This sentence caught my eye. I'm curious where the $20,000 number comes from. You do realize that a number of authors who had poker books early on in the poker boom did much better than this.

Mason

No Mention of Daniel Negraunu books

I totally agree authors that published their books at the right time did much better than this. I was mainly talking about the random guy that puts out a bad book in todays environment. I just pulled a random number out of my head that I assumed was somewhere near right. Obviously I dont know much about actually publishing a book.

Well, to be more accurate, I suspect that the "random guy" you're describing in today's environment makes much closer to $0 than $20,000. But an excellent author who writes a top notch book, can still do much better than this, but it can take some time.

MM

Mason,

Wouldn't you agree though that it was easier to make money as a poker author during the poker boom a few years ago than it is today? There were probably a lot of subpar to good books that did reasonably well but in today's market, would probably not do so well.

Also, what is your opinion of Jonathan's books? I don't recall you ever writing a review on his book series and would be curious to your thoughts on it.

Yes. Especially early in the boom when there was actually a shortage of poker books relative to the demand.

True, but in today's market no book is doing well relative to the peak of the boom years.

I haven't read them. Hopefully that will eventually change, but right now there is too much other work for me to attend to.

Best wishes,
Mason

I'm currently reading vol 1 of Jonathan's book - about halfway through. Highly enjoying it so far, finding it appropriately difficult for me. It is not a beginner's NLHE book - it assumes you've played a fair amount. It doesn't explain to you how to calculate hand equity, it says go play with a poker calculator until you have a very good sense how a given hand stacks up against possible opponent holdings. It's not crazy with math (I like that) but it's adamant that there's certain math you absolutely must learn and perform on every hand you get involved in. There are appropriate discussions of core concepts like EV, stack sizing, position, when to bet, etc.

The tone is that of a patient but somewhat demanding teacher, which I like. You know, the ones that aren't going to let you wriggle your way out of actually learning something...the kind of teacher that you only really appreciate later on.

I think this is an excellent book for anyone who's about where I am...I've played poker for years, have won a lot of smaller tournaments ($2k - $10k prize), have read most of the classic tournament NLHE books, but now am getting my (tournament) butt kicked more often than I think I should be and have decided that it's because I've moved up in competition, the competition's gotten smarter, and I've become predictable. So I'm currently trying to figure out what the hell is going on.

Just prior to this book, I read Hansen's Every Hand Revealed - thought it was worthless when I started reading it, but by the end thought it was insightful and useful and also that I was never, ever going to play exactly that way, but somewhere in there is where my problem is. Looking for another book teaching a loose/aggressive style, I ran into the thread on this book here, looked around at other commentary on it elsewhere, and got interested enough to buy it.

And so far, I think at least a good part of what I'm missing is in this book, and that it's absolutely worth what I paid for it.

Is it the last book on poker? No, things will change again in a few years.

Is it an excellent book regarding what's going on now? Yeah, so far I think so.

Do I appreciate that Jonathan's a little bit demanding as a teacher? No, but I probably will later.

Deleted some posts that were a miss-quote. If you wish another go at it feel free.

I take a different view on much that has been written by Fiery Justice.

"6. Winning Poker Tournaments One Hand at a Time Volume I by Eric 'Rizen' Lynch, Jon 'Pearljammer' Turner and Jon 'Apestyles' Van Fleet

These books are basically hand histories from online tournaments put into a book. While I think they are fine, they dont apply too much to live poker and obviously get outdated for their online application quickly."

Poker is poker and maybe the raise sizes change but the basic principles say the same. Three different views are given on each hand which gives the reader something to think about. I also don't agree that the content doesn't apply much to live poker as it's the same game with the same rules whether it's played live or online. I would recommend these books to average players.



"13.Every Hand Revealed by Gus Hansen

I like this book a lot, even though I hate quite a few of the lines suggested. It is basically one of the first books that lays out how to play more than just premium hands to do well and gather chips in a large event."

There is too much information missing for this book to be very useful. The chip counts are not provided until the play gets three handed on the final table and it is not always obvious what position Hansen is playing from and who/how many players are left to act. I also think that this book is very dated and that the play has moved on a lot from 2007.

"It is important to be able to think about whatever you read and dont take it as 100% truth that you must follow in order to win. If you cant read something in a poker book and think for yourself "wow this is good" or "wow this is bad", you probably wont make it too far in the game."

I don't agree with this wholeheartedly. Average players often think "Wow this is bad" about good play which they don't understand. Progress is made by studying the best players and working out why they've played differently.


"If you are bad at poker, you can teach other people to be bad at poker.
If you can beat low stakes, you may be able to teach people to beat low stakes.
If you can beat mid stakes, you may be able to teach people to beat mid and low stakes low stakes.
If you can beat high stakes, you may be able to teach people to beat high, mid, and low stakes.

It doesnt really work the other way around"

I don't completely agree with this either. I would draw the analogy that it is like being shown how to do card tricks. One can get the same basic info out of a cheap book or an expensive course by someone famous. What one does with the information and how good one gets is up to the individual. So it is with poker. The gist of it can be taught by many but how adept players become at spotting total equity (including fold equity and implied equity) in particular situations varies from player to player. It does not take a great coach to teach a great player. Many players tun out to be far better than their coaches. I agree with the basic thrust of some of your replies ; it is necessary to think things out for oneself.

The idea an author of a book on a subject that's partially numbers feels it's okay to pull numbers out of his head on anything bothers me.

I am not a book publisher so I dont have exact info on how much each poker book brings in. I can guess though. Poker is a lot about guessing. Sometimes you are right and sometimes you are wrong.

And the less guessing you do, the more successful you will be I feel.

If you only put all your money in when you know you will win or only fold when you know you will lose, you wont make it too far in poker. Poker is really just glorified guessing game.

Guessing implies that you have no knowledge of the underlying probability distribution. That's not the case in poker.

MM

If by guessing you mean someone can't know something with 100% certainty, you are correct. But I feel we can educate ourselves to make better decisions that rely less on guessing and more on the available information whether it be a tell or pot odds, hand odds, etc.

Still really bothered that you think pulling a number out of your head is okay and you are defending it.