who has won tons of major tournaments in the past 5-6 years.

Tom: Marketing boost = 1 since he did win in the past, but not recently. His books really aren't all that great, so we'll give him a suggestion value of 10%.

Tom = 10 * .10 * 1 = 1 book

Phil: We'll give him a marketing boost of 2 since he is very well known and wins a lot of tournaments. His book sucks though, so it gets a suggestion value of 10%.

Phil = 10 * .10 * 2 = 2 books

LOOK!!! Phil sells twice as many books as he would if he did not play in major tournaments, YET he only sells 2 books compared to David's 6!!!!

What I am trying to show is this: How good a book is written (shown by "suggested value") matters FAR MORE than how much it is marketed. This is true with any product, not just books. That is why book writers playing in tournaments will not affect book sales enough to make this move profitable.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to try and summerize some of what has been said, and see if we can wrap this up. I also want to make a few marketing points of my own (from a business perspective).

There are two questions in this post. (1) Why do big book sellers not win in tournaments, (2) Why don't big book sellers play tournements to boost book sales?

First of all, what is the purpose of playing in tournaments? Most of the book writers say they still make the majority of their money from poker, yet we don't hear about them. What you must understand is, there are two types of poker players. Those that mostly play tournaments, and those that mostly play ring games.

Let's break this question up. Why do those that mostly play ring games not play tournaments? ,and Why don't we hear about the tournament players winning anything big in the past 5-6 years?

Let's start with the ring players, since it is easier to answer. I believe David said in another thread he plays 300-600 all the time, so I'll use him in this example. The only reason for someone like David to play in a tournment would be to boost book sales, since he is so good at ring games. (This assumption is based on the posts in this thread and other threads). Without getting into the supply/demand problem that Mason mentioned, the question is this: how much would winning a televised tournament boost David's book sales?

Here's the answer: Let's say there are Xa number of people who will buy at least 1 poker book in the next year. The only other variables are: how much someone would want to purchase one book over another - We'll call this Xb, or "suggested value" (the amount the book has been suggested), and how much the book is marketed - We'll call this Xc, or "marketing boost." It would show that the number of times David's book (Xd) is purchased is:

Xd = Xa * Xb * Xc

or

Book Puchases = # of buyers * Suggested Value * Marketing Boost

In a numerical represation, say there are 10 buyers, and let's say David's book is suggested 4 to 1 (80% of the time someone suggests a poker book, it's David's book they suggest). Finally, we'll make marketing boost (Xc) a numerical value of +/- 1 with 1 being neutral. So that little to no marketing hurts (say, 0.5), and a lot of marketing helps (say 1.5).

Xd = 10 * .80 * .75 = 6

In this example, David sells 6 books to 10 buyers. Now, how much can winning a tournament boost his book sales? The answer is... not enough to make it worth it. Do you see why? Winning a tournment would affect marketing boost. It might bring it up to 1, so that

Xd = 10 * .80 * 1 = 8

David sells an extra 2 books. So here's the question... would the cost of playing multiple televised tournaments to win one (this would be a loss assuming he makes less in those tournaments than he would have playing his regular ring game) be less than his increased profits from his book sales? In this case, I think the answer is no. I think David's "suggestion value" is so high, that marketing will not help that much.

Ok, on to the next question... what about the tournament players? Let's look at 2 examples. Example one is Tom McEvoy who has not won a major tournament in the past 5-6 years, and Phil Helmuth who has won tons of major tournaments in the past 5-6 years.

Tom: Marketing boost = 1 since he did win in the past, but not recently. His books really aren't all that great, so we'll give him a suggestion value of 10%.

Tom = 10 * .10 * 1 = 1 book

Phil: We'll give him a marketing boost of 2 since he is very well known and wins a lot of tournaments. His book sucks though, so it gets a suggestion value of 10%.

Phil = 10 * .10 * 2 = 2 books

LOOK!!! Phil sells twice as many books as he would if he did not play in major tournaments, YET he only sells 2 books compared to David's 6!!!!

What I am trying to show is this: How good a book is written (shown by "suggested value") matters FAR MORE than how much it is marketed. This is true with any product, not just books. That is why book writers playing in tournaments will not affect book sales enough to make this move profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

partly true. how good a product is-- whether it's through superior quality, how much better it was manufactured, how well it was written (a book) etc.--- does'nt matter (FAR MORE) than how a product is marketed.

example:

two of the best selling albums in Rap and Hip Hop history were by Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer, two of the LEAST lyrically gifted and Hip Hop-centered Rap Artists ever. now, how were two of the possibly worse and least lyrically gifted rappers able to have two of the biggest selling albums in Rap/Hip Hop history? a large part of it was marketing and mass appeal. that's only one example. there are many instances in other arenas where the more heavily promoted and popular product (not necessarily of the best quality) did better/sold more.

