PHIL HELMUTHs PLAY POKER LIKE A PRO

[dmoney]

Ok. I read this as my first poker book, id say in general is a good book, nothing in there strikes me as being wrong. Ive read it probabbly 50 times cover to cover and know / can apply most of it well. The only thing is, It seems to me that even the advanced stuff in the book is more intermediate. The advanced holdem theory seems to be lacking a little.

I havnt read any Skalansky and malmuth yet, (I plan on getting some of them as my future books) Although im not a HUGE #s person so i dont know ho much it will help me, im no Math Major. Im more of a people reader kinda person. and a Bet reader.

How would you rate the Phil Helmuth Books out of 10? and be HONEST and TRY not to be bias becuase u all love this site and S & M.

[nrinker]

I give Phil's book a 4 out of 10.

But ya, you can't go wrong with a plate of Sklansky and a side order of Malmuth.

Read those 2p2 books.

[dmoney]

4 out of 10. Hmmm.

What is it lacking compared to these other books?

Why are 2p2 books so amazing?

Do they have more statistical play in them?

I would equate myself to a style more like Phils (agressive and player reader, vs mathmatics kinda guy.

Should I put on the reading glasses and dust off the ol stats book if i buy 2p2 books?

[sinfulslick18]

hard to explain but the 2p2 books are simply amazing when compared to phils book. i agree a 4 out of 10 for phil is accurate.. good to start you off if you know nothing.. but wouldnt read it more than once.. if i were you i would go look into some 2p2 books.. not even joking. you will notice the difference in the end

-sinful

[fnord_too]

PH's book seems really good if you haven't read other books (or haven't played enough to realize its weaknesses). The limit hold'em section is pretty bad, but the other sections are not that bad. It is definitely not an advanced book.

I would give it aboout a 5 if you ignore the LHE section, a 3 if you include it.

About your not being a math person: You need to know the basic math of the game, but that is not hard. (That is, you need to know things like how to count your outs and how that translates into the liklihood that you make your hand. Also you absolutely must be aware of pot odds.)

Your next book should probably be Small Stakes Hold'em if limit hold'em is your game. There are some good non 2+2 books out there, but for LHE, Stud, Stud/8, and Tournament Play I have not found any that can compete at the advanced level.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]


I would equate myself to a style more like Phils (agressive and player reader, vs mathmatics kinda guy.



[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be confusing weak tight with mathematical. Knowing the math of the game actually pushes you towards being more aggressive in a lot of spots. The 2+2 books are not math laden. They use some very basic math from time to time, but nothing really advanced.

[dmoney]

Oh really? I was told many of the S & M books were similar to reading text books (boring and tough to digest)

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh really? I was told many of the S & M books were similar to reading text books (boring and tough to digest)

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should read one and judge for yourself. I've read a lot of text books in my time, and I certainly don't think they read like text books. (They don't have amusing stories in them, but they are about improving your poker, not entertaining you).

For reference, I have a BS in discrete math and an MBA, so you could aptly classify me as a "math guy." How ever, all the math in the 2+2 books is adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing.

If you want to ease into it, pick up something like Caro's Fundamentals of Winning Poker (or something like that). He does a little math and phillosophy and writes in a light style that is not intimidating.

[phish]

Strikes me as very odd that you would read this one book 50 times instead of just picking up another poker book. What are you, some kind of toddler?

[dmoney]

Nope, I like to make sure I UNDERSTAND and MEMORIZE everything from one thing before I move on to the next. I dont want to be jumping from one thing to the next and have no real solid proof that it is helping or hurting my game.

I dont think this is anything to be ashamed of. If u can memorize an entire poker book your first time thats awesome but i cant. I need to read and re read.

[trevorwc]

I only made it through about 50 pages of Hellmuth's book (borrowed it from a friend) when I realized I was getting absolutely nothing out of it. I stopped as soon as I read something along the lines of "AA - You have the best hand in hold 'em!!" - REALLY?!?!?!??

Went out and bought Harrington, and can barely put it down. Now there's a book that will help my game!

