advice

[Limpn2win]

Lately a poker buddy and I have been arguing poker. go figure, huh? The arguments themselves are irrelevant (last time he told me I played my aces 'wrong'), and basically boil down to differences in style. I believe there are many different styles of poker; none of which are more 'right' or 'wrong' than any other. with the bottom line being success. he believes there is only two ways to play poker; the 'wrong' way, and sklansky's way. that style is just different ways to apply sklansky's theory of poker. the bottom line being having 'the best of it' over a long timeline, regardless of success. an example in the extreme is a good illustration: by my reasoning, theoretically a 'gambler' who consistently wins can be considered a good player, by his reasoning, theoretically a player who always has 'the best of it' yet consistently looses, can still be considered a good player. but I digress, because my point here isn't to debate the merits of style, or theory, or philosophy. my point here is about advice. personally I cant understand why anyone would ever willingly give sincere advice to an opponent - unless the opponent is a very good friend -perhaps. and I have to seriously question the motives of someone who writes a 'how to' book about poker. unless the author plans on retiring soon. especially considering what happened to Doyle Brunson. but if one asks for advice, or if one feels the need to advise, please consider this: don't use the terms 'right' or 'wrong'. instead, I recommend pointing out potential pros and/or cons to a given situation, or action. try listing causes and effects that may be subtle or overlooked. saying an action is 'right', is certainly going to prove otherwise eventually. and no one ever reacts favorably to being told they're 'wrong', regardless of the advisors sincerity. im sure my buddy means well, and I believe he is trying to help me. but his method could use more tact. and after reading these forums for as long as I have, I think most could benefit from MY advice here now.

thanks for listening.

best regards.
Limpn2win

[Trainwreck]

Hi Limp, hit return when you are typing occasionally please, that was very painful to read... I improved it below.
--------------------------------------
Lately a poker buddy and I have been arguing poker. go figure, huh? The arguments themselves are irrelevant (last time he told me I played my aces 'wrong'), and basically boil down to differences in style.

I believe there are many different styles of poker; none of which are more 'right' or 'wrong' than any other. with the bottom line being success. he believes there is only two ways to play poker; the 'wrong' way, and sklansky's way. that style is just different ways to apply sklansky's theory of poker.

The bottom line being having 'the best of it' over a long timeline, regardless of success. an example in the extreme is a good illustration: by my reasoning, theoretically a 'gambler' who consistently wins can be considered a good player, by his reasoning, theoretically a player who always has 'the best of it' yet consistently looses, can still be considered a good player.

But I digress, because my point here isn't to debate the merits of style, or theory, or philosophy. my point here is about advice. personally I cant understand why anyone would ever willingly give sincere advice to an opponent - unless the opponent is a very good friend -perhaps. and I have to seriously question the motives of someone who writes a 'how to' book about poker.

Unless the author plans on retiring soon. especially considering what happened to Doyle Brunson. but if one asks for advice, or if one feels the need to advise, please consider this: don't use the terms 'right' or 'wrong'.

Instead, I recommend pointing out potential pros and/or cons to a given situation, or action. try listing causes and effects that may be subtle or overlooked. saying an action is 'right', is certainly going to prove otherwise eventually. and no one ever reacts favorably to being told they're 'wrong', regardless of the advisors sincerity.

I'm sure my buddy means well, and I believe he is trying to help me. but his method could use more tact. and after reading these forums for as long as I have, I think most could benefit from MY advice here now.
------------------------------------------------------
OK That's better...

>TW<

[Limpn2win]

ok, thanks. advice well taken.

[johnc]

First off I'd like to address your buddy's opinion regarding Skalansky. He (Sklansky) is very well regarded in area of expertise (by very successful pros) that being teaching the extremely complex game of poker.

That being said, to say whether a stlye, approach, or particular way to play circumstances in poker as is presented by respected instructors should be treated as "correct" must be taken within the context of the material presented. Poker is to say the least, very circumstatial and for every play there's going to be another conflicting play. Instructors readily acknowledge this, however the heart of the ToP transcends this aspect which is its beauty.

It's really cool you've developed your own style and formed opinions based upon your experience however in order to continue to improve be successful at higher & higher levels in poker you must be able to take criticism and even be told you're wrong. If you haven't discovered already that's what this site is all about.

[elmitchbo]

the reason to write a 'how to' book is to make money. i would strongly suspect that sklansky has made more money selling books for $29.95 than he has playing poker.

[GeeeJay]

I don't care what books you read (and what programs such as Poker Tracker) you use; they will not be enough to make you a high level winner. All these aids can do is tell you what you SHOULD do based on probablity and other assorted things. The crux to winning play is far beyond what any book, or mentor can realte to you. The REAL "secrets" can never be given away since they consist of what is actually an extra sense that cannot be put into words. During a hand some people just "KNOW" what to do in each UNIQUE hand, better than others. The books can only denote generalizations. Even if the pros WANTED to tell you "everything" they know, they wouldn't be able to. This talent is just natural to some and is not transferrable to others. Experience can help fine tune it but either 'ya got it or 'ya don't; pure and simple.

PS I don't "got it"; I wish I did.

[dansalmo]

This is just plain wrong. I will let others elaborate.

[MooFrog]

Man, I'm sure the amount of action Sklansky has gotten because of his books (due to the increase in popularity because of them) has been enough to make it worthwhile even without the amount he's made in sales. When you consider how difficult many of the high level concepts are to put into play, you've got to figure that there is a very large increase for him in terms of beatable opponents who are willing to come up to his level.

To me, it's like a tennis pro writing a book on how to play great tennis. If you're getting paid for everyone you beat, and your book increases the number of poorer players willing to play you, then it sounds like a very smart move to me. The vast, vast majority are not going to be able to beat the person they learned from.

[anduril]

[ QUOTE ]
This is just plain wrong. I will let others elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

....OK El Diablo

[Cincy Peach]

wow, I don't even know where to start with this.

Since it sounds like an attack on authors in general and Sklansky in particular, I would just like to point out that I could not beat any limit game consistantly before I read SSHE. By closing a few specific holes in my game that he helped me identify, I am now winning.

The insight on page 17 that "the normal human process for learning . . . does not work AT ALL for poker" is worth the price of the book by itself. What a profound epiphany! No wonder so many players suck . . and will continue to suck, for this very reason.

There are factual, measurable truths - i.e., rights and wrongs. A negitive expectation starting hand is just that, regardless of how well it has worked for you before. Your personal experiences are not stastically significant, and the memory of them is distorted by Tuchman's Law.

Why would anyone try to help their potential opponant improve their game? good question . . that is the point of this board, however, and I think most of us feel that the supply of bad poker players seems to be endless. Your friend is trying to help you escape their ranks, if you are willing.