[ricdaman]

Your example referred to a product who's "better" quality is VERY subjective. I'm sure some people would disagree with you in your example.

Secondly, in the case where an inferior product outsold a better one?

Product 1 has Suggested Value of .5 and Marketing Boost of 3.
Product 2 has Suggested Value of .8 and Marketing Boost of 1.

Product 1 sells: 10 * .5 * 3 = 15 products
Product 2 sells: 10 * .8 * 1 = 8 products

You are absolutely correct. But notice that Product one spent 3 times the amount of money on marketing to sell 2 times the number of products. This is not the most profitable senerio.

While an inferior product may outsell a better one, I think most (and I know there are examples against this, so I emphasize "most") business are trying to maximize profits. That is my whole point. Playing in a ring game making say $100 an hour + selling X books at $20 an hour = $120 an hour in profits. If that same person were to play in tournaments instead, he may only make $50 and hour playing poker + sell 2X books at $40 an hour = $90 an hour. You may be able to boost book sales, but your overall profits suffer. I was trying to explain why playing tournaments for the purpose of selling books, when one makes more money playing ring games than tournaments, is not a good business proposition.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
Your example referred to a product who's "better" quality is VERY subjective. I'm sure some people would disagree with you in your example.

Secondly, in the case where an inferior product outsold a better one?

Product 1 has Suggested Value of .5 and Marketing Boost of 3.
Product 2 has Suggested Value of .8 and Marketing Boost of 1.

Product 1 sells: 10 * .5 * 3 = 15 products
Product 2 sells: 10 * .8 * 1 = 8 products

You are absolutely correct. But notice that Product one spent 3 times the amount of money on marketing to sell 2 times the number of products. This is not the most profitable senerio.

While an inferior product may outsell a better one, I think most (and I know there are examples against this, so I emphasize "most") business are trying to maximize profits. That is my whole point. Playing in a ring game making say $100 an hour + selling X books at $20 an hour = $120 an hour in profits. If that same person were to play in tournaments instead, he may only make $50 and hour playing poker + sell 2X books at $40 an hour = $90 an hour. You may be able to boost book sales, but your overall profits suffer. I was trying to explain why playing tournaments for the purpose of selling books, when one makes more money playing ring games than tournaments, is not a good business proposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

your ring game vs. tourney play does'nt guarantee either one more of a higher earn per hour or book sales. your example is slanted more towards the ring game player (as in David Sklansky) which is already biased. IMO, if it was for all the "real" poker players that respect him, i think he [David] would be hard pressed to sell well. strictly on popularity alone (regardless of how poorly Phil H's two books were written) he's probably sold more books in two years from his offerings than David did in any two years of his two best selling titles. most of the people i know who bought David Sklansky's books were from what OTHER people said about them, NOT because they thought David was some world-class player. most of the people i know who bought Phil's book(s) bought them because of WHO he was and the world-class player THEY CONCLUDED him to be (all his WSOP and touney wins), NOT because of WHAT he had in his book or how well he wrote or could teach from the pages. i think a DYNAMIC PERSONALITY who the masses are itching to connect with will predominately outsell the lesser on average regardless of the lesser's value or superior quality.

[ricdaman]

Once again, I'm having a tough time understanding your post. Trying to get through the rambling, I think ur trying to say... well... I have no idea.

Let me guess??? Black people are better book writers than white people and therefore their books should outsell all others?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi ricdaman:

When the WPT started, it was the only show in town. Those people who got featured, such as Phil Hellmuth and Doyle, saw very large book sales.

Today I think it's very different. There are so many shows that the person who wins a tournament, even though it might be a lot of money, will be quickly forgotten.

There is one exception. That's the WSOP. The people who get major television exposure from that show should, in my opinion, be able to capitalize on that. (To this end, we expect sales for Dan Harrington's books and Greg Raymer's book to be very strong. We also expect them to be excellent book.)

Going back to Hellmuth, if his book came out today, I don't think it would be so successful. He just happened to time things well by getting featured when the WPT was the only game in town. Because of that, he still has name recognition, but as competition becomes more intense in this field, the Phil Hellmuth line will have to pass the quality test to have legs, and I don't believe it will.

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the book writers say they still make the majority of their money from poker

[/ QUOTE ]

That's certainly not true anymore. In my case, in an effort to keep up with our publishing demands, I've only been playing a small amount of poker on the weekends.