[dmoney]

well if all you do is read the BEGINNER section and assume thats all their is to a book then id say your probably missing alot of things in alot of books that could help your game.

Just becuase the first 5 pages of a good say ok these are the hand rankings means nothing.

i DO understand that the book is far from advanced, but that doesnt mean that all what he says is useless.

[stankphish]

Did you come here for advice or reassurance in your belief that Hellmuth's book is good. I suggest reading the forums for a while here before you start posting. If you came for advice then there is alot of solid stuff in this thread. If you came for the latter you should check out neverwins forum.

[BottlesOf]

You need to burn Hellmuth's books and get SSH by Ed Miller. Or you can wallow in mediocre advice, it doesn't matter to me much which you choose, but I don't feel like the burden is on 2+2 to prove to you why SSH is so much better. Either buy it or don't. GL.

[Jeebus]

I read PPLAP second after SS1 and found myself laughing at some of the concepts. Get another book. Read it, then try something else, then reread the first book to see what new ideas you can get out of it.
Then go post this in the books section

[Alobar]

helmtuths book is the worst poker book I've ever read, and I suspect one of the worst poker books written.

I'm suprised you can play winning poker after reading that book.

Burn it, then go over to the books forum and find out what the good books are.

[aLOWdAkING]

Ugh, you picked the wrong book to read 50 times cover to cover.

But really, SSH is much better. You'll like it, I promise man.

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok. I read this as my first poker book, id say in general is a good book, nothing in there strikes me as being wrong. Ive read it probabbly 50 times cover to cover and know / can apply most of it well. The only thing is, It seems to me that even the advanced stuff in the book is more intermediate. The advanced holdem theory seems to be lacking a little.

I havnt read any Skalansky and malmuth yet, (I plan on getting some of them as my future books) Although im not a HUGE #s person so i dont know ho much it will help me, im no Math Major. Im more of a people reader kinda person. and a Bet reader.

How would you rate the Phil Helmuth Books out of 10? and be HONEST and TRY not to be bias becuase u all love this site and S & M.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is quite a bit in the book that is wrong (like calling a 3-bet in the SB with JTo), but usually gives you the right play too.

Mason gave the non-limit holdem sections a 6, which I think is a little low, probably a 7.5.

It is a great beginners book, especially the stud and omaha chapters. He really explains low hands well in the 8b sections.

[poker-penguin]

I hope that you are a troll / gimmick account.

Either way, please stop posting, close this account, and come back with a new user name and better posts.

[fireman664]

but his book (for limit) is not good. I actually think Phil is one of the best players out there, even though he is not liked alot. The one thing i did use his book for is cutting out a bunch of pages to hide my home bankroll in. I figured any player in the "know" wont bother to ever open that book.

the 2+2 books are great, and yes they can be deep and subtle, but if you put forth the effort with them that you did with Phils book...you'll love em.

[TexArcher]

This was one of my first few reads as well. I thought at the time the book was about a 6, not bad for someone moving from beginner to intermediate, but nothing too informative either. And it was written EXACTLY like you'd expect a Hellmuth book to read, which got pretty annoying.

After reading and re-reading Super System, three by Sklansky, and about 6 others, I've got to say Phil's book is about a 3, good for a beginner, but that's about it...

[TexArcher]

I don't think there's a right book to read 50 times cover to cover, why not read 25 books twice and get some perspectives??

[iraise50]

I give his book a TWO. Here's why:

I also bought it as my first poker book. It gives good information on the set-up of the game, but seriously, as I've learned more and more about poker I think there is are fewer holes in governmental policy than his book. It's an easy read, but very, very lacking I think, in many areas.

[helpmeout]

Its complete trash.

I read all the bad reviews and thought well surely there must be one nugget in there.

The whole thing is fluff I really have no idea what he was smoking when he wrote it.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Small Stakes Hold'em is orders of magnitude better than Hellmuth's book. PLay limit Hold'em the way Phil's book says and you'll lose a lot of money.

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
I would equate myself to a style more like Phils (agressive and player reader, vs mathmatics kinda guy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Most bad players probably do think of themselves in exactly these terms.

