Books and poker

[mandid]

I cant believe what a stink everyone makes over a book, you dont learn how to play good poker from a book in all, if you did then there would not be any winners, yes books are great I have a large poker library mtself, but unless you have great disipline(i cant spell sorry) no book can help you.you realy need a lot of real money game experence(not internet)to become a good player. I think any pro would agree with this?

[EdSchurr]

Why not take advantage of such a resource? Would you rather have to rediscover all of the poker knowledge we have available today while you leak money?

[jdl22]

I agree that you need a lot of experience but there is solid evidence that getting this experience online and minimum experience in a live card room will lead to success. If you wish for evidence of this then notice how many final tables of WSOP events or WPT events this last year feature internet pros with little live play experience. Sure you miss out on some elements of the game but you are able to play several times as many hands in the same period of time to get that experience.

[avatar77]

Mandid,

So who ever said in this forum that books are the be all, end all to poker greatness? No one agrees that reading books only is a substitute for live and/or internet experience.

I am sure everyone here (well, not sure about you) are in this forum because they believe that good books and poker software can help accelerate poker skills advancement while minimizing risk and costs.

A good player supplements his live experience with fundamentals and books is the most time and cost effective way to learn fundamentals.

In less than a year, I have advanced from pure beginner to a reasonably competent low to mid limit player. I did this by reading and watching every poker book and video I can get a hold of, playing Texas Turbo as well as playing online games and B & M low limit games.

I think I have done quite well considering I am a profit player and have not blown my bankroll.

I am absolutely certain that I have saved years of hard knocks experience and a significant amount of money by avoiding common beginner errors - all of which I have learned from books.

Do you really think you can learn to play like Ed Miller, understand pot and implied odds or learn advanced concepts described in TOP by pounding hours at a live game....you would surely lose your bankroll before figuring it out all out.

Think about it, why lose thousands of dollars trying to re-invent the wheel when you can invest $20 to learn from a pro with over 10,000 hours of live play under his belt?

No. Reading books alone will not make you a great player but the money and time spent on them is an investment in your poker career.

Maybe you don't like books because you can't spell.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
you dont learn how to play good poker from a book in all, if you did then there would not be any winners,

[/ QUOTE ]

The second part of this sentence is wrong.

You can learn to play good from a poker book.

However, there will still be winners because:

A - Some people won't read the books
B - Of those who read, some won't understand the books
C - Of those who read and understand, some won't agree with the books
D - Of those who read and understand and agree, some won't follow the books advice when they play
E - Of those who read, understand, agree with and follow the advice, some won't correctly apply the concepts in the books.

[mandid]

All i am saying is that people think if they read a book that all they realy have to do, and playing time is just as inportant. Knowingwhat to do is a lot easeir then doing it!!

[mandid]

Well, the reason that final tables seem to have a internet pros as you call them are becouse they have a lot of sattelits, and they are bye know means pros, I cant tell you that the games i see on the internet have a lot of realy bad players in them

[mandid]

Well avatar77, I cant spell and I put that in my post, I do have a phd in mathematics so I am not stupid I just cant spell, seems that most of you are taking what i said the wrong way, I also see you cant read as I said I have a large poker book library... I said that if it was just reading a few books then there wouldnt been any winners..

[mandid]

Man I guess some people cant read, I said In all. I love books and am the first person to run out and buy them when they hit the shelf, All I was trying to convey is that if all it took was reading a few books then we all would be rich

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
you realy need a lot of real money game experence(not internet)to become a good player. I think any pro would agree with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

As an "internet" player, I respectably disagree. In the few times I've been able to play live, I have felt quite comfortable and have had pretty good success.

[cbragado]

Knowledge doesn't compensate for the huge short term luck factor. And poker books are not going to help against a great player who read the same poker book and knows exactly what the student is trying to do and thwarts him/her. Books give a good foundation for theory, which is a foundation for all games...but it's only a foundation. Not the end all, just the beginning. I like reading the poker books and using them as a tool for further thinking about the game...

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
All I was trying to convey is that if all it took was reading a few books then we all would be rich

[/ QUOTE ]

If everybody who played poker went out and read and understood the better poker books available and applied what they read correctly, then it would be terribly difficult to win in most games.

