Good Books, Bad Books

[Ed Miller]

The generally dubious quality of poker strategy books has long irked me. I've read bridge books, chess books, and backgammon books. I've read some personal finance books. I've read physics and math books. I've read a fair number of books in general.

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.

I was worried that the poker "rush" would generate scores of equally bad, if not worse books. And I suppose it has. But I am delighted by the number of good and improved books I've seen come out in the same period.

As an author, I rely on book sales for much of my income. So naturally, I'd like to sell as many books as possible. While my books aren't perfect, I think I've written two (soon to be three) solid additions to the poker literature. Even though they are somewhat competitive, and I do want to sell as many books as possible, I still more than welcome all the new good books.

Poker books, for whatever reason, have a stigma attached to them. Hellmuth, Esfandiari, and Fischman proudly chirp about not learning the game from books. There are many others. While those particular three are not held in generally high esteem on this forum, their views are at least somewhat influential. I hear relatively often, "I don't need to read no books." [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

The good books that are coming out solidify the literature in general. They give players that study a bigger advantage over those who don't. And they, by their mere existence, help to demonstrate how silly this, "I don't need no books," attitude is. If a non-2+2 author writes a good book, it helps to sell copies of my books as well merely by getting the reader excited about the topic. I like that.

Basically, I'm just happy that good books are coming out. I haven't read every book, but I have read these (or read some of, or skimmed.. I'm too busy to read everything thoroughly) :

Harrington Vols. 1 and 2: An accurate and in-depth look at exactly how and why you should play in no limit tournaments. These books no doubt are blowing many players minds.

King Yao's book: Excellent. The author has a very clear understanding of the game, and it covers well some areas we neglected in SSH. My favorite parts are how he breaks down where your EV comes from and shows you how changing your assumptions about the situation change your calculations and sometimes your conclusions. The "If you have the best hand 15% of the time, then EV=blah... but if you have the best hand 35% of the time, then EV=blah," stuff is really important. It's how the really good players (at least 2+2-type players) tend to think, and it's explained lucidly in Yao's book. I only wish Yao had kept his original title. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

BTW, I read a couple of threads where people compare Yao's book to SSH. I really think it's apples and oranges. They both cover counting outs and equity and so forth, but then they really branch off. SSH is about adopting a winning philosophy, and then applying that philosophy in a case study (loose opponents). It tells a cohesive story, but doesn't emphasize how things change when the assumptions change.

Yao's book does the opposite. It's short on story and philosophy, but long on describing how different variables affect your decision-making. I think both books should be read by anyone aspiring to play limit hold 'em seriously, and neither book is in any way a replacement for the other.

WLLH, 3rd edition: I'm about halfway through. I notoriously critiqued some soft spots in the 2nd edition, and I'm happy to see that the most serious concerns have been addressed. Some (generally more minor) problem areas still exist, and I would have addressed some of the problems differently, but I'm a lot more comfortable in general with the book in this new edition.

In other words, I think Lee did a very good thing, and he significantly improved his obviously popular book. Unless there is some doozy in the parts I haven't read, I'd recommend the 3rd edition to a beginner. I didn't recommend the 2nd edition.

I have more insightful things to say on this topic that will have to wait for another post.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
The generally dubious quality of poker strategy books has long irked me. I've read bridge books, chess books, and backgammon books. I've read some personal finance books. I've read physics and math books. I've read a fair number of books in general.

All fields have their duds. But poker always seemed to me to be far worse than the average field.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is because poker books were often a subgenre of "gambling books" rather than "game strategy books".

[Zygote]

thanks for your insight ed. i completely agree that Yao's book is fantastic. SSH remains a fundamentally important read and i can literally say that your book changed my life's direction. for the better, of course! thanks again.

[bilyin]

Your attempt to recruit Yao is transparent.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
I only wish Yao had kept his original title. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]



[/ QUOTE ]

His original title wasn't "King"?? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I only wish Yao had kept his original title. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]



[/ QUOTE ]

His original title wasn't "King"?? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hold'em Brain. Personally I thought it sucked, the new title is much more fitting for the topic

TT

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I only wish Yao had kept his original title. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]



[/ QUOTE ]

His original title wasn't "King"?? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hold'em Brain. Personally I thought it sucked, the new title is much more fitting for the topic

TT

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if benfranklin was joking. But Ed and TT are referring to the fact that Mr. Yao's book title was Hold'em Brain and changed it. "King" is not a title; it's his actual name.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I only wish Yao had kept his original title. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]



[/ QUOTE ]

His original title wasn't "King"?? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hold'em Brain. Personally I thought it sucked, the new title is much more fitting for the topic

TT

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if benfranklin was joking. But Ed and TT are referring to the fact that Mr. Yao's book title was Hold'em Brain and changed it. "King" is not a title; it's his actual name.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks to all for clearing that up. I did think that conferring the title of "King" upon publication of a first book was a bit of overkill, and that a more modest title like "Prince" would surely be sufficient until achieving best-seller status. After all, Ed Miller was only promoted from Major to NPA with his first book.

(I hope that the 2 or 3 forum readers who have a sense of humor and got the original joke were at least somewhat amused.)

[Gallopin Gael]

[ QUOTE ]
(I hope that the 2 or 3 forum readers who have a sense of humor and got the original joke were at least somewhat amused.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I was, but I'm also working on about 3 hours of sleep so I am finding lots of things funny right now.

[King Yao]

[ QUOTE ]
Hold'em Brain. Personally I thought it sucked

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost everyone I contacted about the old title said it sucked (or tried to say it in a nice way). Out of 40 people, Ed is now only the third person that liked it. The credit for the current title goes to Brian at the Gambler's Book Shop.

Ed, thanks for the nice comments.