Re: Sklansky's


Gary Carson wrote:
On Aug 25 2006 8:30 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:

Jake_Strongwell@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
You don't have much of a clue, do you?

Sklansky and Malmuth have written very little about NLHE. I believe
they have recently, due to the tv-driven popularity of NL, but the
major works that Sklansky & Malmuth are most known for are all books on
limit games.

Regardless of what you think of their advice, they are more widely read
and more widely respected than Gary is, even in his wildest dreams.
This is the cause of Gary's jealousy.

Congratulations. You have gone another month without a single new thing
to say except to rag on people who actually play poker and whine about
Gary Carson getting more attention than you do.

Patti and the Kid both play NL tournaments and do well. If they think
Sklasnky's advice is bad, that is more evidence than all the book sales
in the world.

As Andrew Prock pointed out once, the Anthropoligists with the highest book
sales are the ones who write about ancient visitors from outer space.

I worked in retail books for years and that statement is absolutely
true. Of course, we tended not to shelve them under Anthro but they
sold. The best-selling books by economists or financial analysts were
always about "the depression of (pick a year) when that depression
didn't materialize, the same guy would do another one predicting
another disaster. They could do that for a generation. If they never
predicted anything that happened they would still retire wealthy. If
they ever hit on a prediction they had guaranteed sales for life.

Actually, the best-selling book by a finance professor ever was <THE
GLORY OF THEIR TIMES> by Ritter, but that was about baseball. I was
once "corrected" on this but the sales figures look like I am right. Or
did when I looked at them last.

A book that sells well might be excellent but that isn't proof.

Telling people what they want to hear sells very well. Telliing people
that they have been right all along sells best.

Will in New Haven

--

"Well, my work here is done. If you need me again, just admit to
yourself that you're screwed and die."
-- Pete Abrams "Sluggy Freelance"





Mason can't write worth a *** but he does a really good job of giving readers
what they want. He does a much better job of that than me.

I was recently reading some stuff about how to teach mathematics and came across
something that's a major flaw in my books. Most people learn by building from a
whole bunch if specific examples. My books don't follow a "if this then do
that" format at all. But from what I read about the techniques that make
students comfortable that's what I need to do in order to sell a lot of books.
What I tend to do is just give general principles, with a few examples to
illustrate. It seems most people don't learn that way.

But the idea that the typical buyer is a good judge of quality of idea is
silly. What the typical buyer can judge is whether the way of thining makes him
comforatable. I've come to the conclusion that my approach to teaching does not
make the typical student comfortable.

When I was a college teacher I did some of my own student satisfaction type
surveys. My evaluations where extrememly bimodal. To an amazing degree. Very
polarized. I've only just recently figured out why.

I think I'm going to extend this post on my http://www.mathandpoker.com/,
because it's relevant to the type of posts I should be making on that blog.


I have never doubted that Sklansky could play NLHE
tournament poker if he put his time and effort into it but, until the
recent popularity of the game, he never did. Undoubtedly for sound
marketing reasons. Now, because of a massive shift in the market, he
writes a book with some good advice and some original advice. However,
what is good is, except for one or two points, not at all original and
what is original is mostly bad.

David has to get a good deal more involved with tournaments before he
can write about the subject up to his usual standards, and I think that
his usual standards are high, and I don't know that he wants to take
the time.

But here you are defending what you cannot understand because Gary
Carson is so important to you that you follow him around.

You are a whining flatulance device.

And Negreanu STILL won't date you.

Will in New Haven

--



CincinnatiKid wrote:
On Aug 24 2006 11:26 AM, Jake_Strongwell wrote:

Don't put any stock in Gary Carson's comments on Sklansky and/or
Malmuth.

Sklansky & Malmuth are widely read, and they are considered to be near
the top as far as poker advice and writing is concerned, especially for
cash games. Gary is not, and he is jealous of what they have
accomplished.


Sklansky and Malmuth offer horrible advice. They teach you how to "not
lose" instead of how to win. They've bred a lot of break even players and
losers.....Tight is not right. Not in NLHE. Never has been...never will
be.

Ericg wrote:
Ha. Thanks and thats why i should have asked the question before I
bought
it.
I am 20 pages into it and I thought the exact same thing. If this is
advanced,
I wonder what he considers "beginner"

On Aug 23 2006 6:03 PM, Patti Beadles wrote:

In article <1156380637$858302@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Ericg <43080971@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Probably should have asked this question before I bought the book
today
but
what are peoples opinion on this book

"Tournament Poker for Beginners and Those With Little Grasp of the
Obvious"

-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA |
pattib~pattib.org | A sensible religion
http://www.pattib.org/ | is just a contradiction in terms
Or just yell, "Hey Patti!" | -- Roger Taylor
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

.

Loading