Jamdog: OK, regarding theorists. Just pick a book at random and start reading, right?
Doc: It's not the worst way to do it. There isn't a set right or wrong way to play - the game is too complex. so it is good to read widely.
Doc: If you go to Amazon or the like, the popular books are generally the better ones
Jamdog: You mentioned the Lee Jones book last time for beginners. What's so good about that?
Doc: Well I think there are a lot of things but of those that come to mind it is well laid out, the writing style is good (for these type of books!) and the playing style is good.
Jamdog: It won't stretch the newbie too much? I have terrific mental problems and I don't believe in city folk and their book lurning ways.
Doc: No, I think it maintains a good balance between solid play and being accessible for the newcomer. If you can't hack this book, then I'd forget about playing poker seriously.
Jamdog: Ok. Who are the other theorists worth checking out?
Doc: It varies depending on the particular variant, but if we stick to limit poker for now, I'd say Lee Jones' book and then Ed Miller's book are the ones to have.
Jamdog: What are the strengths of Ed Miller's book?
Doc: If you have a really good grasp of Miller's book then you're not going to learn much more about limit poker from a book - you'll need to get into specific hand analysis etc and forums are better than books for that sort of thing.
Miller's book takes into account that players, especially online, play a lot looser in many cases than the players who the 'classic' strategy was developed for. It adjusts the strategy for those situations and is also very good on how strategy should change with the size of the pot - basically you become a lot looser when there is more money on the table it also spends a lot of time on 'the river', which most books don't.
You'll lose more often, but when you win, you win really big.
Jamdog: So it's fine tuning some of the classic theory for real-life gameplay situations?
Doc: Exactly. It also advances the classic theory though but it isn't perfect either. Like a lot of things with Sklansky involved, the writing is weak and it can be a bit didactic at times
but if you follow it religiously you'd make a good deal of money.
Jamdog: In my early games I've been nervous of playing loose in those situations. Is that something I'm going to have to get past?
Doc: In time, but when beginning it is probably better to play tight than loose.
You'll be playing sub-optimally maybe, but still profitably
Jamdog: Do you face tougher decisions when playing loose?
Doc: Definitely - you'll be in more pots and people will become aware that you are doing that and that you don't always have a hand when you bet aggressively
Jamdog: So it's something you do tentatively at first?
Doc: I don't know that I'd put it like that.
Jamdog: Well how would you put it, sunshine?
Doc: I think a successful poker player has to be decisive and aggressive but you'll definitely take a while to master playing that way you'll need to do a fair bit of self-analysis to improve - but that is always the case.
Jamdog: You can be a great football coach without being a great player. Does the same apply to poker theorists?
Doc: I think the answer is no. The reason being that poker is essentially a brain activity - so if you can't do it, you won't be able to explain it.
Jamdog: But couldn't a theorist be brilliant intellectually but lack the personality/character required for gameplay?
Doc: To a small extent maybe, in that they might not be a really top player, but they'd still be very good. but the opposite is far more common - someone who is a very good player, but may not be able to explain it well.
Jamdog: Yes, the Paul Gascoigne syndrome
Doc: To some extent - although I think he has personality problems as much as anything else - I don't know that he is classically stupid.
Jamdog: What about Doyle Brunson? A legend as a player - do his writings match up?
Doc: Brunson - no, he's not a brilliant writer, but he's not bad at all.
But if you read his non-poker stuff about how he lost millions betting on sports etc, it sort of blots his copybook for me.
Jamdog: Millions??
Doc: Apparently.
Jamdog: Yes, the Wayne Rooney syndrome.
Doc: Something like that, except with fewer stolen car radios.
Jamdog: How can you be a top poker player without understanding money management (with reference to Doyle and his losing millions on sports)?
Doc: The only way I can explain it is that he had learnt/hard-wired the necessary knowledge with regard to poker without ever really understanding the theory. It is somewhat incogruous I'll grant you.
And to give Brunson his due, he came back and won his 3rd World Series only a decade or so ago, against a much bigger field, full of 'modern' (i.e. people who do understand the maths) poker players.
Jamdog: Maybe the things that made him a great poker player (aggression, bold moves, trusting his gut instinct) were his downfall as a sport bettor?
Doc: That is possible I suppose. I also I think he may have been somewhat lucky; in the sense that his style of play was optimal for the time at which he was at his peak
Jamdog: True dat. Moving on to other theorists: this Sklansky guy is a genius isn't he?
Doc: No, he's a baldy wanker.
Jamdog: Come on. You're juss jelluss. Nobody matches him for insightful poker theory. A crazyman can see that.
Doc: Again, I think he was lucky with his timing. he was the first to apply science to poker really.
But his writing style is awful, he is an arrogant fuck, and he's not even a particularly good poker player in practice, from what I hear.
Jamdog: He's the GrandMaster Flash of poker theory then
Doc: Well, yeah. If he was starting out now, then no-one would pay any attention. but he got into the area first, so everyone refers to him. Credit to him for that, but I don't think he has evolved since then.
I need to go out shortly. You got any more questions?
Jamdog: Yeah. If you make out with a boy on a first date, will he think you're loose?
Doc: Oh piss off.
Thanks Doc! More poker chat in the next issue.
BBC
