Good Books, Bad Books
 

The generally dubious quality of poker strategy books has long irked me. I've read bridge books, chess books, and backgammon books. I've read some personal finance books. I've read physics and math books. I've read a fair number of books in general.

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.

I was worried that the poker "rush" would generate scores of equally bad, if not worse books. And I suppose it has. But I am delighted by the number of good and improved books I've seen come out in the same period.

As an author, I rely on book sales for much of my income. So naturally, I'd like to sell as many books as possible. While my books aren't perfect, I think I've written two (soon to be three) solid additions to the poker literature. Even though they are somewhat competitive, and I do want to sell as many books as possible, I still more than welcome all the new good books.

Poker books, for whatever reason, have a stigma attached to them. Hellmuth, Esfandiari, and Fischman proudly chirp about not learning the game from books. There are many others. While those particular three are not held in generally high esteem on this forum, their views are at least somewhat influential. I hear relatively often, "I don't need to read no books." [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

The good books that are coming out solidify the literature in general. They give players that study a bigger advantage over those who don't. And they, by their mere existence, help to demonstrate how silly this, "I don't need no books," attitude is. If a non-2+2 author writes a good book, it helps to sell copies of my books as well merely by getting the reader excited about the topic. I like that.

Basically, I'm just happy that good books are coming out. I haven't read every book, but I have read these (or read some of, or skimmed.. I'm too busy to read everything thoroughly) :

Harrington Vols. 1 and 2: An accurate and in-depth look at exactly how and why you should play in no limit tournaments. These books no doubt are blowing many players minds.

King Yao's book: Excellent. The author has a very clear understanding of the game, and it covers well some areas we neglected in SSH. My favorite parts are how he breaks down where your EV comes from and shows you how changing your assumptions about the situation change your calculations and sometimes your conclusions. The "If you have the best hand 15% of the time, then EV=blah... but if you have the best hand 35% of the time, then EV=blah," stuff is really important. It's how the really good players (at least 2+2-type players) tend to think, and it's explained lucidly in Yao's book. I only wish Yao had kept his original title. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

BTW, I read a couple of threads where people compare Yao's book to SSH. I really think it's apples and oranges. They both cover counting outs and equity and so forth, but then they really branch off. SSH is about adopting a winning philosophy, and then applying that philosophy in a case study (loose opponents). It tells a cohesive story, but doesn't emphasize how things change when the assumptions change.

Yao's book does the opposite. It's short on story and philosophy, but long on describing how different variables affect your decision-making. I think both books should be read by anyone aspiring to play limit hold 'em seriously, and neither book is in any way a replacement for the other.

WLLH, 3rd edition: I'm about halfway through. I notoriously critiqued some soft spots in the 2nd edition, and I'm happy to see that the most serious concerns have been addressed. Some (generally more minor) problem areas still exist, and I would have addressed some of the problems differently, but I'm a lot more comfortable in general with the book in this new edition.

In other words, I think Lee did a very good thing, and he significantly improved his obviously popular book. Unless there is some doozy in the parts I haven't read, I'd recommend the 3rd edition to a beginner. I didn't recommend the 2nd edition.

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

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

[ QUOTE ]
The generally dubious quality of poker strategy books has long irked me. I've read bridge books, chess books, and backgammon books. I've read some personal finance books. I've read physics and math books. I've read a fair number of books in general.

All fields have their duds. But poker always seemed to me to be far worse than the average field.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is because poker books were often a subgenre of "gambling books" rather than "game strategy books".

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

thanks for your insight ed. i completely agree that Yao's book is fantastic. SSH remains a fundamentally important read and i can literally say that your book changed my life's direction. for the better, of course! thanks again.

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

Your attempt to recruit Yao is transparent.

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

[ QUOTE ]
I only wish Yao had kept his original title. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]



[/ QUOTE ]

His original title wasn't "King"?? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

Thanks, Ed. If you're in a book-reviewing mood, how about letting us know what you think of How Good is Your Limit Hold'em and Barry Greenstein's book (when it's out).

