why do u never hear about some book authors winning anything?

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
you want a testament to what Men can teach you

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me get this straight. You'd rather read a book written by a guy who's allegedly the leader of the most notorious tournament cheating team in history? What is it you are trying to learn?

If only Raymer had his own chip dumping team, not only would he have won more tournaments, but ironically, perhaps your respect as well.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
A few things Desdia:

I don't know that anyone has ever called Sklansky a 'tournament guru.' I don't think tournaments have ever been his forte or his passion.

Also, his performance in tournaments is not the sole indicator of his value as a tournament author, it's how well he describes strategic concepts.

I think that TPFAP contains some essential concepts but the work on the whole is half-hearted; something necessary to read and understand as PART of one's tourney game, not the entirety.

Elsewhere in the thread you indicated that you'd rather read a book by Men the Master over FossilMan. The only way I'd choose a book by Men over a book by Greg is if Greg was the ghostwriter. In other words, Greg's ability to describe situations and analyze essential concepts of tournament poker thoroughly and clearly made him a valuable literary resource a long time before he won $5 Million.

Check TJ Cloutier's book. It seems unlikely that TJ does as well as he does by subscribing to the advice he peddles. TJ is undoubtedly a great tournament player but his writing on the subject paints an incomplete picture.

The good news is that the poker market has ripped wide open, which is excellent for the consumer (us). It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that the three books by Harrington and FossilMan due to hit the market will render most of the printed literature on tournament poker obsolete.

Shane

[/ QUOTE ]

clearly, once again, here's a situation where one's ability to DESCRIBE and ANALYZE strategic tournament situations is more valued than ACTUAL TOURNAMENT SUCCESS in having these situations work. you're gonna tell me that you're basing this [Greg's ability to describe and analyze] over Men's 75+ tournament wins and at least 5 WSOP bracelets? let's be real here. hell, if that's the case, maybe i should become a guru at describing and analyzing tournament situations without very much tournament success to show for my knowledge....then have the majority of 2+2 clamor to buy my book.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you want a testament to what Men can teach you

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me get this straight. You'd rather read a book written by a guy who's allegedly the leader of the most notorious tournament cheating team in history? What is it you are trying to learn?

If only Raymer had his own chip dumping team, not only would he have won more tournaments, but ironically, perhaps your respect as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

look, if you're trying to use that as a basis for why you think Greg is a better player or that he would be a better teacher, i think that's real weak. the proof is in the pudding. forget Van, Minh, or David Pham. Men's tourney record alone, overshadows any success in poker that Greg has had, EXCEPT for his WSOP ME win. let's not forget, Greg, from the stats i've seen, has had less than 5 legitimate live casino poker tournament wins (most of which are small and hold no comparison to the WSOP ME), Men has had at least 75+ (with at least 5 being WSOP bracelets). sounds to me like nothing but clear favoriticism.

[Joboo]

Saying that Men would be a better teacher of tournament play than Greg due to greater success in tournaments is akin to saying that Michael Jordan would be a better basketball coach than Phil Jackson because he was a better player. The ability to perform well in a situation and the ability to teach others to perform in that same situation are not directly related to one another. It is entirely possible to be both a worse player and a better teacher than someone, and many believe that Greg Raymer is just that in comparison to Men Nguyen.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
you're gonna tell me that you're basing this [Greg's ability to describe and analyze] over Men's 75+ tournament wins and at least 5 WSOP bracelets?

[/ QUOTE ]

Quick answer: yes.

Also, you don't have to put paraphrased thoughts in [brackets].

Greg wrote about poker tournament theory for a long time, had scattered success in tournaments over the years while holding down a full time job and then he hit the big one. How many thousands of tournaments do you think Men the Master played while Greg filed Pfizer's patents, cultivating a well-thought out approach to the game, waiting for his time to come?

The thing is, none of that is even relevant. Do you really believe that Men the Master could explain his winning ways as well as Greg could explain how to, say, change a tire? Have you ever read anything FossilMan wrote? I find Sklansky's prose a challenge on the best days, but Greg wrote in the most clear, straightforward language available. Same with Paul Phillips. The collective contribution of Phillips and Raymer (all online, free for anyone) make up what I consider the bulk of the good tournament theory publicly available.

If you choose to ignore the valuable resources afforded you, that's a fine choice. It's clear though that you are barking up the wrong tree trying to discredit people like FossilMan and books like Theory of Poker because they do not correspond with your lofty standards of poker success (as represented apparently by Men's "75+ tournament wins.")

Shane

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you're gonna tell me that you're basing this [Greg's ability to describe and analyze] over Men's 75+ tournament wins and at least 5 WSOP bracelets?