I believe something like this is true of almost every writer in the field. I also think a lot of them never really made much money playing poker (but there are a few exceptions).

By the way, many of these writers (and future writers) aren't making very much. That's because competition is becoming intense, and many royalty deals are quite poor.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi tripdad:

Greg Raymer has made many thousands of posts on these forums over the past 6 or 7 years. Some of them are among the best posts that have appeared. So even though we haven't seen the manuscript yet, we expect it to be outstanding.

Also, at Two Plus Two, unlike many other publishers, we will have our experts go over the book and challenge Greg to do even better. We have already done this with Harrington on Hold 'em: Volume I. It is not an easy process, but it really helps to produce a top notch book.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi ricdaman:

[ QUOTE ]
While an inferior product may outsell a better one, I think most (and I know there are examples against this, so I emphasize "most") business are trying to maximize profits.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're one of the exceptions. Our philosophy at Two Plus Two has been on the product, not on the profit. We have always felt that if we could meet very high standards our profit would take care of itself, and that has certainly proved to be the case.

One consequence of this is that we have refused to be associated with other products that we consider poor. This has certainly cost us short term money, but we feel that it has more than paid back itself over time. That's why you're not seeing us in any magazines at the moment, and why we don't have hundreds of reciprocal links to other sites (even though we get constant requests for them). It's also why we have turned down a lot of books, including some that we knew would sell reasonably well.

By the way, one consequence of our quality first philosophy, is that we pay royalties that are much higher than most other publishers. Plus the fact that our books command a higher price, our authors get anywhere from double to triple per book than what they would from our competition. Add to that the fact that Two Plus Two books are top sellers, you'll see that not only do we win, but our authors win as well.

Another consequence is that we can't mass produce books because of the editing that we require. We're going to attempt to put out 5 or 6 books over the next 8 to 10 months. This will be a huge number for us but we will slow it down if that's what it takes to meet our standards.

best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Desdia:

You're not correct. The sales of Sklansky books are much stronger than you think when compared to any other author. We know this for sure based on our conversations with the book buyers from the major chains. You can confirm this by looking at sales ranks from Amazon.com. This is also reflected in their initial orders which we get before the books are released.

By the way, it wouldn't be right for me to release numbers, but I guarantee that David has made far more money over the last couple of years from book sales than Hellmuth. That same statement can also be said for me as well.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Trainwreck]

One of the reasons you don't hear from authors is:

They aren't playing much when they are writing their books!

But the fields in tournaments today, make it tough to get to the final table.

I looked at the WPT even, and no one seems to have made 4 FT's in the first 2 seasons, in normal tournaments anyhow.

This changes I know once season 3 begins....

>TW<

[ricochet420]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to try and summerize some of what has been said, and see if we can wrap this up. I also want to make a few marketing points of my own (from a business perspective).

There are two questions in this post. (1) Why do big book sellers not win in tournaments, (2) Why don't big book sellers play tournements to boost book sales?

First of all, what is the purpose of playing in tournaments? Most of the book writers say they still make the majority of their money from poker, yet we don't hear about them. What you must understand is, there are two types of poker players. Those that mostly play tournaments, and those that mostly play ring games.

Let's break this question up. Why do those that mostly play ring games not play tournaments? ,and Why don't we hear about the tournament players winning anything big in the past 5-6 years?

Let's start with the ring players, since it is easier to answer. I believe David said in another thread he plays 300-600 all the time, so I'll use him in this example. The only reason for someone like David to play in a tournment would be to boost book sales, since he is so good at ring games. (This assumption is based on the posts in this thread and other threads). Without getting into the supply/demand problem that Mason mentioned, the question is this: how much would winning a televised tournament boost David's book sales?

Here's the answer: Let's say there are Xa number of people who will buy at least 1 poker book in the next year. The only other variables are: how much someone would want to purchase one book over another - We'll call this Xb, or "suggested value" (the amount the book has been suggested), and how much the book is marketed - We'll call this Xc, or "marketing boost." It would show that the number of times David's book (Xd) is purchased is:

Xd = Xa * Xb * Xc

or

Book Puchases = # of buyers * Suggested Value * Marketing Boost

In a numerical represation, say there are 10 buyers, and let's say David's book is suggested 4 to 1 (80% of the time someone suggests a poker book, it's David's book they suggest). Finally, we'll make marketing boost (Xc) a numerical value of +/- 1 with 1 being neutral. So that little to no marketing hurts (say, 0.5), and a lot of marketing helps (say 1.5).