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

Hmmm. We have seen the "good books" post. Can't wait to read the "bad books" sequel! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I only wish Yao had kept his original title. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]



[/ QUOTE ]

His original title wasn't "King"?? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hold'em Brain. Personally I thought it sucked, the new title is much more fitting for the topic:)

TT

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I only wish Yao had kept his original title. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]



[/ QUOTE ]

His original title wasn't "King"?? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hold'em Brain. Personally I thought it sucked, the new title is much more fitting for the topic:)

TT

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if benfranklin was joking. But Ed and TT are referring to the fact that Mr. Yao's book title was Hold'em Brain and changed it. "King" is not a title; it's his actual name.

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

I have played tournament chess for 22 years and I am rather new to poker, actually I became interested when a chess GM mentioned it in a conversation as his new source of income.

Since I have to learn the game from scratch I can't do without books, so I decided to leak a few $100 for "quality information".

What I have seen so far is lots of stuff like:
"If you got top pair jacks and higher raise, but not if suited cards hit on the flop except they come deuce-eight. Occasionally you may play it differently though which depends on your read or what you think your opponent thinks that you think he thought when he raised because he thought you thought that he thought you would fold."

Also I see lots of handrankings floating around:
"Play groups 1-8, but if the game is lose-tight-agressive with a touch of weakness add group 12, but never play group 5 in this spot", "raise with top ten hands (including 7-7)", "never raise with 7-7 from early position", "limp with A-A", "hardly ever limp with A-A" and so on...

I have not received my copy of SSH yet, so I can't comment on that. Books like HoH are giving me hope though, because Dan managed to give guidlines that one can work with. Like in chess it doesn't help if you just memorize plays. You need to understand the concepts.

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.

The problem with all of the sophisticated stuff is that limit games for example tend to be so fast, that I wonder if there can be a "real" thinking process involved at all. It seems to be a game where a good developed "feeling" for the plays is required. Certainly something one can't learn from the books.

I compare limit poker to blitz chess. The game is very mechanical and superficious. It is not without a reason that there are no reasonable books on blitz chess on the market.

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?

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I only wish Yao had kept his original title. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]



[/ QUOTE ]

His original title wasn't "King"?? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hold'em Brain. Personally I thought it sucked, the new title is much more fitting for the topic:)

TT

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if benfranklin was joking. But Ed and TT are referring to the fact that Mr. Yao's book title was Hold'em Brain and changed it. "King" is not a title; it's his actual name.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks to all for clearing that up. I did think that conferring the title of "King" upon publication of a first book was a bit of overkill, and that a more modest title like "Prince" would surely be sufficient until achieving best-seller status. After all, Ed Miller was only promoted from Major to NPA with his first book.

(I hope that the 2 or 3 forum readers who have a sense of humor and got the original joke were at least somewhat amused.)

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was in GBC a few weeks ago to get your book. Leo says "You know, Brian came up with the title for the book". I think Brain was too modest to say anything himself. Also, I wasn't completely positive they weren't goofing around, but now I know they weren't goofing on me!

It's a clever title.

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

[ QUOTE ]
(I hope that the 2 or 3 forum readers who have a sense of humor and got the original joke were at least somewhat amused.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I was, but I'm also working on about 3 hours of sleep so I am finding lots of things funny right now.

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

I was very underwhelmed by HOH 1 and 2. I put down vol 2 after 100 pages.

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

[ QUOTE ]
I was very underwhelmed by HOH 1 and 2. I put down vol 2 after 100 pages.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this because you think there are better alternatives? If so, what are they and why do you think they are better?

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

Is King yao about No limit or limit?

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

no, i dont think there are better alternatives. i also dont read every poker book that comes out, so i dont have a definitive knowledge on it. i also think HOH was badly designed from a binding/cover art/layout standpoint.

i read ken warrens texas holdem after seeing poker on tv, when i was a true beginner, and never really read anything else, except 2+2 stuff. i skimmed the NL part in supersystem 1 and ive read most of #2. but all in all apart from learning the utter utter basics from ken warren ive never really learned much from poker books.

edit- first line is better as "no, i don't know of anything better"

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is King yao about No limit or limit?

[/ QUOTE ]
limit

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

You can pick up weighing the odds at holdemtight.com I believe (was there late last week).

TRWIII

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

[ QUOTE ]
You can pick up weighing the odds at holdemtight.com I believe (was there late last week).

TRWIII

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just about to post this.

I ordered it last Thursday, it was delivered yesterday [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hellmuth, Esfandiari, and Fischman proudly chirp about not learning the game from books.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rocks and Rings said he learned from a poker book at the very beginning. Maybe he stopped because the books he read were not that 1.4.

