Theory of Poker-- Not to useful

[captZEEbo1]

A little background for me first. I've been playing for about 1 year now. Up until the past 3 months, I've almost exclusively played NL tournaments (mostly SNGSs), except the ocassional dabble in limit. I then switched completely over to limit recently and now play between $2/4 to $5/10 (6max).

Right from the beginning, I'd read some stuff on the internet to get stuff about odds. Not knowing much about poker books, I decided to get Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players. This book proved to be not tremendously useful to my NL game, but did give me some good ideas of plays to make (after I applied them to NL). When I started to play limit a little more, I reread Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players. Some of the plays made more sense, and I appreciated the book more. Then about a month ago, I read Small Stakes Hold 'em. This gave me many new ideas to be a little more aggressive than I was and different ideas for raising preflop. The biggest help to my game was likely the section on playing overcards.

Now I just finished Theory of Poker, and I can't say that it's going to help my game at all. There really isn't anything in here that I didn't already know. The most interesting part of the book to me was pp. 182-183 where they take an unprofitable situation (24:18 underdog) and make it a profitable situation (23:19 favorite) by adding x amount of cards to bluff with, even if you TELL your opponent the strategy. That was pretty interesting, but not direclty applicable to my game. The part that was most useful to me was probably the part on pp. 270-272 where they discuss "Types of Mistake" opponent makes and "Best Strategy" (for eg. Type of Mistake: Bluffs too much, Best Strategy: Induce a bluff, then call). So I guess I got something out of the book. But most of the book was so fundamental to me, that the sections proved to me not too helpful (oooh, semi-bluff? there's a novel idea! Free card? lemme try that one out!!!). I'd recommend this book to Poker n00bs and not to people who've read other good books on poker and have been playing for awhile. When I hear people saying they've read and reread this book a dozen times, I'm completely baffled. What on earth are they getting out of the book each time that they didn't already know? My guess is that they are spending TOO much time reading and not enough time on the poker tables learning for themselves and practicing themselves. Overall Small Stakes Hold 'em proved to be the most useful book to me for improving my game.

My main questions are:
(1). BACKGROUND: It'd be helpful (to me, at least) to see what books you've read and perhaps what order. And also, how experienced are you in the game you play and what game you play.

(2). BEST PART OF THE BOOK: What are your favorite/most useful sections of the book?

(3). RERADING TOP: When you RE-read Theory of Poker, what stuff do you get out of it that you didn't get the first time?

(4). HELPFUL: How helpful do you think reading Theory of Poker has been to your game?

[steamboatin]

Blind People don't think the Grand Canyon is all that.

[steamboatin]

Rainbows, blind people don't seem to appreciate rainbows.

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been playing for about 1 year now. Up until the past 3 months, I've almost exclusively played NL tournaments (mostly SNGSs), except the ocassional dabble in limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based upon that amazing amount of experience, you probably do already know everything and shouldn't expect to learn much from a book.

I am going to start calling this Sklansky's Razor. If a relatively new player reads TOP and doesn't get it, does it mean the book isn't very helpful and the relatively new player could learn more on his own or is the relatively new player clueless?
[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that they are spending TOO much time reading and not enough time on the poker tables learning for themselves and practicing themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

[captZEEbo1]

Glad you've put so much into a thoughtful response!

[ QUOTE ]
Based upon that amazing amount of experience, you probably do already know everything and shouldn't expect to learn much from a book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I know I'm not ULTRA experienced or anything, but I do feel I have learned most everything from TOP already. Is that so wickely impossible? That after reading tons about poker, through about 6 different books, and lots of time on forums and other strategy sites that I have figured out the necessary conditions for a check-raise? Is it that weird that I have figured out the power of the semi-bluff? I'm not saying that I figured out every poker concept without the aid of Sklansky, I'm saying after reading SSH, HPFAP, and 2+2 forums that there was a very little amount of poker concepts to be learned.

What part of TOP didn't I get?

[That guy]

TOP is a classic. Although nearly all 2+2 books are great, this one was actually well-written too.

Theory of Poker preaches the core fundamentals of poker. If you don't find that useful, then you are probably just not thinking about poker correctly. Saving a few bets here and gaining a few extra bets there is what limit poker is all about. Each situation is different and requires thinking. 'By explaining the logic of poker, the book will, I hope, show the reader what kinds of things to think about in order to become a better player.'

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]
Theory of Poker preaches the core fundamentals of poker. If you don't find that useful, then you are probably just not thinking about poker correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

So let's say Chip Reese reads Theory of Poker for the first time today. He finds nothing particularly helpful. Are you saying that he is not thinking about poker correctly? I'm obviously not Chip Reese, but that's just an exagerrated example.
______________________________________

Please be specific as to where TOP actually improved your game. I'm not just being a dick. I honestly want to see what I'm missing, as I suspect I am missing out on something. I feel like with everyone saying how good of a read this book is, that I must have missed something big. I just found that TOP did not say really any concept that I had not already come across in another form of reading or thinking about the game.

