If a book on SnG's came out, wouldn't they die? - Page 3

jacket34 · #21 07-26-2005, 12:41 AM

in the recent card player issue, scott fishman said he was in the process of doing a book, and if i recall, he said it would be mostly on nl tourneys and sng's. he said he will lay out how to start at the bottom levels and come up with sng's. we will still be fine though...people are just to lazy...

Bluff Daddy · #22 07-26-2005, 01:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The Harrington books are basically SNG's (only read volume one yet though)

[/ QUOTE ]

theyre not very applicable to party sng's

curtains · #23 07-26-2005, 01:29 AM

I "believe" Fischman has been quoted as saying he uses almost no math when he plays basically and only uses instinct. I highly doubt he's going to write a groundbreaking sit and go book.

Bluff Daddy · #24 07-26-2005, 01:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I "believe" Fischman has been quoted as saying he uses almost no math when he plays basically and only uses instinct. I highly doubt he's going to write a groundbreaking sit and go book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought fischman multitabled? Seems like that would be really hard to do on "instinct"

curtains · #25 07-26-2005, 01:59 AM

I don't know I just remember some interviews he gave where he talked about how he never read any poker books and didn't need to use "math" as he could just use his instinct from his years of being a dealer.

Sorry I don't have the source, but I remember it was talked about in the WPT forum, and it's possible I'm misconstruing some of the facts.

Bluff Daddy · #26 07-26-2005, 02:13 AM

well it sounds about right and seems to be what a lot of "pros" say, maybe he was just talking about live play

microbet · #27 07-26-2005, 02:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If sit and gos were so simple, everyone who's been using this site for a while would be 8 tabling the $215s by now.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are other reasons for not 8 tabling the $215s even if you have been on this site for a while, besides not understanding SNGs.

curtains · #28 07-26-2005, 02:55 AM

I know it's just funny, I mean there are books on limit holdem that tell you to never play any hands. Meanwhile every casino you go to has the 10-20 game filled with 8 players who play way too many hands. I don't see why this would be any different for sit and go's.

Bartman387 · #29 07-26-2005, 02:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Meh, WHATEVER!

It'll happen one day, you just watch! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

AAHHH, the sky is falling!!! Everyone look out!

PrayingMantis · #30 07-26-2005, 03:04 AM

The huge majority of people don't play poker in order to be "consistent winners", or to make money, or any other such goal, like the relative minority group that posts and reads here. People play to enjoy, and playing correctly is usualy pretty far from being enjoyable for most people, especially if you only 1-tabling.

Also, there is much more in this game (even in SNGs) than simply learning to play "correctly" and "killing" the game. Most people, for instance, can't deal with any kind of negative variacnce. No matter how many books about SNGs they'll read, the second somone hits his 3 outer on them, they start tilting and they'll make major mistakes in the next SNG they'll play.

BTW, questiosn like you're asking here were asked many times, many months/years ago about all forms of poker. There is a huge amount of written theory about limit poker, and still the games are highly beatable. The argument that SNGs are "easier" to master, does not makes sense in this respect, because, again, people could lose much much less in limit, if they only started playing a bit tighter from early position or whatever, for instance, which is very easy to do. But most players (i.e, fish) don't do it, because it's very boring.