Vote For Your Favorite All-Time Poker Author

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
great authors like Miller,Harrington,Hilger and Yao etc. Have clearly studdied Sklansky, Brunson and Malmouth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have not studied anything written by Doyle Brunson.

[ QUOTE ]
Doyle Brunson is probley the greatest role model for poker, of all time...Give credit were its due.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doyle Brunson is not my role model.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

I have not studied anything written by Doyle Brunson.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why on earth would you shut yourself off from a source of information that many pros regard as essential? And didn't you say that SS has too many mistakes to be recommended? Or do you mean to say that you've read SS and/or SS2, but haven't incorporated anything Doyle has written into your game?

Not meaning to sound accusatory or anything - I'm just confused by what you just said here.

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I have not studied anything written by Doyle Brunson.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why on earth would you shut yourself off from a source of information that many pros regard as essential? And didn't you say that SS has too many mistakes to be recommended? Or do you mean to say that you've read SS and/or SS2, but haven't incorporated anything Doyle has written into your game?

Not meaning to sound accusatory or anything - I'm just confused by what you just said here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read Super/System, but only skimmed the redux. I make no claims about Doyle, but I feel that he, personally as an author, has added almost nothing of value to the body of poker strategy literature. To be clear, I don't consider including articles written by others in his book to add value.

Perhaps I'm just being ornery and self-serving, but of the three statements:

My books stand on the shoulders of David Sklansky's writing.
My books stand on the shoulders of Mason Malmuth's writing.
My books stand on the shoulders of Doyle Brunson's writing.

I can agree only with the first two.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I have not studied anything written by Doyle Brunson.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why on earth would you shut yourself off from a source of information that many pros regard as essential? And didn't you say that SS has too many mistakes to be recommended? Or do you mean to say that you've read SS and/or SS2, but haven't incorporated anything Doyle has written into your game?

Not meaning to sound accusatory or anything - I'm just confused by what you just said here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read Super/System, but only skimmed the redux. I make no claims about Doyle, but I feel that he, personally as an author, has added almost nothing of value to the body of poker strategy literature. To be clear, I don't consider including articles written by others in his book to add value.

Perhaps I'm just being ornery and self-serving, but of the three statements:

My books stand on the shoulders of David Sklansky's writing.
My books stand on the shoulders of Mason Malmuth's writing.
My books stand on the shoulders of Doyle Brunson's writing.

I can agree only with the first two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Super System is indeed totally overrated and it is good to see someone with the courage to say so.

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]
I make no claims about Doyle, but I feel that he, personally as an author, has added almost nothing of value to the body of poker strategy literature. To be clear, I don't consider including articles written by others in his book to add value.

Perhaps I'm just being ornery and self-serving,

[/ QUOTE ]

Arrogant is more how I would put it. Books that are a collection of invited monographs written by people who are experts is very common publishing style in the academic world. I don't see why that model wouldn't work with poker. That's basicly the model of both supersystems,

Being the editor of such a book is itself a worthy contribution and source of prestige. And in my own opinion, much more so than writing a book that needed a "strategic consultant".

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...and, don't forget "Hold'em Poker For Winners" which was co-authored by Carl Anderson.


[/ QUOTE ]

Have you read that book and if so, what did you think?

Lost Wages

[/ QUOTE ]

The first rule about John Fox, is that we don't talk about John Fox.

The Second rule, (and I learned this from speaking to John Fox personally), is that Mike Caro is John Fox's favorite poker author.

Hold'em Poker for winner's was not written by John Fox, it was written by Carl Anderson based on Fox's/Anderson's idea's that John Fox agree'ed with. Basicly John Fox wanted to create a sort of multi-dimensional matrix that would describe the correct action based on several factors including table, flop, hand fit and opponent characteristcs. There are other charts for back-solving what people are likely to hold based on thier actions etc .

Unlike Draw, (or preflop hold'em) it wasn't possible to create a simple table that said if you hold X do Y under different conditions. Eventually good players will do the ame action's as in the charts as a result of developing a good thinking process.

I think that if you read the book carefully it's a very good book considering the general level of hold'em knowledge in 1981 when it was written, and it has some idea's that werent talked about till well into the 1990's.

[LittleOldLady]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I make no claims about Doyle, but I feel that he, personally as an author, has added almost nothing of value to the body of poker strategy literature. To be clear, I don't consider including articles written by others in his book to add value.

Perhaps I'm just being ornery and self-serving,

[/ QUOTE ]

Arrogant is more how I would put it. Books that are a collection of invited monographs written by people who are experts is very common publishing style in the academic world. I don't see why that model wouldn't work with poker. That's basicly the model of both supersystems,

Being the editor of such a book is itself a worthy contribution and source of prestige. And in my own opinion, much more so than writing a book that needed a "strategic consultant".

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse me, "author" and "editor" are two very different things. I have edited two academic volumes, and I think what I did was worthwhile. Editing these books took time and effort and judgment and skill and tact, but that is not the same as a writing a book. I also have a body of published academic writing, all of which appears in books and journals edited by others (except for the piece which appears in a book I edited myself). Again my writing was/is worthwhile IMO, but it took skills and talents different in large part from those necessary for editing. These are two different areas of achievement. So it is certainly possible to say that Doyle Brunson was a highly influential editor of poker literature, while maintaining that his contribution as an author was considerably less.

The fact that Doyle Brunson edited a book that many have found useful does not in and of itself make him a great author. I would also say to Ed that editing does add value. The editor has to choose the contributors, convince them to participate, assign parameters for their contributions, make sure that all contributions meet an acceptable standard of quality, provide an introduction that sets out the subject, purpose, and scope of the collection as a whole and the contribution of each piece toward achieving that purpose, and so on. So a good editor does add value--without the editor there would be no collection at all. But that is, of course, not the same as being an author, expressing original ideas or non-original ideas in an original way.

[amulet]

ed,

i am surprised at your opinions on ss. yes ssh is a much better poker book then ss. but in my opinion your opinion is arrogant and sad. ssh was written 25 years after ss. almost all of the books you consider good today did not exist.

doyal brunson in writing the original super system changed the poker landscape. it had a huge impact on poker. aggressive play like you advocate today had never been written about in any book.

yes, that was a long time ago, and it is not really a good poker book anymore. The book in general is poorly written, and it is far from comprehensive. however, it was very important for the poker world. and ss introduced writing about no limit, aggressive play, david sklansky's thoughts, mike caro's thoughts, to more people then anything else at the time.

it also transformed nl play for many people, from tight, to aggressive and to see many more flops. the nl section was the bible for many of today's top nl players for years.

it also had more good information in 1978 then almost all other poker books.

to not recognize the importance of this book seems impossible. and to not recognize the importance of the nl section that doyle wrote also seems impossible.

i think your books do stand on the shoulders of doyle brunson's writing, even if you took the writing to a new level.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
it also transformed nl play for many people, from tight, to aggressive and to see many more flops. the nl section was the bible for many of today's top nl players for years.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi amulet:

I really wonder why people say this. My guess is that it must be all the TV hipe since there weren't any no limit side games, and that's what that chapter is written for, for at least 20 years.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi bygmesterf:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Being the editor of such a book is itself a worthy contribution and source of prestige. And in my own opinion, much more so than writing a book that needed a "strategic consultant".

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe all the editing on Super/System with the possible exceptions of the Caro chapters was done by Alan Goldberg (who I never met). He was the G in B&G Publishing, and I think he did a pretty good job.

Best wishes,
Mason