[the_joker]

"Game Theory and Bluffing" chapter - I don't think this is covered in the other books and probably not something you'd come up with on your own from experience.

[That guy]

TOP inspired me. TOP made the game much more logical to me...

How it specifically helped me?
the art of 'adjusting outs' for the situation
psychology of getting drawn out on
'imaginary outs' and randomized bluffs
inducing overcalls vs re-raising
playing vs weaker players

just generally helped me understand the game. what is not helpful about that?

I agree that the book is not a specific hand analyis type of book (which by the way are very useful in my opinion). But that was the point of this book... to make you think at a higher level and give a roadmap for all the technical poker you need to learn to be good...

[As Zehn]

Ah grasshopper, at what point does the raindrop cease being a raindrop and become part of the lake? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[That guy]

So let's say Chip Reese reads Theory of Poker for the first time today. He finds nothing particularly helpful. Are you saying that he is not thinking about poker correctly?

If Chip Reese read the book (which I would think very likely that he has), I could almost guarantee that he would recommend it to others. David Sklansky is extremely well-respected in poker circles. Many pros list TOP as the best book on the market.

Chip Reese already understands everything in the book I am sure... If Michael Jordan went to John Wooden basketball camp, I am sure he would respect what was being taught and agree with it and probably pick up a thing or two...

[That guy]

"If one really wishes to be master of an art, technical knowledge of it is not enough. One has to transcend technique so that the art becomes an 'artless art' growing out of the Unconscious" Daisetz T. Suzuki

[rmr1976]

Taking everything you say is true, it only shows that you understand how NL Hold 'Em game is played under current rules. But suppose some player you don't think is any good challenges you to another game, or a slight modification of Hold 'Em? Are you going to accept or decline?

For example, what is appropriate strategy for the "rock" game version of Limit Hold 'Em?

In this game, there are still 2 blinds, but the winner of the pot has to post the big blind. If the small blind manages to win the pot, there is only the big blind to start the next round.

Is this a good structure for Hold 'Em? Would you play? How would you play it?

The Theory of Poker is essential if you want to play good POKER, and not just good Hold 'Em.

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]
So let's say Chip Reese reads Theory of Poker for the first time today. He finds nothing particularly helpful. Are you saying that he is not thinking about poker correctly?

If Chip Reese read the book (which I would think very likely that he has), I could almost guarantee that he would recommend it to others. David Sklansky is extremely well-respected in poker circles. Many pros list TOP as the best book on the market.

Chip Reese already understands everything in the book I am sure... If Michael Jordan went to John Wooden basketball camp, I am sure he would respect what was being taught and agree with it and probably pick up a thing or two...

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said I don't respect the book (or even implied, I hope), because I do. And I WOULD recomend the book to others, as I'm sure many poker pros do too. But assuming Barry Greenstein has not read Theory of Poker, I highly doubt that Chip Reese would recommend that Barry Greenstein MUST read the book so he could improve his game. And I'm sure Michael Jordan would mostly agree with everything being taught at the basketball camp, but he is not necessarily learning anything new. And he is not recommending that other top seasoned veterans MUST attend this camp to improve their game.

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]

How it specifically helped me?
the art of 'adjusting outs' for the situation
psychology of getting drawn out on
'imaginary outs' and randomized bluffs
inducing overcalls vs re-raising
playing vs weaker players

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds familiar....I read all that in SSH and HPFAP.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
The Theory of Poker is essential if you want to play good POKER, and not just good Hold 'Em.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Good post.

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]
Taking everything you say is true, it only shows that you understand how NL Hold 'Em game is played under current rules. But suppose some player you don't think is any good challenges you to another game, or a slight modification of Hold 'Em? Are you going to accept or decline?

For example, what is appropriate strategy for the "rock" game version of Limit Hold 'Em?

In this game, there are still 2 blinds, but the winner of the pot has to post the big blind. If the small blind manages to win the pot, there is only the big blind to start the next round.

Is this a good structure for Hold 'Em? Would you play? How would you play it?

The Theory of Poker is essential if you want to play good POKER, and not just good Hold 'Em.

[/ QUOTE ]

This example seems a little contrived. How about I challenge YOU to a triple flop Hold 'em with 4 blinds and two jokers? Would you accept? According to your logic, since you have read Theory of Poker, you should accept. That would be silly to accept though. Let's say I play all day every day doing this game, and I have a fundamental understanding of all the intricacies of it. If you have never played it before, you won't offhand know all the adjustments to be made from your normal poker game. You'd have to look into it, think about it, read about it. Until then, you can sit out and play one of 1,000 hold'em tables available to you right now, or you can play a slightly less profitable, version of the rock game.