Xd = 10 * .80 * .75 = 6

In this example, David sells 6 books to 10 buyers. Now, how much can winning a tournament boost his book sales? The answer is... not enough to make it worth it. Do you see why? Winning a tournment would affect marketing boost. It might bring it up to 1, so that

Xd = 10 * .80 * 1 = 8

David sells an extra 2 books. So here's the question... would the cost of playing multiple televised tournaments to win one (this would be a loss assuming he makes less in those tournaments than he would have playing his regular ring game) be less than his increased profits from his book sales? In this case, I think the answer is no. I think David's "suggestion value" is so high, that marketing will not help that much.

Ok, on to the next question... what about the tournament players? Let's look at 2 examples. Example one is Tom McEvoy who has not won a major tournament in the past 5-6 years, and Phil Helmuth who has won tons of major tournaments in the past 5-6 years.

Tom: Marketing boost = 1 since he did win in the past, but not recently. His books really aren't all that great, so we'll give him a suggestion value of 10%.

Tom = 10 * .10 * 1 = 1 book

Phil: We'll give him a marketing boost of 2 since he is very well known and wins a lot of tournaments. His book sucks though, so it gets a suggestion value of 10%.

Phil = 10 * .10 * 2 = 2 books

LOOK!!! Phil sells twice as many books as he would if he did not play in major tournaments, YET he only sells 2 books compared to David's 6!!!!

What I am trying to show is this: How good a book is written (shown by "suggested value") matters FAR MORE than how much it is marketed. This is true with any product, not just books. That is why book writers playing in tournaments will not affect book sales enough to make this move profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still puzzled at the first sentence here. [ QUOTE ]
I'm going to try and summerize some of what has been said, and see if we can wrap this up.

[/ QUOTE ] Summarize? Where?

[ricdaman]

What can I say? I tried.

[driller]

I was doing a search when I ran across this thread. Two Thoughts: 1. Writing a book is hard work, plus it takes time. So if a poker player writes a book, he is probably famous and can have a ghost writer do it. 2. Would the best cash game player in the world want to waste time writing a book unless someone else did it for him? On the other hand, if you are just great instead of the best, maybe making a million off a book is MUCH better than risking your BR to do it playing for cash.

I wonder how much David and Mason make playing poker vs how much they make from their books?

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
I was doing a search when I ran across this thread. Two Thoughts: 1. Writing a book is hard work, plus it takes time. So if a poker player writes a book, he is probably famous and can have a ghost writer do it. 2. Would the best cash game player in the world want to waste time writing a book unless someone else did it for him? On the other hand, if you are just great instead of the best, maybe making a million off a book is MUCH better than risking your BR to do it playing for cash.

I wonder how much David and Mason make playing poker vs how much they make from their books?

[/ QUOTE ]

good question. i think Mason went as far as to say that their top titles have outsold Phil Hellmuth's first book, as referenced thru Amazon.com (which i might add he did not choose to divulge the actual numbers to support what he was saying). David commented that he plays $300-$600 everyday. you'll be hardpressed to get either of them up in here providing "actual" numbers, as i'm sure it would be pointed out that it's not the public's business what they gross anyway. one only has to look at Ed Miller's SSH and the upcoming titles by two of poker's biggest stories of 2004, Dan Harrington and Greg Raymer, to know that owning 2+2 Publishing right about now is pretty lucrative.

[mojorisin24]

Well put. So many "holier-than-thou" poker-types love to put Moneymaker down. Yeah, he had luck, but so did Chan, Nguyen, Hellmuth, etc. As a matter of fact, all the posters on here have needed luck to win tournaments themselves. I mean, sorry he doesn't do math equations during hands... Acting like he didn't deserve it in a game like poker is just plain stupid, along with also being absurd.

[knifeandfork]

dunno about his skill level, or even the quality of the advice in his books (as im an average small stakes player) but vorhaus is very entertaining to read. david and mason seem to be beyond reproach on strategic advice but as the disclaimer states in the beginning of hpfap the writing can be a bit dry and scattered. weigh the pros and the cons and i think ill read both, although imho if D and M worked a little harder to be a little more coherent and entertaining (dare i say) they would need to hire some more staff. dont take this the wrong way of course the 2+2 books are must reads for anyone serious about poker. btw mason/ david perhaps picking up a good novel or two could benefit? ive read a couple that i enjoyed "Poker Nation" and to a more reminds me of PG county way "king of a small wolrd". as i understand it Holden's "big deal" i think was the title is out of print. i would like to read it, perhaps i dunno if this is feasible you pick it up under the 2+2 flag? just a few of my thoughts,
jason

[r2p]

Just because someone understands the math, game theory, and other points and can explain it in a reasonable manner does not translate into some of the "softer skills" that a top flight player has. They are different skills.