Luckily 80%+ of the people that play poker haven't read a good poker book, and many of those that have don't really follow what they say to do.

I agree that the vast majority of newbie can't just sit down at a 10/20 game and start winning after reading a few books, but they will certainly be way ahead of where they would have been without them and with a little experience should be ahead of the curve.

[mandid]

Thank you

[peter t 9]

Why would you have to play live for a long time to become a good player? the concepts and strategies are the same if you play live or online

[cbragado]

Hello Nottom,

I agree with you. However, I play 10/20 and I can recognize when a player makes a by the book play. The way to win is to represent a by the book play yourself...

Ex. 10/20 game at an LA card club. I raise with 7,10off. Folded to by the book botton. He calls two bets cold. All fold.
I know that since he's a by the book tight aggro I'll be able to put a play on him.
Flop comes K,Q,3 rainbow. I bet he raises. I call.
Turn Q. I check with the intention of raising, but he checks behind. I'm trying to mimick a bet the flop, check raise the turn move in HPFAP. I know he knows of the play from the book as all average 10/20 players do.
River comes a 5.
I check to get a free showdown with 10 high (j/k). He bets his AK for value which is the only hand I think he can have, and I finally raise.
He asks to see my cards if he folds, I agree...he folds and I show him 10 high...
I represented and AQ with a late position preflop raise, bet the flop and attempted to check raise the turn. He read the S&M play and knew what I was doing...He just didn't know that I knew what he thought he knew and so on..

However without both of us reading the same poker book he would not be able to read my hand and I wouldn't be able to take advantage of his read...

[cbragado]

The concepts and strategies are the same but you have a lot more information to go by when playing live. And you give away more information live. Can't fake or double fake a tell when playing online.

[flapjack]

I think it takes a good mix of experience and studying to be a good player. I can buy a book $30 and spend a month studying it. There is no way to gain experience except putting in the time. I read WLLH, HPFAP, Carson’s book, and one of Krieger books before I ever played a live hand. Needless to say my results weren’t spectacular my first couple sessions. I needed a little experience before I felt comfortable at the table.

I think Internet poker can help but not if you multitalbe. Look at how many internet hands posted here have absolutely no read on their opponents. You can’t get a read on a table when you are only giving it a quarter of your attention. Most decisions in poker depend so much on what you know about the people you are playing with.

Summary: Books and Experience both good. Books easier to get.

[mandid]

The reason is becouse people play vary differnt in casino play, you feel a lot safer in your bed room playing then you do face to face. and the reason I say you cant learn as much is becouse the quality of internet players is not that good

[Sarge85]

Not to sound curt -

But why reinvent the wheel?

Sarge/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[Nottom]

Your opponent in this hand played his hand like a chump ... as any good poker book would tell you.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
Your opponent in this hand played his hand like a chump ... as any good poker book would tell you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong -- I'm very inexperienced at any type of limit play.

I agree with you on the opponent's play though. Is the logic that his oppenent should have bet the turn after his check? My thought is that if you'll bet the river and fold to a check-raise there, then you're better off doing that on the turn to push any non-Q hand out so they don't catch. If you're going to fold to someone representing a Q on the river, then you can just as easily fold to their raise on the turn.

- UW

[Nottom]

Opponent should have 3-bet preflop and folding the river is just stupid.

[uw_madtown]

I agree with the 3-bet preflop, and I'd think you have to make the crying call at the river -- although if his read that cbrag is by the book is correct, then it may be a good fold. Most players though, I'm calling the river.

But am I right, that if he was going to fold to a check-raised river, he should have bet out on the turn and folded to a check-raise there?

- UW

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Knowingwhat to do is a lot easeir then doing it!!

[/ QUOTE ]
I think most people lose because they often don't know what to do; not because they have massive tilt problems.

[cbragado]

I think his river bet is a value bet after checking the scary turn card. I showed weakness by checking. I think it would have been better for him to bet the turn as well. I would have then had a hard time putting a play on him. He played the hand cautiously and made what he thought to be a good fold. Raising as a pure bluff on the final card is not a high percentage play and the pot odds may not have justified calling a passive ABC player...

[La Brujita]

One of my pet peeves is when people accuse good book learned poker players of "playing by the book" as if that is a bad thing.

When I play "by the book" I try to vary my game and bluff with the correct frequency.