I mean making the adjustments to certain games is not terribly complicated. Before reading Theory of Poker (b/c I have just recently finished), I have played 7card stud, stud hi/lo, omaha hi/lo, PL omaha hi/lo, 2-7 triple draw, A-5 triple draw, heads up limit hold'em tournys, heads up NL hold'em tournys, heads up PL omaha tournys, etc....I've had success at all of them (some much more than others). I don't think Theory of Poker would be the weighing difference in all the games. I mean whether you read "the free card" concept in TOP or HPFAP, does it really matter? It's pretty obvious that these same concepts apply to other games as well; I don't have to read it in a general poker book to know that I can apply it to general poker games.

[Beavis68]

I think the biggest problem with TOP is that most of the concpets in the book have become common place and are incorporated in to other books. SSH does a great job with most key concpets. Also, many of the concepts may not be valuable to all games, or all players depending on skills and strenghts.

I think of TOP as a fill in the gaps book for players once they have achieved a certain level of play.

Also, there will be diminishing returns on new poker books, the more you read, the less you will get from each new book.

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the biggest problem with TOP is that most of the concpets in the book have become common place and are incorporated in to other books. SSH does a great job with most key concpets. Also, many of the concepts may not be valuable to all games, or all players depending on skills and strenghts.

I think of TOP as a fill in the gaps book for players once they have achieved a certain level of play.

Also, there will be diminishing returns on new poker books, the more you read, the less you will get from each new book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you voiced my opinion perfectly.

[rmr1976]

[ QUOTE ]
This example seems a little contrived. How about I challenge YOU to a triple flop Hold 'em with 4 blinds and two jokers? Would you accept? According to your logic, since you have read Theory of Poker, you should accept.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you should re-read TOP again. You make an assumption that a person who has read this would accept your challenge in such a wild game. Actually, I wouldn't.

The game you propose has such a huge amount of luck involved, I doubt any skill at poker would be useful in such a game. I suspect most other 2+2 players wouldn't accept it either.

You say my example is a bit contrived. Other poker players don't think so, as this was a variation of hold 'em played in casinos that several 2+2 authors have played in.

I'm not that creative. I picked this variation out of a book to see how you would respond.

Understanding TOP is essential if you want to maximize your edge in a home game. If you play dealer's choice, what game are you going to pick? If you are equally good at Seven Stud and Hold 'Em, and your opponents are equally bad at either game, what is the better one to pick? Which gives you a bigger edge? Do you pick a spread limit or a structured limit game? Why?

You still haven't answered how you would adjust to the game I described. You answered with an irrelevant reply: "I've played these games, and have been successful..."

Before I judge your skill, I'd like to know how many hands you have played in each game, and at what limit. If you play online, you should have SOME records of this.

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]
The game you propose has such a huge amount of luck involved, I doubt any skill at poker would be useful in such a game. I suspect most other 2+2 players wouldn't accept it either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly there must be SOME skill to this game I made up.
There's skill at craps, there's skill at most forms of gambling.

I know your the "rock" game isn't contrived, but being in a situation where I couldn't find a better hold'em game is.

[ QUOTE ]
Understanding TOP is essential if you want to maximize your edge in a home game. If you play dealer's choice, what game are you going to pick? If you are equally good at Seven Stud and Hold 'Em, and your opponents are equally bad at either game, what is the better one to pick? Which gives you a bigger edge? Do you pick a spread limit or a structured limit game? Why?

[/ QUOTE ]
Dunno, If I'm equally good at everything at they're equally bad at everything, then the biggest +EV the game that yields the most hands per hour or the game that keeps everyone happiest (and chip-spewing), no? Spread limit would probably give me the biggest edge as I could exploit pot odds better, I imagine.

[ QUOTE ]
You still haven't answered how you would adjust to the game I described. You answered with an irrelevant reply:

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know exactly how I would adjust my game. Probably call more as the rock (more implied odds), raise to steal blinds less. Speculative hands like suited connectors/ small pp's go down. Although I could just read the 2+2 magazine and continue pointing out differences.

