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.