Improva's Solving the Poker Puzzle:

Any opinions on this book?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/33...review-485447/

Dont even bother w/ that closed thread it's a circus of mud slinging. Improva's book is the nut's. I have read most of the "ebooks" and improva's is the best followed by baluga and then bobofitos. Im a DC member and from what I know of Improva what happened in that thread is a misunderstanding. Im not going to 100% say so he didnt do whatever whatever but it would be out of character.

It's probably the best one I've read as well, I definitely preferred it's comprehensive writing style compared to the article format of LTBR and NLWB. The book does a really good job of addressing core ideas, altho' I find it a little lacking in examples (generally made up by the videos, but still).

best book i've read (well 3/4 through it)

Does it apply better to cash or mtt ?

It applies more to cash. But as long as we are talking about playing NLHE it will help your game. It is a very good book.

Has anyone discussed answers to the questions in each section?

yep they are discussed.
you only have access to that forum if you purchase the book, however.

What screen name does Improva use?

I found one DC video from him and his SN is covered up. He was trying to play without looking at his hole cards, which is not a good sign.

There is a losing player on FTP with the Improva SN. The account is French, so I question whether that is him.

his screen names are not known

Then we can only assume he is a losing player. If he were a winner, releasing the SN would be good for sales. He isn't going to scare away the fish because they wouldn't care anyway.

I can think of a few others who wrote expensive e-books and have lousy or negative winrates. It is becoming a running joke that "poker coach" is shorthand for "overconfident, losing player."

My PTR stats show me as a profitable player and I'm not selling books, even though I made a living as a freelance author for several years. I expect poker experts to be much,.much better than me. I can read THOUSANDS OF PAGES of reasonably intelligent, but anonymous, poker commentary on the Web FOR FREE.

BTW: Releasing a video of oneself playing without looking at one's whole cards is about as stupid and pointless a barnstorming trick as I can imagine.

So Foucault is also an idiot ???


Btw, what is your view on cts, has he gone from a losing fish to pokergod during the first months of 2010 or ?

I didn't say anyone is an idiot. I said the idea is idiotic. When Doyle Brunson said he could beat people without looking at his cards, he was embellishing to make a point. He wasn't telling people to not look in the hole.

Losing half a million dollars in one day boggles the mind. Unless he is the Emir of Kuwait, that is not professional poker. Real people can't afford to drop six or seven digits at the table without trouble. I can imagine someone like him becoming the poster boy for those who want to ban online poker.

Edit: I have a theory that some of the LAG and goofy poker videos are not really there as poker strategy. They entertain a smal cadre of fans who want to see people risk ruin by triple-barreling with air against a K-high flush.

You know that the purpose of the exercise is not to play all the time without looking at one's cards, but to switch the focus of students from playing their cards to exploiting their opponents and the situation, right? What's idiotic about that?


Does he have 100% of his action??

Triple-barreling with air, zomg. Looks like you might profit from the aforementioned exercise

It isn't poker. You adjust to your opponents, sure, but always in the context of the cards. Try such tricks in stud or draw and you would be slaughtered.

You're missing the point, neither Improva nor Foucault claim it to be a winning strategy (tho given the right table conditions, it can be) ... the aim of those videos is to put focus on how ranges connect with different board types. Removing your hole cards is a good way to do this, as there are no distractions. This is done as an educational tool and not a necesarrily a practical tool.


You're left with what you're representing and your handreading.


While taking my degree this was a common practice, to simplify in order to illustrate. Your holecards are actually noise in this context.


Why is this idea so hard to grasp ?

Gelford: you are a patient man.

You would also be slaughtered if you 'tried such a trick' in bridge. Or table tennis. Or darts. Which is why he did it in hold'em.

Have you watched any of Improva's vids? I assume you have. I mean, you don't review movies you haven't watched, do you?

Why u playa hatin man. Don't hate participate and buy the ebook...

(Hey, Foucault actually shows a positive graph, albeit over a moderate-sized sample.)

One could create the same effect by simply obscuring the hands after the session. That isn't as sensational. One can't claim to know how to play blindfolded.

That's a fabulous idea. You could play a session, obscure your hands, then say: "Even though I knew I had the worst hand when I folded here, I would have folded if I couldn't see my cards also."

And 'sensationalism' would have been avoided, thank Christ.

People can have many reasons for doing things. You make a serious error when you assume there can be only one.

A player might not want his opponents to know his identity, for example.

I suspect that a large number of poker video fanboys are railbirds, not students. They would rather just watch Paul Galfond bluff some guy down with 7 high than see him explain the thinking behind it.

(Note to lurkers: Galfond is one of the exceptions to my "coaches are not winning players" thesis. So is Dusty Schmidt, despite his other issues. So is Ryan Fee.)

Have you watched a lot of 'Paul (sic, ha ha ha) Galfond's videos? Did you feel he wasn't explaining this thought process clearly?

You make generalizations about the population that watches poker videos. Fine. Everyone is very concerned with your 'suspicions,' based on your track record of razor sharp acumen, but of course this has nothing to do with any of the points anyone has made. When someone patiently explains something to you, you simply throw out more innuendo. This style of debate makes me want to kill myself out of depression.

Mods: can a poster be banned if they make you want to kill yourself?

How come only a fraction of poker videos deal with micros and so many are about high stakes, when the subscribers' game level is just the opposite?

There's nothing wrong with watching poker as entertainment. But that's not the same thing as learning about poker.

Edit: to be fair to Improva, he sounds like a smart guy. The trouble is, unless I know how well he plays, rather than how well he talks, I have to take him with a grain of salt. The only video I can find where he actually plays is that gimmick "no hole cards": video.