[ QUOTE ]
Before I judge your skill, I'd like to know how many hands you have played in each game, and at what limit. If you play online, you should have SOME records of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have data on a lot of it, but I'm about 2bb/100 for the limit poker I have on (still fixing some leaks) for about 10k hands (including limits from $2/4 to $5/10 hold'em, can't think off hand what they were at individual levels). As for sngs, I was about 45% on the $10+1s (over about 400), 35% on the $20+2s (over about 400), 25% on the $30+3s (over about 150-200), and about 13% on the $50+5s (over about 100). Not great, but what can you do? I didn't keep hardly any data on the other games I played, b/c they were just for fun as I was mostly playing lowest limits possible ($5 sngs, .05/.10 PL omaha, .5/1 stud & stud hi/lo and omaha, some .25/.5 stud hi/lo 2-7 and A-5), but they were all profitable. Most of my loss of EV is due to long sessions and bluffing too much...both leaks I'm working on presently working on.

[bigmac366]

how about effective odds? i dont recall reading that in ssh or hepfap? reading this chapter has kept me from making many -ev calls without even realizing they were -ev. i cant really think of anything else right now, i'm on vacation and didnt bring top with me.

[Stormwolf]

'HU on the end' is a pretty good chapter on TOP, not sure why you didnt liked it

[KenProspero]

Captain:

I'm sorry to come to this party late.

I'm not going to argue with your assumption, that you already know everything in TOP. If it's correct, I'm sure that you're crushing the games you're playing in, and don't need this book.

If, like most of the rest of us, you still feel you have a lot to learn, you'll probably be well-served by reading TOP. If nothing else, the review won't do you any harm.

[BradleyT]

So sell it for $15 on eBay and move on.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
So sell it for $15 on eBay and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes...

especially the second part.

[TransientR]

Saying a negative word about TOP here is like denouncing the Bible at a Baptist convention...:).

You could take Devilfish's advice - if you want to improve, stop reading Sklansky. But that might have been tongue-in-cheek humor on Ulliot's part.

Frank

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]
There's skill at craps, there's skill at most forms of gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

No skill in craps, that's why the make you bounce it off the back, so you can't control the roll of the dice. There may be an optimum strategy so you lose less but there is no skill in craps.

If you don't even understand that, I can't help but think, you are not as well informed as you would like us to believe.

I am not posting anymore in this thread because your mind is tightly closed. You are absolutely convinced you are right and nothing, I or any of the posters have said has shaken your convictions.

FWIW, the downswing is coming, get ready.

[byronkincaid]

[ QUOTE ]
so you can't control the roll of the dice.

[/ QUOTE ]


Stanford Wong would disagree with that statement. Whose mind is tightly closed again?

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's skill at craps, there's skill at most forms of gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

No skill in craps, that's why the make you bounce it off the back, so you can't control the roll of the dice. There may be an optimum strategy so you lose less but there is no skill in craps.

If you don't even understand that, I can't help but think, you are not as well informed as you would like us to believe.

I am not posting anymore in this thread because your mind is tightly closed. You are absolutely convinced you are right and nothing, I or any of the posters have said has shaken your convictions.

FWIW, the downswing is coming, get ready.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to the optimum strategy in craps, by no means do I think it's a beatable game.

I sure hope a downswing doesn't come :-D

And sorry if I came off sounding like a complete dick in this thread. I probably am too stubborn to change my mind, but I was just curious as to what kinds of things everyone is getting out of this book on rereads, because I didn't get too much out of it on my first read (having already read the material in other books or on the forum, or through my own thinking of the game).

[TheNoodleMan]

Did it ever occur to you that the reason you may not have learned anything "NEW" from TOP is that the other poker books you have read are based on the foundations set down by Sklansky? Most of the poker books out today are just slick re-packaging of existing information.
Despite the above, I think it more likely that you are just missing the boat entirely. If you can't learn anything by re-reading TOP, then you shouldn't bother reading anything about poker at all because you are obviously not too receptive to information.
Bashing TOP makes as much sense as joining the flat earth society.

[cowboyzfan]

[ QUOTE ]
Did it ever occur to you that the reason you may not have learned anything "NEW" from TOP is that the other poker books you have read are based on the foundations set down by Sklansky? Most of the poker books out today are just slick re-packaging of existing information.
Despite the above, I think it more likely that you are just missing the boat entirely. If you can't learn anything by re-reading TOP, then you shouldn't bother reading anything about poker at all because you are obviously not too receptive to information.
Bashing TOP makes as much sense as joining the flat earth society.

[/ QUOTE ]

What he said.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Your post reminded me of the frequent complaint: "Shakespeare is full of cliches." They became cliches because people quoted him so often.

You have heard of many of these concepts precisely because David defined and explained them in TOP.

Regards,

Al

[slavic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the biggest problem with TOP is that most of the concpets in the book have become common place and are incorporated in to other books. SSH does a great job with most key concpets. Also, many of the concepts may not be valuable to all games, or all players depending on skills and strenghts.

I think of TOP as a fill in the gaps book for players once they have achieved a certain level of play.

