|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 12/2/2008 7:06:14 PM PACIFIC |
 Moving on from Slansky et al, chasepoker, 19. Apr 2003 02:51 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Just been reading the very interesting thread on player development, now that a lot of people have read the same books and been influenced by certain ideas will there come a time in the near future when thinking will shift again and you wil have to play differntly to what might be a winning way now ? I know this is a pretty hypothetical question but for example if everyone does start playing more ' text book' will the text books not have to be re-written ? Ok am rambling now will stop. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Moving on from Slansky et al, Barry Shulman, 19. Apr 2003 07:38 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Almost all games are very beatable by playing "according to the book" and not getting cute. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Moving on from Slansky et al, Roy Cooke, 20. Apr 2003 10:38 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I agree with this post....Once most of your opponents have read the most common books...then a strategy needs to be developed to beat the "book". Correct counter strategies to conventional wisdom can have high value! Roy Cooke on 19. Apr 2003 02:51 chasepoker wrote: > Just been reading the very interesting thread on player development, now that a > lot of people have read the same books and been influenced by certain ideas will > there come a time in the near future when thinking will shift again and you wil > have to play differntly to what might be a winning way now ? > > I know this is a pretty hypothetical question but for example if everyone does > start playing more ' text book' will the text books not have to be re-written ? > Ok am rambling now will stop. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Moving on from Slansky et al, shorn, 21. Apr 2003 06:02 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| "Knowing" the book and "playing" the book are very different things. I think that the good players have a number of years left before being concerned about having to counter strategy other players who claim to have "read the book". This excludes the world class games that Roy and Barry play in obviously... | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Moving on from Slansky et al, stdioh, 21. Apr 2003 09:31 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Playing ABC is playing by the current book. That is just fine against uneducated opponents and there are plenty of them to go around. Against educated opponents you need to develop advanced strategies, which, again, can be learned from books. That said, the best players are completely flexible. They understand odds and have a wealth of experience. They taylor their play to the individuals against whom they are playing and can honestly answer almost any question with an "it depends." Each of these players can be said to have developed a strategy which beats book players, but that isn't necessarlitly a strategy that can be quantified and put into a book all its own. That is what a true poker player is and the day you can consense a real poker pro into a book is the day that a computer program can win the WSOP. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Moving on from Slansky et al, noiseboy, 21. Apr 2003 10:04 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I like how you always bring up the "it depends" factor. Marginal situations come up so often in hold'em, that you can't really "play by the book" even if you wanted too. The problem is that the books offer up a collection of ideas, like semibluffing or value betting, and you have to decide which is correct in this specific situation against these specific players. The poker greats have an amazing sense of timing, they know when their 2nd pair is good and when it should be folded, they know when they can bet their draw as a semibluff heads up against a fairly tight player, they know when to value bet a hand on the river that is not the nut hand. It's the close decisions that separate the good amatuer player from the pro. I'm not sure you can pick up that sense of timing, you just have to play a lot, or perhaps be born with it, although you can augment it by studying tells and paying close attention to your opponents and how they play. I know I still have a long way to go before I have that sense of timing. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|