Best regards

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
I do have a phd in mathematics so I am not stupid

[/ QUOTE ]

I know nothing about you, so this is purely an anecdotal description of my only limited experience, but I knew a quite a few guys who have Ph.D.'s in math, and while they are good at figuring out complicated formulas, they are also some of the dumbest sons of bitches I've ever met. Not one goddam drop of common sense. I've always thought that the fact that they spent their early adulthood (20-25) in a university, forgoing the real the real world experience of actually getting a job and being a productive member of society, prevented them from completing the maturing process necessary to have a complete grip on reality. Add to that to the fact that they can point to a piece of paper that they feel means "certified genius", and you've got some cockiest idiots you've ever met. At least rugby players know they are dumb (relax Britian/Ireland/Europe/etc, you have meet some of the rugby meatheads here in the US).

But then again, I don't know too much. I only have a bacheloer's degree (from SJU, no less!).

Anyhooo, I can't remember one single instance on these forums where someone seriously claimed that they could read a book and automatically become better without real experience. In fact, just about every book I've read had the warning in it somewhere along the lines of "reading this book alone will not make you good, you have to practice a lot too". I imagine you've probably come across this phenomenon too in your own "large poker book library".

Regarding the idea that internet pros are not real pros, the internet pros probably make a hell of a lot more that most B&M pros (constant availability of good games, more hands/hour, multitabling, etc), so I don't think they really care what they are called. Money is money, regardless of who you have to beat up for it.

moondogg
BS MAT, BS CSC, period.

[mandid]

Hi MOOn, I agree with you, money is money, but all i am saying is that the quality of players on the Net seems to me to be vary poor, an excerpt for SSH(people are eaasly making 50.000k a year on the net) i have been watching many people play and they suck. I think what is hapining is people aere interested in poker but have never played and they go out and aget a few books and think all gee I can play on the net ohh whooo. All I am saying is there nothing quite like real life experiences..

[cbragado]

I've been playing poker since I was in high school gambling with a loose agrro style. Reading poker books have helped me add theoretical knowledge to my game when I was in college. I think of myself as a person who has gained knowledge from reading books just like you. However, Sklansky writes in PG&L about the differences between ABC players and players who do not use books. Further in PE1 by MM he writes about becoming a great player, which involves placing yourself in difficult situations and being able to handle the increasing complexity. Learning poker fundamentals through books is great, but placing yourself in complex experiences and surviving is the only way to become a great player.

EX. Holdem hand rankings vs. intrinsic value of hands gained through experience...I was arguing about the problems with a pair of queens in no limit holdem with a coworker. He believes that it's the third best hand at all times...but there are situations were queens can be trouble. From my experience QQ is a gulf away from AA & KK in NLH cash games. I know what QQ is ranked but if there is a bet and a raise from some tight agro players pre flop, the value of the QQ's diminishes. Maybe not even worth a call, it depends. On many factors. Factors that my coworker doesn't consider...Only experience and unique situations would give him an understanding of the changing value of QQ. Position, Betting Action, Player types, Stack Sizes, Pot Odds, Implied Odds, etc. Theory can give an understanding but only experience would aid in the right mix of considerations to make the correct decision.

[Blarg]

I think it can be more complicated than that, though. There are a lot of things to consider in poker hands, though it sometimes doesn't seem so when you've played a long time and things are going as expected.

For the newer players especially, though, having knowledge and being able to call it to mind quickly are two very different things. It's very hard to integrate a lot of new things at a time for most everyone. Read a detailed hold'em book and then go face situations you're not used to or maybe have never seen at all, and a new player with all the books memorized might still make many errors.

It can be difficult to overcome jitteriness or lack of self-confidence(one of the key things that comes with time and experience). And until you're really used to the routine of integrating necessary knowledge quickly under pressure, you're bound to skip the utilization of bits and pieces of your knowledge.

Get that new player and put him on multiple internet tables at once, and his ability to apply his knowledge can be even further diminished, to the point where he might really be considering only the most basic things and letting the rest slip by without even realizing it.

Anyway, as the saying goes, there's many a slip twixt cup and lip. Lots of people know a ton of stuff they never wind up being able to put into action, and poker is no different. Being such a high-pressure, ego-laden endeavor, it's probably worse.