Also, there will be diminishing returns on new poker books, the more you read, the less you will get from each new book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you voiced my opinion perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

So by this opinion works by Euler, Newton, Taylor, McLoran, Rheiman are all useless now?

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]
Did it ever occur to you that the reason you may not have learned anything "NEW" from TOP is that the other poker books you have read are based on the foundations set down by Sklansky? Most of the poker books out today are just slick re-packaging of existing information.
Despite the above, I think it more likely that you are just missing the boat entirely. If you can't learn anything by re-reading TOP, then you shouldn't bother reading anything about poker at all because you are obviously not too receptive to information.
Bashing TOP makes as much sense as joining the flat earth society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it DID occur to me, and that was the premise of my opinion to being with. I NEVER said the concepts in TOP are wrong, boring, or useless. All I was saying is that the concepts presented in here aren't very useful IF you have already read blah blah blah.

I was hoping that I didn't miss the boat entirely, but it's possible.

Is everyone at this forum's opinion is that the ONLY way to learn Geometry is to read and study the original Euclid's Elements and things like that? Is it not plausible to learn his concepts through different reprintings and reworkings? If you've already read all the reworkings of it, do you still deem it vital to read Euclid's Elements to understand Geometry? Maybe everyone on this thread does.

Sorry if I've offended every Sklansky fan here, didn't mean to. I like him too, you know, as I've read a lot of his work and 2+2's work.

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How it specifically helped me?
the art of 'adjusting outs' for the situation
psychology of getting drawn out on
'imaginary outs' and randomized bluffs
inducing overcalls vs re-raising
playing vs weaker players

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds familiar....I read all that in SSH and HPFAP.

[/ QUOTE ]

errrr...repeated in SSH and HPFAP.

[johnnybeef]

I will just list the first five things that immediately come to mind as there are too many things that i have learned from TOP:

1. checkraising works best when you act in front of an agressive opponent.

2. the definition of expectation.

3. the concept of pot odds.

4. the power of semibluffing

5. how to read hands

this is only but a short list of what TOP has taught me. I am eternally greatful to Mr. Sklansky for putting this into print as it has allowed me to play a game that I love for a living.

Lovin life,
Johnny

[DMBFan23]

The two things that jump out in my mind as having helped me are:

-there's a difference between playing a hand correctly from an FTOP standpoint and correctly from an imperfect information standpoint (this has helped me a TON in thinking about my game away from the table, both in terms of how to play my hands in order to induce FTOP mistakes and how to play hands correctly regardless/in light of potential FTOP mistakes.)

-the second is a corrolary of the first, but I felt much more comfortable folding to raises postflop and some such after reading TOP. from a theoretical standpoint. Less often now when I fold to a raise do I believe I got bluffed off the best hand.

I'm sure there are a billion other things that help me subconsciously

[amulet]

i am schocked by this post. i am not even sure how to properly address the post. all i can really say is that i think theory of poker is the best poker book ever written, and a MUST for all players. maybe you should read it again?

[jlpadge21]

[ QUOTE ]
So by this opinion works by Euler, Newton, Taylor, McLoran, Rheiman are all useless now?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't even think about reading these books in this day and age. I'm almost positive I would not understand the language used. Don't be pretentious. This is a bad example, because by now these books are a relative waste of time to read, unless you are trying to dredge up something for an obcure PHD paper or something. TOP should not be recommended to beginners, just like you wouldn't recommend Newton to beginners. I also didn't find TOP so useful, not because I knew everything, but because it is easier for me to pick up by example rather than by theory.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
Your post reminded me of the frequent complaint: "Shakespeare is full of cliches." They became cliches because people quoted him so often.

You have heard of many of these concepts precisely because David defined and explained them in TOP.

Regards,

Al

[/ QUOTE ]



Dr. Al gets a cookie for ripping off my exact post before I could make it. Kudos -- and warnings.

Seriously, though, this is precisely the point. I am confident that 2+2 is the finest poker publisher in existence and one of their keystone books is Theory of Poker. I don't know their sales figures and it's certainly not my business, but I can't imagine that this isn't one of their more successful titles.

Lately much of the talk, sure, is about Small Stakes Hold 'em and now even more recently Dan Harrington's phenomenal NL tourney tutorial, but we must never forget the foundation, and that is The Theory of Poker.

Perhaps if one is exposed to all of the other 2+2 books first, one will get less from it than just coming into it a 2+2 virgin (okay, that's a moniker that certainly won't catch on), but you still will get something out of it.

I've read everything 2+2 has on the market multiple times. I STILL reread Theory of Poker -- and it's not like I have a reading comprehension problem. Brushing up on basics and mining the fields ALWAYS is +EV.