[/ QUOTE ]

Quick answer: yes.

Also, you don't have to put paraphrased thoughts in [brackets].

Greg wrote about poker tournament theory for a long time, had scattered success in tournaments over the years while holding down a full time job and then he hit the big one. How many thousands of tournaments do you think Men the Master played while Greg filed Pfizer's patents, cultivating a well-thought out approach to the game, waiting for his time to come?

The thing is, none of that is even relevant. Do you really believe that Men the Master could explain his winning ways as well as Greg could explain how to, say, change a tire? Have you ever read anything FossilMan wrote? I find Sklansky's prose a challenge on the best days, but Greg wrote in the most clear, straightforward language available. Same with Paul Phillips. The collective contribution of Phillips and Raymer (all online, free for anyone) make up what I consider the bulk of the good tournament theory publicly available.

If you choose to ignore the valuable resources afforded you, that's a fine choice. It's clear though that you are barking up the wrong tree trying to discredit people like FossilMan and books like Theory of Poker because they do not correspond with your lofty standards of poker success (as represented apparently by Men's "75+ tournament wins.")

Shane

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't care how many patents Greg filed and i'm sure neither does Men. besides, what Greg does outside of poker has nothing to do with this conversation. you're trying to lend credibilty and weight to your argument that a PART-TIME tournament player with SCATTERED success writing about
poker tourney theory for years before winning ONE BIG tournament as a reason to why his book would be more valuable than a player who HAS a NATIONWIDE track record of success. that's like trying to hold a leaning telephone pole up with a kickstand. *hint- you need something stronger*. i'm more inclined to listen to what a guy like Men has to say, who's had consistent winning success, than a guy who, THEORY-WISE, maybe able to EXPLAIN and ANALYZE success, yet not back it up. i come from an environment where it's all about SHOW AND PROVE! talking, explaining, and analyzing don't mean nothing unless folks see a LEGITIMATE pattern of you REAL-izing what you speak. other than that, you just selling wolf tickets as if they were to the Super Bowl.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
Saying that Men would be a better teacher of tournament play than Greg due to greater success in tournaments is akin to saying that Michael Jordan would be a better basketball coach than Phil Jackson because he was a better player. The ability to perform well in a situation and the ability to teach others to perform in that same situation are not directly related to one another. It is entirely possible to be both a worse player and a better teacher than someone, and many believe that Greg Raymer is just that in comparison to Men Nguyen.

[/ QUOTE ]

to each his own. we can agree to disagree. i've benefited more from guys who were consistent successes in their chosen field or medium than i did in someone who just TAUGHT and TALK. if what you teaching has'nt CONSISTENTLY made YOU a success, then why would i need you to teach me anything? something does'nt look right about that picture. i respect folks who are a personification of what they speak, not someone who can merely come off that way. where i'm from, the kind of logic being displayed on 2+2 at times would seem like someone who took a thousand pounds of ganja, lit it up, then blew it through the air vents of an elementary school.

[Joboo]

The only way to judge who's book would be more valuable is by asking ourselves who can impart the most valuable tournament knowledge in the clearest way. While Men may be able to do this, his tournament record doesn't prove that he can any more than Raymer's tournament record proves that he can't. Men's tournament record has very little to do with how good a book of his would be.

EDIT: ^^Well if you disagree with that then I guess I'm done, though I don't really think your logic is sound.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
The only way to judge who's book would be more valuable is by asking ourselves who can impart the most valuable tournament knowledge in the clearest way. While Men may be able to do this, his tournament record doesn't prove that he can any more than Raymer's tournament record proves that he can't. Men's tournament record has very little to do with how good a book of his would be.

EDIT: ^^Well if you disagree with that then I guess I'm done, though I don't really think your logic is sound.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, but y'all are up in here trying to say that Greg's would. if the end result is, WHO'S TO SAY (which way or the other)!!???, fine. but, that's not what or how y'all are coming off. i clearly see that, "Greg would be and is better (although his record does'nt show it but he can damn well TALK IT!) than Men, therefore, that's the basis for why we would buy his book [end quote]". i feel a guy who can DESCRIBE and ANALYZE tournament poker situations, yet not have the stats to support all the describing and analyzing, does'nt guarantee anything either.

[Joboo]

I'm not trying to say that Greg's book would be better than Men's (though I certainly see why you'd say that since most everyone in this thread is), I'm just saying that your reason why it wouldn't be is misdirected, in my opinion. I don't think that the most successful player would necessarily make a better teacher than some more eloquent, yet less skilled other player, that's all.