books, authors and theories

I often read where "S&M doesn't work in my games"(fill joke in here). Am I completely missing the point, or are the plays outlined by Sklansky and Malmuth in their writings just examples of their theories put into action? I think some people take what they read as gospel, and set out looking for the exact situation to take advantage of.

When I read their writing, I'm thinking on a broader scale. I try to understand what is being written, and then apply it to varying situations. People say that a tight player is an "M&S" player because he or she uses easily recognizable moves from one of the books. David or Mason (or Ray, etc), please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you're advocating a step-by-step use of your books.

As much as it aggrivates me to read this, I do love it when I see players playing this way. They become so predictable, that it's like taking candy from a baby.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that if a book says "Theory" in the title, you can't treat it like a manual. Likewise, if it says "how to" in the title, be wary since it's advice will probably only work in very specific situations (that the author/hero encounters all the time, but that you won't see in your lifetime).


Up next: Chilton's how to play winning hold em?

Good point 2d. Anyone who thinks a theoretical approach to poker leads to a predictable style of play just does not get it to even the tiniest degree.


Dirk

pokerbooks can open doors but you have to step inside yourself. Poker isn't blackjack.


BTW Some books are closing doors...