[Phill S]

Camp 1

Now, the other thread aside, most consider the collective works of Sklansky + Malmuth to be the top level of poker writing. Most would tend to agree we are talking about the top level thinkers of the game. Their theory was groundbreaking at the time, and has now become the basis for most works on poker. They were ahead of their game.

Im sure there are more, but they dont come imediately to my mind.

Camp 2

Now, common humour and opinion aside, most look at the achievements of Helmuth and consider him to be one of the best tournemant players to date. I would put myself in the 'hater' box, but i have to acknowledge the 9 bracelets and numourous other wins. Helmuth however brought out a book, and whilst i have not read it, general knowledgable opinion says its one of the worst books ever brought out on poker - made all the more suprising by the fact that Phil is a top player.

Another player would be Doyle Brunson. His supersystem, whilst groundbreaking in the origional release, barely got updated for its latest re-write. His own section is so identical it has to be said that there is little evidence his approach to the NL game has changed over the last 20+ years.

-----

The exception to the two camp rule would obviously come in the form of Harrington. He is a top player who has not only won at the highest games, but has then wrote one of the best books about how he did so.

-----

So i pose these two queries.

Why does camp 1 have great writers who havent moved up to the highest levels (not that i think they havent moved up to a top level you understand). The havent come close to the tourney success of Phil Helmuth (who i admit is a tourney specialist), and they havent moved up to the big cash games of Doyle Brunson (who does very well at tourneys as a kicker).

At the same time why does camp 2 have great players, at the top of their respective games, who have not got a great book to their name, and certainly have not set out their methods of play?

Are the two camps interelated - does revealing your play become negative to your play itself as those around you adapt? Is there the possibility that by being a great thinker, you inhibit your ability to be a great achiever? Does sklansky simply need to get out there and play more?

Finally, with Harrington sat between the two camps, is this anything to do with him being 'both' a great thinker (he is a former chess and backgammon master if memory serves) and a great achiever (this i dont need to expand on), or is it a case of his book being so new that people have yet to adapt to his play.

Is it simply a case of the great achievers not having the abilities to put to paper the reasons behind their play. Thus making them better than the exampled DS and MM, but unable to put to paper the reason behind why they are better.

This is something ive been pondering for a while. I cant come up with a good answer to be honest. Surely there should only be camps between the good and the bad, but we have clear divisions between the good and the good.

Thoughts?

Phill