Read it again -- do yourself the favor.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Matt Ruff]

[ QUOTE ]
Now I just finished Theory of Poker, and I can't say that it's going to help my game at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it is just a theory... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

-- M. Ruff

[TomBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
blind people don't seem to appreciate rainbows.

[/ QUOTE ]
And there are none so blind as those that can see, but won't.

[TomBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
"If one really wishes to be master of an art, technical knowledge of it is not enough. One has to transcend technique so that the art becomes an 'artless art' growing out of the Unconscious" Daisetz T. Suzuki

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand the last part of this quote (everything after 'technique'.)

[TomBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if I've offended every Sklansky fan here

[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't offend me. I sense you're asking the question fairly and with an honest desire to learn. Although clearly some other posters did not get that impression. This possible deficiency in their reading comprehension might partly explain why they benefit so much from rereading things, but I speculate. I do feel the average person can usually get a lot out of rereading a technical work like TOP at least several times.

I have only just started reading TOP myself, and I find it informative and useful. However, I haven't even finished my first reading of SSH and have only been playing a third as long as you. I consider myself solidly in the ranks of the beginners. I will admit, however, that I am slightly distubed at the incorrect use of the preposition 'to' in this thread's subject rather than the correct adverb 'too' meaning very.

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if I've offended every Sklansky fan here

[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't offend me. I sense you're asking the question fairly and with an honest desire to learn. Although clearly some other posters did not get that impression. This possible deficiency in their reading comprehension might partly explain why they benefit so much from rereading things, but I speculate. I do feel the average person can usually get a lot out of rereading a technical work like TOP at least several times.

I have only just started reading TOP myself, and I find it informative and useful. However, I haven't even finished my first reading of SSH and have only been playing a third as long as you. I consider myself solidly in the ranks of the beginners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah the first kind words. =)

[ QUOTE ]
I will admit, however, that I am slightly distubed at the incorrect use of the preposition 'to' in this thread's subject rather than the correct adverb 'too' meaning very.

[/ QUOTE ]

I made the post, checked back like 5 miuntes later to see how many people looked at it already, and I instantly noticed the error. I went to click edit, and it was already TOO late! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[sweetjazz]

I think that, on the one hand, you are right that you don't HAVE to read TOP to become a better player. It sounds like you are (at least) a decent player, who has learned a lot through experience and reading other books. So many books have reproduced the key ideas from TOP, that there is no way that anybody absolutely has to read TOP.

Here's why I think reading and rereading TOP, even for a developing player who is already beating low-limit games, is a good idea.

1) It emphasizes the importance of analyzing various situations, and equips you with the tools to make such analyses. A lot of the benefit of the book for me comes when I read something, think about a situation which seems relevant to the discussion at hand, and decide to do a detailed analysis of the situation. Strictly speaking, I could have produced the analysis without TOP, but in reality, I am often aided by thinking about the ideas presented in TOP. (Note here that reading TOP isn't enough; thinking about the concepts on your own is also essential.)

2) One of the biggest improvement in my game was learning to adjust my play to the tendencies of my opponents. I learned about semi-bluffing pretty soon, and even after reading about it in several places, managed to misapply the ideas fairly often. I would often semibluff raise heads-up on the turn against someone who I knew always called down after he bet the turn. After rereading the relevant section in TOP, I realized that I was missing out on something obvious. Semibluffing loses its value when your opponent won't fold. And, conversely, outright bluffing goes way up in value if your opponent folds too much.

Simple stuff, but it took me a while before I was thinking this way in the "heat of the moment" at the poker table. Now I do a much better job of taking small pots from players who I know won't call without TPGK or better. Whereas I have stopped putting in lots of bets on the turn with the nut flush draw and an overcard, when I suspect I am behind and I know that I am going to have showdown a winner.

I can't promise you that TOP will be helpful to you, but if you (like most of us do) have leaks in your game, TOP gives you the tools to detect and correct them. It's true that there are other places you can go that will also do this, but I don't know of one that is better and more applicable to all variants of poker than TOP.

Generally speaking, TOP is a book that is supposed to be paradigm-shifting in how you think about poker. It is supposed to take you from playing based on hunches and hope to playing based on a rigorously analytic framework. Most of us on these boards have already achieved this paradigm shift, many by reading TOP as well as the many other good sources of poker ideas. But few of us have come very close to perfecting this approach, and so going back to the "basics" every once in a while can have a significant benefit.

[themflags]

"Is it live, or is it Memorex?" As long as he got the message, who cares who wrote it, or in which book it was in?

[Hulk Hogan]

I read TOP after I had already read about 15 other books (2+2 and others). Because virtually all of the information in TOP is presented in those other books (usually in a clearer way), I found it almost totally unhelpful. The only material in it I had not seen elsewhere was the hardcore game theory stuff, which is unlikely to help my game.

