Books - The Verdicts

Culchie

Just about finished Super System 2 from Doyle Brunson (skipped Omaha section, not ready for Bingo yet) ... but I have to say I'm very very disappointed with it.

There is nothing really in it so far, that has made the purchase worthwhile.
There's a good 'limit' section by some bird, and Mike Caro has some good input, but Brunson's contribution on No Limit (the reason I bought the book) is poor.

Not a patch on Harrington on Hold Em, which is an excellent book, with many many examples to illustrate his thinking.

Next up is Zen and the Art of Poker.

OhPinchy

I'm reading Super System 2 at the moment and have pretty much jumped straight to the No Limit Holdem section and will read Caro's stuff after that. Have to say I haven't got anything out of it so far. I'm still a relative novice so it should be easy for me to learn from a book, but I just don't like the style of it at all. Its easier to read than Sklanskys stuff but at least in that I come away with actually having learned something practical - e.g. how to calculate pot odds, semi-bluffs etc.

On that note.....if anyone wants to buy an almost new copy of the truly wonderful Super System 2 just gimme a shout.

ionapaul

Yep, I'll buy it when you're done.

Culchie

OhPinchy wrote:

On that note.....if anyone wants to buy an almost new copy of the truly wonderful Super System 2 just gimme a shout.

Oh yea, that's what i meant to say as well.

2nd Super System Book available if anyone is interested.

karlh

and a 3rd!

henbane

Tenner anyone? (Since it seems to be a buyers market)

Hitman Actual

I'm kinda interested in buying a copy, but I have a couple of copies of the original. Anyone read both versions? Is there much difference between the two?

Culchie

As Brunson himself says.... I looked at what I wrote 20 years ago and said " Man, that was good " ..... which probably was ground breaking at that time.

Back then, publication of any Poker thoery, never mind from a world champion was indeed a rare nugget of information.
Now we can all access info in different ways, internet, magazines etc.... and of course we can play 24/7 on-line as well ... the learning curve is far shorter than it was back then, and information easily accessible.

I don't think the book has anything that I haven't read before, whilst I found Harringtons book excellent.

I think Brunson has decided to cash in on his name (fair play to him) while he can and put his book out and ride the poker craze wave.
He pushes Doylesroom.com hard enough to suggest that anyway, which is identical to PPP and VC.

LordJimbo

If anyone is selling a copy of the original Super System PM Me...

Lafortezza

The PL Omaha section in SS2 is actually pretty good, better than the rest of the book by any means. Bingo it ain't, goldmine would be a better word..

Culchie

Bingo ... joke

jtsuited

I'm just finished SS2 and to be honest I found pretty decent. however Brunson's NL Holdem section is not very versatile in that there's one theme runnin through it, Aggression aggression, aggression.
I particularly liked his explanation of why he'd call all-in on an open-ended straight draw and back door flush draw when he knows his opponent has TPTK, when the pot odds aren't compensating enough. Thoroughly worth a read if you want to see why this man has become as rich as he has.
Theory of Poker's good for the maths nerds that live inside us all.
Anyone know what that that Tournament Holdem is like. hodges Figgis do be stocking it and i was thinkin of a there purchase.

Dub13

I agree about SS2 it was a bit of a let down.Brunson's tactics are fine in a cash game when you have a HUGE bankroll then its fine to play very aggressive,but in tournament's you have to get the chips first which is a whole different ball game.

Also not much on short stack play in the book,and as we all know short stack play is very important in the modern game

Culchie

IMO, Brunsons tactics of calling all-ins with straight draws, is simply based on his huge bankroll.
He talks about 'small' games of guys having $6000 in front of them.

He keeps talking about 'Breaking opponents' ... meaning he will call anything as long as he has outs, regardless of the odds......if he can 'break' his opponent.

I don't agree ....then again, I'm not a WSOP world champ ...

It's like the good old days in the Westerns where whoevers got the highest bankroll will break the other guy, cos the small guy can't pay enough to see the cards.

I can see some logic in what he says, he will of course break opponents if he call regardless of odds, but he is playing against the odds, so surely he'll lose in the long run ?? .... but then it niggles at you, well He is Doyle Brunson, so he must be right.