[phish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would equate myself to a style more like Phils (agressive and player reader, vs mathmatics kinda guy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Most bad players probably do think of themselves in exactly these terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said. It's so much more fun to play aggressively all the time. And it's so much easier to be a 'people player' than to bother learning some basic probabilities. My girlfriend is an aggressive people-player. Everytime I transfer her some money, she usually runs it up a little and then lose it all. And she plays $1/$2 or smaller.

[Overdrive]

What you have to know is that at this point Phil Helmuth is more of a poker marketing machine than he is a poker player. He really only plays for publicity now, like at tournaments he knows will be televised. Phil is widely known as one of the worst cash game players around. After his 1989 World Series vitory he took his $775,000 first prize into the side games and lost virtually all of it. Daniel Negreanu said, "I would pay him just to play him." - (n a ring cash game) Daniel also said,"His fundamental knowledge of most games is very weak. When he makes claims that he is the best player in the world it's insulting to people like Chip Reese, Doyle, Phil Ivey and the like - it's like are you kidding me Phil?"

But you should try out Phil's book for yourself I guess - just follow his strategy for a few months and then see what the results are. If you can win by three betting 77 in early positin before the flop, and then reraising when the flop for your 77 comes A J Q like he recommends in his book - then God bless you my son.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
, and then reraising when the flop for your 77 comes A J Q like he recommends in his book - then God bless you my son.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just plain stupid. Obviusly phil looks into their soul and knows they will make the correct laydown against your set of aces, so dont try to tell people that phils advice is bad. You are just jealous cuz you cant look into peoples soul.

[wegs the wegs]

And Dmoney, memorizing a book word for word probably isn't that healthy, for any book. I've read posts by people claiming that they are going to memorize word for word books like TOP and SSH and they typically get the same response, why?

In my opinion it's not knowing the words of the books that matter, its being able to understand and apply the theories that the book offers. No hand in poker is the same, so committing to memory what Phil on any one hand will have much different results at any table that you play.

If you've read this book 50 times, MOVE ON! Anything helpful that you have learned from this book will be there in your mind, even if you aren't quoting the page number that it's on when a similar situation comes up. No book out there should be read 50 times, especially in a row. Read it, think, play, think, play, come back a while (and I mean weeks and months) later and read it again.

I've read Hellmuth's book about 9 months ago, didn't hate it. I do believe that Hellmuth is an absolute top notch Hold'em tournament player. However I do think that its pretty obvious that he writes the book deep within his own ego. He expects that players will respect every move he makes and fold their hands just because it's Phil. Now, after HOH vol2 I am planning to read the book again, just to review what I read and see if I missed anything, but I can also compare the advice from what I have learned in the other books I read. Move on to Theory of Poker.

[mindflayer]

I read this book early on as well, because a friend owned a copy. The only think i still use NOW from that book is his classification of players (as animals), in my own twisted version.

Instead of eagles, mice and elephants, when my friends make a play and show down some nonsense hand we call him a JaMonkey, a cross between a Jakal and Monkey.

Maybe we should make up some new animal names involving Donkeys like Ele-Donk. Whadaya think??

[iraise50]

I liked his animal types for awhile, but I like to record HOW they're elephants or mice and especially jackals or whatever. I think Phil's a good guy, but when he ranks his hands, he really makes me wonder. Point is I still own his book and even though my wife is interested in beginning to play, I haven't taken the book out of its primary use...it's my coffee coaster when I'm playing poker in the den.

Thanks to the poster who told me about how quickly Phil dropped his WSOP ME winnings in cash games...I always wondered if he didn't end up donating somewhere. I think one of his biggest problems will always be that people will paly crap against him and tilt him when they win, and he'll rack off everything. He's easily exploitable, as witnessed by Annie Duke humiliating him. I still like him...entertainment factor and all. I've also heard he's a really nice guy.

[SoftcoreRevolt]

[ QUOTE ]



I would equate myself to a style more like Phils (agressive and player reader, vs mathmatics kinda guy.


[/ QUOTE ]

POTD