Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

Shad, I've played tournament chess since I was in High School, so that's right at 25 years. That's a pretty interesting analogy between Blitz and Limit (on line anyway). Still, I've seen GM's and IM's play blitz that would blow the socks off my regular 50 moves in 2 hours game and my rating hovers at around 2400 International Postal and 2100 USCF OTB.

I've been playing poker for nearly 2 years and agree that limit on line is largely mechanical for most...but that is the nature of the game to a large degree at least when compared to an open ended creative game like chess.

The crux of the problem seems to be that you can't learn fundamentally sound chess at the blitz tables...and likewise one will have a difficult time doing so at the 'blitz' limit tables on Party or wherever.

How to 'understand' the game better though and put it into practice? I would say that reading is indeed 'fundamental' here. I learn things that are indeed a little hard to apply at the virtual tables because of the speed...but I keep going back to those very same books when I am away from the tables and slowly but surely I see myself 'getting it' and my bank account increasing. Indeed, I see my poker account as chess ratings...just a measure of how I play compared to everyone else.

Playing live would be a BIG help, to slow the game down enough at first to be apply what you have read. My only visit to a casion was great and rather profitable. If you can't do that...keep reading and re-reading the very same (good) books you have. It will sink in and in time your 'rote' limit play may look more like that of a GM playing blitz rather than a fish.

---Leavenfish

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hold'em Brain. Personally I thought it sucked

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost everyone I contacted about the old title said it sucked (or tried to say it in a nice way). Out of 40 people, Ed is now only the third person that liked it. The credit for the current title goes to Brian at the Gambler's Book Shop.

Ed, thanks for the nice comments.

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

Is there any particular reason why your book has such a long "availibilty time" at Amazon and is there any faster way to order it?

This book is just getting to much praise from several more or less independent poker authorities not to be added to my collection.

/Bjorn

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

The second printing is coming out soon. My publisher sold out his first printing three weeks ago, and I suspect the distributers and the retailers are now empty or close to it. Hopefully the second printing should be coming out this week as they promised.

Conjelco carries it, although I don't know if they have any in inventory.

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

You left out text books, which are usually quite horrid now a days. Honestly, I stopped buying the things unless I had a compelling reason to. (This is for technical and non technical texts at undergraduate and graduate levels). Some are quite good, but the amount of crap churned out is astounding, and the whole industry is racket. </soapbox>

I also think Yao's book is outstanding, but I have not finished it yet so I haven't written a review yet. It may end up being my faovite poker book just because he seems to think the same way I do, and the presentation of material seems very natural to me.

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any particular reason why your book has such a long "availibilty time" at Amazon and is there any faster way to order it?

This book is just getting to much praise from several more or less independent poker authorities not to be added to my collection.

/Bjorn

[/ QUOTE ]

There was a thread a few weeks ago where someone linked the book on Walmart's on line site. At the time it was in stock, for like 16 or 17 dollars plus shipping. That's where I got it, but I am not sure if it is still in stock there.

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

[ QUOTE ]
Conjelco carries it, although I don't know if they have any in inventory.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're out of stock. *shakes with anticipation*

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have more insightful things to say on this topic that will have to wait for another post.

[/ QUOTE ]

We'll be the judge of that, Mr. Miller.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

[ QUOTE ]


Still what I like to see is a book that provides the player with a suggestion for a structured thinking process. Some routine one can go through to make sure all relevant factors have been taken into consideration. I'd also like to see more focus on game theory and the practical application beyond just using it to determine the correct bluffing frequency.



.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may find such books as Real Poker by Roy Cooke, Inside the Poker Mind, Feeney (sp?), and Improve Your Poker, Caiffone, more in line with what you are talking about. In Cooke's book, he will go through HIS thinking process on many hands. The other two, the authors will show more a structure of WHAT you should be thinking in differing situations.

Still, it all comes down to what you think your opponent thinks that you think that he thinks that you think he thinks. Figure that out in a second while multitabling online and be well on your way to thinking; or at least thinking what they are thinking....is that still thinking? Or is that just thinking you're thinking?

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

[ QUOTE ]
All fields have their duds. But poker always seemed to me to be far worse than the average field. Even many of the "good" books were infested with logical errors, fuzzy thinking, and bad advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ed, do you think it's because of what makes poker so profitable to begin with is what also makes it easy to grow misconeptions about even over years of experience? What I mean is variance. Variance keeps the losing players coming back. I don't know much about backgammon, etc. where there also is a balance of luck and skill. But from my limited understanding (which could easily be wrong) they involve a good deal less variance and and to some extent complexity.

I'm assuming a lot of the old timers who may have never analyzed poker thoroughly, and rather just tried different things out which seem logical and appear to work. But they're not working because they are the correct play, they are "working" because of variance. And amist of all this noise of variance it's hard to tell whether you were correct or not by purely using experience. Armed with this "knowledge" they have gained over the years they write a book of dubious quality.

Comments?