TOP for beginners?

[tonybormin]

Yesterday I was at my local Barnes & Noble and while browsing picked up a copy of Theory of Poker. I had some time to kill so I ordered a coffee, sat down and read the first few chapters. Not five minutes into reading it a man walked up to me and stated "Supersystem is a better book, you need a Doctorite in Calculus to understand that one." And a few chapters in I understood what he was saying. Now I've often thought I was pretty good at math, but I did get lost while he was trying to explain his expected value concepts. I only read the first four chapters before I had to leave. I have read frequently on this board that no poker player is really a poker player before he reads this book. But is it a book that a beginner can really understand fully? I know that one should reread their book material several times over at different stages in their poker career before they get a full grasp on everything presented. However should material like this be suggested to a beginning player? I've been playing heavily for a few years now and was still confused by the reading. Suggestions???

[Evan]

I wouldn't reccomend it as a first book. Most people would have a hard enough time understanding WLLH let alone TOP.

That being said if you've been playing "heavily for years" you still don't need to read it. If you're serious about the game though, read it, reread it and repeat until it's so worn out that you need a new copy.

[Blarg]

I agree with Evan. It's a fantastic book, but giving it to a beginner would probably just discourage him and make him feel dumb, or at least that the people he plays are much smarter than they really are.

It's a great book to read when you're ready, and then come back to again and again when the time seems right. I'd read at least one very solid book first and experiment playing for a good long while, trying out ideas and getting comfortable. Then you'll be more prepared to appreciate and see the value of TOP. Most people will miss some of the subtleties the first time around, or more, or just somehow get less out of it than they possibly could. But re-reading it can be very rewarding. It's not the kind of thing to give away or sell once you've given it a few tries or even feel you have down cold.

I think it's an exceptionally good book, but could easily either throw a beginner off his confidence or just go over his head.

I don't think Super/System is a better book, by the way. Even though I read that one first. I think TOP is about as good as it can get really, though not nearly as entertaining. /images/graemlins/wink.gif Pretty dry stuff, but that's the breaks. Sometimes you have to pay a price to learn.

[wayabvpar]

The best thing you can do with any good poker book is to read it and play as often as you can (both while reading it and afterwards). Once you begin to see the same situations appear time and again that are mentioned in the book, things really start to make sense. When you go back to reread it later, you will absorb much more of it than the first time through.

Just studying poker books without any practical experience is of pretty limited value. Kind of like reading cookbooks and never setting foot in a kitchen. Theory is great, but the ability to apply theory to real life is where the real action is.

[Blarg]

Yeah, exactly. It's pretty hard to even be any kind of judge on whether you understand the material in the first place if you haven't seen whether you an apply it yet. Being book-smart in poker is kinda like testing for your black belt but only passing the written.

[mrbaseball]

You won't really grasp TOP until you read it and then play some. And then read it and then play some more. And then read it again and play even more again.

But eventually it will make tons of sense to you. But typically only if coupled with lots of experience and lots of rereads.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
... Not five minutes into reading it a man walked up to me and stated "Supersystem is a better book, you need a Doctorite in Calculus to understand that one." And a few chapters in I understood what he was saying. Now I've often thought I was pretty good at math, but I did get lost while he was trying to explain his expected value concepts. I only read the first four chapters before I had to leave. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread hits home because i'm a beginner who just received Theory along with Zee's split book in the mail yesterday. From this post i was expecting the EV part of ToP to be more confusing than i found it. But in fairness, i'm not really new to the concepts. (I was an econ major and one of the few people who actually liked my college stats class; i remember a few poker hands appearing on the final exam).

Given that it's a little bit of hyperbole to say you need a PhD to read Theory, i certainly can see how it would be confusing for someone not used to the concept of EV. Did the coin flip example make sense to you? Perhaps if you post where you started to lose track of what Sklansky was saying, we can help find another way to explain it that will make sense to you.

Incidentally, i expected Sklansky's writing to be a whole lot worse than it is; i actually found it pretty good there (but HEPFAP is still hard for me).

[djack]

[ QUOTE ]
But is it a book that a beginner can really understand fully? I know that one should reread their book material several times over at different stages in their poker career before they get a full grasp on everything presented.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I had a friend who wanted to become a serious poker player and was willing to put in the necessary studying time, then I would recommend he start with TOP.

But you definitely need some playing experience to get the most out of TOP.

On the whole though, I wouldn't recommend TOP as a first book.