As I have not played lived, and only tournaments online, since sometime last year, I was thinking of doing an unscientific poker book challenge. I would take three tournament books plus three cash game books and play x number of tournaments along with x number of cash games using strategies from each of the books.

I thought I would extend that to psychology books, too. I was thinking about Tendler's books, Cardner's books, and books from TwoplusTwo.

If I do this, should I use just yours as the 2p2 offerings or should I look back to POP and Inside The Poker Mind to include them too?

I have no idea how to measure "success" with psychology books like I could with strategy books though.

I realize such a challenge would be very unscientific due to variance.

I suppose someone could find three people new to poker and after making sure they had the fundamentals down solidly using the same materials, we could add psychology to their training.

One would follow Tendler's books, one would follow Cardner's books, and one would follow 2p2's books.

Forty years later, we could see how they did.

i think this will be significantly more interesting using the psychology books instead of strategy.

Did Mason actually express interest in this, or are you just trying to call him out since you're no longer arguing with him in the thread he started?

Well, draw your own conclusions, but I did start this thread two days before withdrawing from Mason's thread.

I seriously want/wanted Mason's opinion as to what Two Plus Two psychology books (the entire output or just his) I should use if I did this little study.

It is something I had the idea for when I thought about using different tournament/cash game strategies when I was in Vegas. I thought why not extend the time frame and also include the mental game.