I don't have a reading comprehension problem, I am not blind, and I have been playing poker for about 5 years. Clearly TOP was incredibly influential, and I'm not bashing it. I'm saying that the OP probably had much the same experience as me--having basically read the material in TOP in other places before, it came off to me as not particularly useful. Had I read it first, I would probably have felt differently.

The people on this thread who can do nothing but call the OP blind or ignorant need to grow up.

[yeltzen]

Come on, you should know that anyone who doesn't agree or like a 2+2 book is either a weak-tight player or an idiot.

Let's be honest here - with the explosion of poker books today, there isn't much in TOP that isn't covered well by other authors in an easier-to-read way. I guess if you desperately needed to know about optimal bluffing theory you'd have to pick it up, but it's just not required reading any more.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
Did it ever occur to you that the reason you may not have learned anything "NEW" from TOP is that the other poker books you have read are based on the foundations set down by Sklansky? Most of the poker books out today are just slick re-packaging of existing information.
Despite the above, I think it more likely that you are just missing the boat entirely. If you can't learn anything by re-reading TOP, then you shouldn't bother reading anything about poker at all because you are obviously not too receptive to information.
Bashing TOP makes as much sense as joining the flat earth society.

[/ QUOTE ]

funny, i never got from his post that he was bashing TOP. sounds to me like he was stating his personal take from what he got or did'nt get and then asked you all how TOP benefited and improved your game. am i missing something in what he wrote that you so clairavoyantly picked up on?

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the biggest problem with TOP is that most of the concpets in the book have become common place and are incorporated in to other books. SSH does a great job with most key concpets. Also, many of the concepts may not be valuable to all games, or all players depending on skills and strenghts.

I think of TOP as a fill in the gaps book for players once they have achieved a certain level of play.

Also, there will be diminishing returns on new poker books, the more you read, the less you will get from each new book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you voiced my opinion perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

who does'nt get this? who sees Beavis as bashing TOP?

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Taking everything you say is true, it only shows that you understand how NL Hold 'Em game is played under current rules. But suppose some player you don't think is any good challenges you to another game, or a slight modification of Hold 'Em? Are you going to accept or decline?

For example, what is appropriate strategy for the "rock" game version of Limit Hold 'Em?

In this game, there are still 2 blinds, but the winner of the pot has to post the big blind. If the small blind manages to win the pot, there is only the big blind to start the next round.

Is this a good structure for Hold 'Em? Would you play? How would you play it?

The Theory of Poker is essential if you want to play good POKER, and not just good Hold 'Em.

[/ QUOTE ]

This example seems a little contrived. How about I challenge YOU to a triple flop Hold 'em with 4 blinds and two jokers? Would you accept? According to your logic, since you have read Theory of Poker, you should accept. That would be silly to accept though. Let's say I play all day every day doing this game, and I have a fundamental understanding of all the intricacies of it. If you have never played it before, you won't offhand know all the adjustments to be made from your normal poker game. You'd have to look into it, think about it, read about it. Until then, you can sit out and play one of 1,000 hold'em tables available to you right now, or you can play a slightly less profitable, version of the rock game.

I mean making the adjustments to certain games is not terribly complicated. Before reading Theory of Poker (b/c I have just recently finished), I have played 7card stud, stud hi/lo, omaha hi/lo, PL omaha hi/lo, 2-7 triple draw, A-5 triple draw, heads up limit hold'em tournys, heads up NL hold'em tournys, heads up PL omaha tournys, etc....I've had success at all of them (some much more than others). I don't think Theory of Poker would be the weighing difference in all the games. I mean whether you read "the free card" concept in TOP or HPFAP, does it really matter? It's pretty obvious that these same concepts apply to other games as well; I don't have to read it in a general poker book to know that I can apply it to general poker games.

[/ QUOTE ]

i can can comprehend what you say perfectly without thinking you're a "already-knowitall-about-poker". some people take things too far to the extreme when your opinions and personal observation are at odds with the majority.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's skill at craps, there's skill at most forms of gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

No skill in craps, that's why the make you bounce it off the back, so you can't control the roll of the dice. There may be an optimum strategy so you lose less but there is no skill in craps.

If you don't even understand that, I can't help but think, you are not as well informed as you would like us to believe.

I am not posting anymore in this thread because your mind is tightly closed. You are absolutely convinced you are right and nothing, I or any of the posters have said has shaken your convictions.

FWIW, the downswing is coming, get ready.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to the optimum strategy in craps, by no means do I think it's a beatable game.

I sure hope a downswing doesn't come :-D

And sorry if I came off sounding like a complete dick in this thread. I probably am too stubborn to change my mind, but I was just curious as to what kinds of things everyone is getting out of this book on rereads, because I didn't get too much out of it on my first read (having already read the material in other books or on the forum, or through my own thinking of the game).