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

In the days of my youth
Ken Warren told me how to win a hold 'em hand,
Now I’ve reached the age
I try to play like SSH the best I can.
No matter how I try,
My variance can put me in the same old jam.

Good books, Bad books,
You know I read my share;
When my aces got cracked
by a brown trout man,
Well, I still don’t seem to care.

-ptmusic

Egotist
 

My god, Ed- you're turning into a Mini-Me Mason!

Take a vacation! But not until you write the NL book...

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

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think poker is bad, try reading golf books. 95% of them are complete crap.

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

Yawn

There are crap books in every field.

Most books are filled with some good stuff and some crap stuff it doesnt necessarily make them crap.

The person reading them has to think about the information not just copy word for word like a school kid.

When I read a poker book I want new ideas, as long as it makes me think, then the book is of some value. The last thing I want is reworded stuff from TOP.

I really dont see the point of this thread.

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

Hi Everyone:

I'm going to get into this a little more.

While there will be a large number of poker books sold the next few years, there are also many more books coming onto the market than there is shelf space at the major book stores. What this means to me is that most of these books will fail as commercial entities.

Now I won't mention any names, but you can go to Amazon and look at sales ranks. While you will see a few poker books such as the Harrington books with incredible good sales ranks, you will also see many other books, some by well known authors that have poor sales ranks meaning no sales.

But what I find most interesting is we have noticed that one of the other poker publishers, a company with many more books than we have, seems to be missing the release date of many of their new titles. That is a bunch of their books which according to Amazon should already be out are not yet released.

Now I can't be absolutely sure, but I suspect that most of these not yet released books that should already be out will do poorly (in terms of sales). I also suspect that many of this publisher's line of books are also doing poorly.

The conclusion to this, and I have stated this before, is that for a new poker book to be successful, it better be good regardless who the publisher is. This is especially true since some new books (in addition to ours) that are coming out are pretty good. The new good books, as well as the established good books, should now begin to crowd the crummy ones off the shelves.

That's the way competition works, and that's the way it should be.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

[ QUOTE ]
The new good books, as well as the established good books, should now begin to crowd the crummy ones off the shelves.

That's the way competition works, and that's the way it should be.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I agree that that is the way it should work, but it's definitely not "the way competition works," unfortunately. Good products only win over bad products if the consumers are knowledgeable, or maybe if someone knowledgeable is guiding them. And let's face it - most of the time in the free market, the consumer knows schit, and 99% of those who have any interest in guiding them just wants to mis-guide them. And this would apply to politics too.

So, if the poker book market works as a free market "should" work, well, then it is an aberration.

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

[ QUOTE ]
Good products only win over bad products if the consumers are knowledgeable, or maybe if someone knowledgeable is guiding them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Mason should have postscripted that sentence with "in the long run" - I'm pretty sure that's what he meant, and in that case I agree. In the short run, say if every poker book ever written were released today, you might see a leaning toward those books with larger advertising budgets and/or bigger names ("Harrington on Holdem" would most likely sell right out of the gate, while "Theory of Poker" would probably take some time for people to realize it's a good book and word of mouth to spread before its sales got going).

But regarding poker books, everyone is going to put the things they read into play at some point, so the bookbuyer either becomes knowledgeable (at which point he can tell a good book from a bad one) or goes broke. Compare that to a crummy popsci book on theoretical physics, where many people who purchase it are simply reading it for pleasure and will never know that it's a crap book unless they ask a knowledgeable person or have access to a particle accelerator for some reason - the worst that can happen to them is that they come out of the experience with some hogwash new-age conclusions about what quantum spookiness means regarding their day-to-day life.

So while books like TJ's are definitely entertaining and easy reads ("You'd better believe I could go broke with AQ, partner - and anyone who says they couldn't is a stone fool....Or a gone goose."), I sincerely doubt you're going to get very far in poker if you habitually check-fold AK when you don't hit the flop, or only play the Top 10 Hands, etc. At least not far enough to recommend it to someone else.

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

So what is a good book on Quantum Physics?

Re: Good Books, Bad Books
 

[ QUOTE ]
So what is a good book on Quantum Physics?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea - my particle accelerator is in the shop.