[Shandrax]

Let me explain what I mean. It has something to do with "teaching" players to be some sort of weak/tight robot. A while ago I read a quite famous book which advocated folding A-K if you missed the flop. Now let's assume that advice became common knowledge and all fish would play like that, it would be easy to exploit them.

Let's assume the player utg raises on a full table. Everyone folds to you on the button. Let's say you call with 7-2o and the blinds fold. Flop comes rags. He checks signaling A-K, you bet, he folds.

Now that was obviously a trivial example to show the idea behind it. Of course in reality things are more complicated. He could be slowplaying aces for example, but going with Bayes it is more likely he has A-K than that he is slowplaying aces.

Basically it seems to me that lots of these recipe books (if you got XX then raise, if you got YY then fold) turn people into weak/tight players, just on a higher less obvious level.

That makes it easier for the sharks to exploit them, because since they became predictable, the sharks can finally put them on a hand. This is in line with the Fundamental Theorem of Poker, because since fish are following strict guidelines they are basically giving their hands away.

I don't want to claim that poker education is bad as this would be ridiculous, I just want to point out a possible paradoxon that education can be good and bad at the same time, especially if your opponent knows what sort of education you went through.