Quote:
Quote:
I've always felt that no matter which book you read, you have to learn how to discren *against what type of players* the advice is valid (or if it's even valid at all). When you're at the table, you have to learn to figure out what player types you're up against - are they all stations? are they all nits? What if they're half stations and half nits but all the nits have folded? What if you're in a hand against a station, a nit and a maniac? Does the advice you just read apply?
Sorry to partially derail the thread.
I Think your opinion is perfectly valid.
I've read a bunch of poker books actually. Including some of Harringtons stuff, which I'm a fan of him, by the way.
I didn't want to elaborate and risk making my post too long.
You've forced my hand!
The biggest problem with books is that, in my opinion, new players especially, don't know to digest the info properly.
Thus, causing them a lot of bad play and frustration.
Most of these poker books, especially the older ones, as we all know, stressed tight raising, and even tighter calling ranges.
Subsequently, when a new player raises after an hour of folding, every observant player knows what he has! AA BB AK AQs. and possibly JJ.
So, if I'm sitting at that table, you know I'm calling with my 5 3.
If I hit the flop hard, I'm gonna win a big pot, if I miss, I can easily get away from the hand.well, ok. Maybe I'm not that loose.
But, you know what I mean.
Listen, the truth is, there's all types of bad poker advise in these books.
we could go on forever.
Worst is, again, beginners don't understand to apply, even the best advise, properly.
Books are meaningless until after you get tons of experience.
Do you know a surgeon who learned how to operate on a patient by simply reading a book?