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?
|