JTsuited
03-16-2003, 08:49 AM
I was reading through some of the posts here and was surprised to find that there was such a heated debate over Feeney's book. I thought it was excellent and was surprised to hear some of the negative reviews. I think some of the criticisms offered by those who disliked the book have specific responses that I haven't heard much. These responses form, for me, what I was able to get out of the book that wasn't offered in other books.
First, I should give some quick background. I have been playing poker for about a year and a half, almost exclusively holdem. I only began taking serious records of my play this calendar year. I estimate I've played about 1,000 hours. This includes internet and home games. Currently, I usually play 6-12 HE, although I will occasionally play as low as 3-6 and as high as 9-18. I also continue to play home games, which are usually 1-2, although I might add, these often have good players in them (e.g. players who have read more than one S&M book and think about the game a lot).
One of the most common criticisms I heard in negative reviews was that the book simply repeats information and advice already given elsewhere, or it offers advice which is itself almost obvious. In a sense, this is true, but I think someone who feels this way after reading the book has missed the point, and I will give some concrete examples.
At the very beginning of the book, there is about 12 pages devoted to nothing more than 'playing too many hands', and many have already pointed out this problem. So, the 12 pages are redundant and unnecessary. But this is a good example of one of the claims made on the back cover: 'Knowing the concepts is one thing; putting it all together is another'. Anyone who has played seriously for a significant period (say, at least a few hundred hours) realizes that avoiding tilt is much more difficult than simply telling yourself, 'tilt is bad, and I must avoid it'. Just knowing that's it's bad isn't enough to help the problem. To help the tilt problem, or playing too many hands, it helps to _understand_ why playing too many hands is such a costly mistake, the psychological reasons why players go on tilt, why they play too many hands, and why this problem continues to affect players who logically and analytically know better. Once these causes are identified, then the source of the problem can be controlled. And having some kind of real understanding of why the mistakes are costly, makes it easier and more natural to make better decisions. It's always psychologically easier to make the right decision when you know the reasoning and logic behind it than just to be told, 'don't do it', or 'do it'. This is why just being told 'play fewer hands' or 'don't go on tilt' is not really effective in practice.
Much of the book is an elaboration and extension of lots of ideas from HPFAP and TOP. I don't see how this means it's not 'original'. Originality takes many more forms than just creating truly new ideas (although this is certainly original). Originality can also mean explaining a previously known concept in a different way, or relating a known concept to other known concepts, or giving examples of a known concept, or giving more description and explanation of the underlying logic and reasoning behind known concepts. None of these necessarily involves coming up with 'new' ideas, but doing them well is not easy, and is certainly 'original'. (The distinction can be especially noticable in the sciences, where some scientists excel at fundamental research, and others are very gifted expositors. Occasionally, the two coincide, but often they don't.)
I think many people are missing the point of a lot of the book. I don't think the point was to emphasize any particular _type_ of situation (I have such-and-such in middle position, etc. etc.). A lot of the strategic thinking can already be found in S&M, e.g. I don't think the point was to carry away a catalogue of recipes for particular situations, it was to develop a general way of thinking and attitude. In fact, presenting situations with an excess of technical subtleties might have actually been too much, too distracting, if the focus was actually on developing a mental approach, not hard-core analysis.
I think I improved after reading this book, not because I understanding check-raising better, or know the subtleties of game theory in heads-up situations, but because I'm starting to approach the whole decision-making process differently, and this has a general effect of improving all decisions.
First, I should give some quick background. I have been playing poker for about a year and a half, almost exclusively holdem. I only began taking serious records of my play this calendar year. I estimate I've played about 1,000 hours. This includes internet and home games. Currently, I usually play 6-12 HE, although I will occasionally play as low as 3-6 and as high as 9-18. I also continue to play home games, which are usually 1-2, although I might add, these often have good players in them (e.g. players who have read more than one S&M book and think about the game a lot).
One of the most common criticisms I heard in negative reviews was that the book simply repeats information and advice already given elsewhere, or it offers advice which is itself almost obvious. In a sense, this is true, but I think someone who feels this way after reading the book has missed the point, and I will give some concrete examples.
At the very beginning of the book, there is about 12 pages devoted to nothing more than 'playing too many hands', and many have already pointed out this problem. So, the 12 pages are redundant and unnecessary. But this is a good example of one of the claims made on the back cover: 'Knowing the concepts is one thing; putting it all together is another'. Anyone who has played seriously for a significant period (say, at least a few hundred hours) realizes that avoiding tilt is much more difficult than simply telling yourself, 'tilt is bad, and I must avoid it'. Just knowing that's it's bad isn't enough to help the problem. To help the tilt problem, or playing too many hands, it helps to _understand_ why playing too many hands is such a costly mistake, the psychological reasons why players go on tilt, why they play too many hands, and why this problem continues to affect players who logically and analytically know better. Once these causes are identified, then the source of the problem can be controlled. And having some kind of real understanding of why the mistakes are costly, makes it easier and more natural to make better decisions. It's always psychologically easier to make the right decision when you know the reasoning and logic behind it than just to be told, 'don't do it', or 'do it'. This is why just being told 'play fewer hands' or 'don't go on tilt' is not really effective in practice.
Much of the book is an elaboration and extension of lots of ideas from HPFAP and TOP. I don't see how this means it's not 'original'. Originality takes many more forms than just creating truly new ideas (although this is certainly original). Originality can also mean explaining a previously known concept in a different way, or relating a known concept to other known concepts, or giving examples of a known concept, or giving more description and explanation of the underlying logic and reasoning behind known concepts. None of these necessarily involves coming up with 'new' ideas, but doing them well is not easy, and is certainly 'original'. (The distinction can be especially noticable in the sciences, where some scientists excel at fundamental research, and others are very gifted expositors. Occasionally, the two coincide, but often they don't.)
I think many people are missing the point of a lot of the book. I don't think the point was to emphasize any particular _type_ of situation (I have such-and-such in middle position, etc. etc.). A lot of the strategic thinking can already be found in S&M, e.g. I don't think the point was to carry away a catalogue of recipes for particular situations, it was to develop a general way of thinking and attitude. In fact, presenting situations with an excess of technical subtleties might have actually been too much, too distracting, if the focus was actually on developing a mental approach, not hard-core analysis.
I think I improved after reading this book, not because I understanding check-raising better, or know the subtleties of game theory in heads-up situations, but because I'm starting to approach the whole decision-making process differently, and this has a general effect of improving all decisions.