[/ QUOTE ]

you're not alone. i'm part of the population who has repeatedly went back to re-reading TOP. i'm not bashing TOP, but i can't say i've learned anything new or different from going back over the material repeatedly. that's does'nt make you or me a dick. don't feel like you gotta bite your tongue. anybody that's trying to put you down because of your own PERSONAL observations is more of a dick than you.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
Captain:

I'm sorry to come to this party late.

I'm not going to argue with your assumption, that you already know everything in TOP. If it's correct, I'm sure that you're crushing the games you're playing in, and don't need this book.

If, like most of the rest of us, you still feel you have a lot to learn, you'll probably be well-served by reading TOP. If nothing else, the review won't do you any harm.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you making the assumption that anybody who knows and understands TOP to a tee is crushing the games that their playing?

[sthief09]

I read TOP a few times, and it's definite a great book. It took a lot of experience to fully understand it. However, I think it I were at the point where I am now and hadn't read the book, I'd find much of what he writes about self-evident, but I could be wrong since I've read the book and would have no way of knowing. The game theory stuff is really useful though playing shorthanded limit hold'em. It proves that against good opponents, predictability will cost you money. If you fold too much to blind steals, they can steal with impunity. If you bluff too much, they can profit off calling you. It really quantifies the value of mixing things up and staying balanced, both for you and your opponents. I think that's the best part of the book, and I still don't understand it completely. But in general, the statement that everyone makes, "you MUST read this book to become a good player" isn't necessarily true. It'll definitely help speed up the process, but I'm sure there are some pretty damn good players who haven't read IT.

[sthief09]

yeah, learning optimal bluffing stategy and the concept of auto-money isn't optimal for PP 3/6. but against good, aggressive players, it's a concept that'll help you adjust your game to your opponents' tendencies

[sthief09]

that's probably because you already know about the easy stuff in the book, like pot odds and implied odds, and don't understand/can't apply to your games the more important stuff, like the last third of the book. I've been playing LHE a lot longer than you and still wouldn't be able to read and teach all of it. it's complicated stuff. just because you can't apply it doesn't mean it's not helpful. one day you'll be playing against good, aggressive players and it'll have a use. I haven't gotten to that point yet either

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the biggest problem with TOP is that most of the concpets in the book have become common place and are incorporated in to other books. SSH does a great job with most key concpets. Also, many of the concepts may not be valuable to all games, or all players depending on skills and strenghts.

I think of TOP as a fill in the gaps book for players once they have achieved a certain level of play.

Also, there will be diminishing returns on new poker books, the more you read, the less you will get from each new book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you voiced my opinion perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

So by this opinion works by Euler, Newton, Taylor, McLoran, Rheiman are all useless now?

[/ QUOTE ]


I think he qualified his statement by saying that it doesn't apply to all games. Take my physics education. I took 2 years of physics in HS, and 2 semesters in college. in HS, we took Newton's laws as a given and didn't worry how they were derived. in the second year of HS, we learned to derive them. in college, we learned how he derived them, then then derived other equations out of the. the point is, for PP 3/6, there's not much use in knowing about game theory and bluffing tendencies. at shorthanded PS 100/200, there is. most people just aren't at that level.

however, what bothers me about the statement is, just because you can't apply or understand it doesn't mean it's not useful. you're better off knowing it than not knowing it

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the biggest problem with TOP is that most of the concpets in the book have become common place and are incorporated in to other books. SSH does a great job with most key concpets. Also, many of the concepts may not be valuable to all games, or all players depending on skills and strenghts.

I think of TOP as a fill in the gaps book for players once they have achieved a certain level of play.

Also, there will be diminishing returns on new poker books, the more you read, the less you will get from each new book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you voiced my opinion perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

who does'nt get this? who sees Beavis as bashing TOP?

[/ QUOTE ]


your reading comprehension isn't very good if you think he's bashing TOP

[me454555]

[ QUOTE ]
for PP 3/6, there's not much use in knowing about game theory and bluffing tendencies. at shorthanded PS 100/200, there is. most people just aren't at that level.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how game theory applies to open handed games like hold 'em where you can see what the last card is.

I thought a lot of the game theory stuff applied to games like stud where the last card is dealt face down and you can't see whether your opponent made his draw or not.

In hold 'em, you can see the river, and therefore, it becomes a lot easier to tell whether your opponent made his hand or not based on the play of the hand and your reads on your opponents. Bluffing may occur but there are better ways of bluffing and picking bluffs than by using game theory b/c you have more information available to you.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how game theory applies to open handed games like hold 'em where you can see what the last card is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

Of course it applies.
The random methods one uses to bluff are just different.