Which order should I read these?

[mblax10]

After having a real good month of poker, I cashed out some money and found a good deal on 5 books I've been wanting to read: Super System, Theory of Poker, Hold em for Advanced Players, Small Stakes Hold em by Ed Miller & No-Limit HE by Mcevoy & Daugherity.

My question is which order should I read these in? I hope to learn a lot from these books, that's why I bought them. Are there one or two books that my play will be able to benefit from quicker than the others.

I'm on the train reading for an hour and a half every day, so it won't take real long for me to read through the lot of these.

[RED_RAIN]

A search in the archives will point you to tons of post since this question usually gets asked a few times a month.

[npc]

Since you asked, my recommendation is:

1. SSH
2. Daugherty and McEvoy
3. HPFAP
4. Super/System
5. Theory of Poker

This is under the assumption that you're not a super experienced player. ToP is a book you really want to read with some significant poker experience under your belt, IMHO.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
Since you asked, my recommendation is:

1. SSH
2. Daugherty and McEvoy
3. HPFAP
4. Super/System
5. Theory of Poker

This is under the assumption that you're not a super experienced player. ToP is a book you really want to read with some significant poker experience under your belt, IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

This list is fine, but Theory of Poker should be first.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since you asked, my recommendation is:

1. SSH
2. Daugherty and McEvoy
3. HPFAP
4. Super/System
5. Theory of Poker

This is under the assumption that you're not a super experienced player. ToP is a book you really want to read with some significant poker experience under your belt, IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

This list is fine, but Theory of Poker should be first.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed

[Mason Malmuth]

mblax10

1. Small Stakes Hold 'em
2. The Theory of Poker
3. Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players
4. Super/System
5. No Limit He

Best wishes,
Mason

[npc]

[ QUOTE ]

This list is fine, but Theory of Poker should be first.

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly disagree. ToP is the finest poker book written, but it's not an easy read. The first time I read it I was not a skilled poker player and got very little out of it. Once I had more experience the book became far more valuable. Now, if the poster doesn't actually need to read a bunch of the books listed then sure, go ahead and read ToP first (in which case maybe only HPFAP is also worth reading for education sake), but for beginners I recommend putting off Theory of Poker until one has more experience.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This list is fine, but Theory of Poker should be first.

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly disagree. ToP is the finest poker book written, but it's not an easy read. The first time I read it I was not a skilled poker player and got very little out of it. Once I had more experience the book became far more valuable. Now, if the poster doesn't actually need to read a bunch of the books listed then sure, go ahead and read ToP first (in which case maybe only HPFAP is also worth reading for education sake), but for beginners I recommend putting off Theory of Poker until one has more experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically what you're saying is that you think someone can handle reading HPFAP before they've read TOP? I'd rethink that idea if that's what you believe.

[cowboyzfan]

Yes, TOP is advanced. That is what happens when you are the greatest book on poker. However, it is the foundation. It makes sense to have a foundation before you build the rest. My amateur opinion is to read TOP, read the advanced hold'em books, and repeat.

I would go

Hold'em Poker
WLLH
TOP
ITH
SSH

the first too teach you to play the game but TOP teaches you the real building blocks you will need to understand to fully grasp texts such as SSH and HPFAP.

I am no authority, just another opinion.

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]

Got money, want books


[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you try this rotation.

1. Middle Limit Hold'em
2. Caro's 12 Days to Hold'em sucess.

And then,

3. SSH
4. Gary Carson Complete Book of Hold'em

[mblax10]

Advice from the author himself. You have to like that. Thank you to everybody else who responded as well.

Mike

[npc]

[ QUOTE ]

So basically what you're saying is that you think someone can handle reading HPFAP before they've read TOP?

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, yes. Certainly that was true in my case.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd rethink that idea if that's what you believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

To each their own.

[Blarg]

I agree that TOP should be first. No question.

However, to the original poster -- I also think Internet Hold'em or even WLLH should be before TOP.

SSHE is NOT a beginner's book, as Ed Miller agrees, and putting it first like Mason does is not doing a whole lot of good for beginning players.

Personally, I read TOP after reading a couple of other books first(I started as a stud player -- thanks Ray Zee and Chip Reese!), and while I agree it's not the easiest book to read first, I think there's no question that even with a bit of experience and a few books in you before you hit TOP, there's no way most people will get everything there is out of TOP their first read anyway. That's one of the great things about TOP and the other 2+2 books. They're too deep and too powerful to just skim or read once and forget about. You'll be going back more than once no matter what, or you're making a big mistake.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
So basically what you're saying is that you think someone can handle reading HPFAP before they've read TOP? I'd rethink that idea if that's what you believe.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

npc, the ideas in TOP are the foundation of HEPFAP and high level poker at whatever stakes you're playing, not vice versa. You're completely putting the cart before the horse.

[npc]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree.

npc, the ideas in TOP are the foundation of HEPFAP and high level poker at whatever stakes you're playing, not vice versa. You're completely putting the cart before the horse.


[/ QUOTE ]

The question I'm addressing is not which book is more fundamental. The question I'm addressing is which book will a developing poker player be able to thoroughly understand first.

It's easier to read and understand "Schrodinger's Cat" than it is to read Goldstein's "Classical Mechanics" even though the physics in the latter is a prerequisite for developing the physics in the former.

I don't believe that poker books should be read in strict dependancy order, otherwise we'd advocate having a true novice read "Theory of Poker" before "Poker for Dummies", "WLLH", or "SSH", and I think most would agree that this would be foolish. My claim is just a less obvious extension of this idea.

[Rudbaeck]

I think it's great to read TOP early. No, you won't digest everything, but no matter how advanced you are you won't digest everything in one read. For a while I basically read TOP and Any Other Book concurrently, constantly refering to stuff in TOP.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's great to read TOP early. No, you won't digest everything, but no matter how advanced you are you won't digest everything in one read. For a while I basically read TOP and Any Other Book concurrently, constantly refering to stuff in TOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be the reason I recommended TOP first as well. Read it, it may make sense, it may not or it may make partial sense. Then, as you move on to other works and continue gaining experience by playing, TOP begins to make more and more sense.

IMO, Theory of Poker should be read every 3 or 4 months as you will continue to learn from this book over and over.