Ed Miller planning second book

[mikimaus]

Maybe we all should start writing poker books. When a top player/professional writes a poker book when he is 70, that's a poker book. Yes, I suppose when one has passed and mastered some baby games one might be able to write a next generation book for children, so I am not really against it though it's mostly of scholastic value, with little practical value.

[lostinthought]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I vote for the hand examples book. that would be gold.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes i agree... a non-weak middle limit holdem sort of book would be excellent

[/ QUOTE ]

Check out Roy Cooke's Real Poker II - the play of hands. I think Mason gave it a 9.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe we all should start writing poker books. When a top player/professional writes a poker book when he is 70, that's a poker book. Yes, I suppose when one has passed and mastered some baby games one might be able to write a next generation book for children, so I am not really against it though it's mostly of scholastic value, with little practical value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, you suck. I wouldn't wipe my ass with your book.

NT

[David Sklansky]

We are thinking about a book of problem hands where each question is answered two ways. Ed gives you the best play against smaller stakes, weaker players; while I expound on what you should do with the same hand in tough 100-200 games. Perhaps Mason would then point out the concepts that caused the differences. Would you like that?

[jeffraider]

[ QUOTE ]
We are thinking about a book of problem hands where each question is answered two ways. Ed gives you the best play against smaller stakes, weaker players; while I expound on what you should do with the same hand in tough 100-200 games. Perhaps Mason would then point out the concepts that caused the differences. Would you like that?

[/ QUOTE ]

YES. I also would love a small stakes NLHE book, too.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
We are thinking about a book of problem hands where each question is answered two ways. Ed gives you the best play against smaller stakes, weaker players; while I expound on what you should do with the same hand in tough 100-200 games. Perhaps Mason would then point out the concepts that caused the differences. Would you like that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this works too well. Many of the problems for a small stakes game will involve pots contested at least four ways. That isn't too likely in a tough 100-200 game.

If you do a problem book (I keep suggesting 300 Small Stakes Hands to Ed), I think it would be best to limit it to Small Stakes.

[David Sklansky]

On some of the hands my answer would have to be something like "The whole hand couldn't come down this way in a bigger game". But it would be illustrative to show the differences and why they occur, even for those who have no plans to ever play that high.

[1p0kerb0y]

I think it sounds like a great idea.

[Rudbaeck]

I'm torn. Can't you do one book each? I think that would be alot better, contrasting 3/6 to 100/200 is of little practical use to anyone. It's interesting in theory, but I highly doubt anyone plays both...

I'd love more hand problems from Miller, the ones at the end of SSH were the best I've ever seen in print.

But I'd also love hand problems from Sklansky, even though it's years and years until I reach a limit (if I ever do) where it's applicable.

So start with Miller's second book. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Zeno]

You are trying to build a bridge across too wide a chasm, in my opinion.

Perhaps just extrapolate the hand concept differences to the limit where they would most likely come into focus or play. This could mean 10-20 or 30-60 or perhaps 100-200. This would be better than just the set 100-200 limit idea.

This may make the book too convoluted however.

Keeping the basic plan simple, as Dynasty suggested, may be the best idea.

-Zeno