Warren vs. Sklansky

Just saw a post on RGP by a person who had just read his first poker books and found Ken Warren's book very good and David Sklansky's book (he didn't say which one) not too informative.


With no disrespect meant towards that poster, this is why we low-80s shooters can still do quite well.

Saw it too and have been waiting for a reply all day. The guy also mentioned that he likes Jones over Sklansky, which isn't surprising givent he Jones love-fest that usually goes on over there. I don't think the RGP regulars want to touch it, though, when Warren is lumped in there.

I'm not sure I buy it. I don't the reason why people play badly is because they have read things by author A vs author B.


I believe the reason (as far as reading goes) is most have not read anything, and if they have they certainly have not read it carefully.


It is quite possible when beginning to read books may not appreciate certain aspects of certain texts, and certain books maynot be ,to beginning players, as helpful as other books.

If I were to give a book to a novice player and make him play the next day, I would give him Warrens book.


If the student was given a little time to study and practice then Sklansky's seems obvious.

Why would you do that? It is just as bad to give a beginner bad advice. In fact it may be worse since they do not have the knowledge or experience to know the difference between good and bad play.


I feel the same way about lee jones' book, although I am apparently in the minority on that one also. I would, and have, recommended sklansky's holdem book to people who are just starting to play holdem. I think jones' book is Ok for good players who realize where his advice is bad, but for beginners I would not recommend it at all. There is a thread about this in the books forum.


Pat

I happen to like the Warren book and thought it was great. I also like Sklansky's books. The best thing about Warren's book is that it is so damn easy to read. It's a great starter book. If I had to start off with some other books I might be put off by the writing style -- some of them are hard to digest unless you've played a bunch.


On a related question, how many players would you say on average at your table have read poker books? What stakes are we talking about here?

Quicker to make sense of for a beginner. Some poor advice admittedly.

it depends.

As a new player I read sklansky, but it didn't seem to be of help. The concepts did not seem (to a newbie) to apply to low limit games. I was losing money and it was clearly (to this newbie) sklansky's fault. I then read warren and started winning a bit, but only scratched my way to even after 500 hours. Frustrated, I then re-read HPFAP again, and suddenly a few concepts made sense. Now at 800 hours I am up 1BB. I am very thankful for the warren book because it is simpler for a beginner and it gave me enough knowledge to stay in the game and get some experience. I am also very thankful to S&M for the concepts which allow me to scratch a small profit.

As a new player did you read HPFAP or sklanskys first holdem book?? The first holdem book is what a beginner should read not HPFAP.


Pat

I would go out of my way to play at this guy's table so you can take advantage of his newfound knowledge. Anyone who has a solid background in poker theory should be able to see the ludicrousy of this guy's position....

I would agree with this posting. My first book was Sklansky's holdem and my second was his Advanced holdem, but I still found I was not understanding enough about the odds and math factor, which sklansky talks about in "theory" but never explains math aspect in detail or how to use the odds vs outs in actual play.


While Warrens book has alot of flaws in his approach, he does one thing the others have not, that is put the math aspect in terms and charts that is understandable to a beginner, or someone who is not into calculating probabilities. This aspect of the game doesn't really come into real use until you move up into the higher limit games and so for a beginners book, which exposes one to the odd's and "outs" and gives them a general understanding of this aspect of the game, it's a good reference. Show me one other book written, that has explained in detail this apsect of the game. And I don't mean "The Book of Numbers" or Petriv's book either. A teacher who is knowledgable but not able or willing to convey the subject to the students is called a "researcher" and is of no help to those who want to learn. This aspect of the game has been "hands off" because it is a grey area and no one including sklansky, has really written about it in depth from a lay persons aspect of trying to learn it.

Your assumption that by reading Warrens book, makes this individual an easy target to beat, coveys the impression to me

about you "legend in his own mind". You may "know it all" but

then if you really did, you would not have made the statement you did, so who is the bigger target.

"Your assumption that by reading Warrens book, makes this individual an easy target to beat, coveys the impression to me

about you "legend in his own mind". You may "know it all" but

then if you really did, you would not have made the statement you did, so who is the bigger target."


"Legend in his own mind" is certainly not the image I have of myself. Every time I claim to be an expert, I always clarify with some comment that pokes fun at myself, comments like "self-proclaimed", or "just ask me". People like Mason admit that they are still learning every day. Anyone that reads my stuff should realize that I do not seriously think that I know it all. However, I have in fact done my homework, and I am not an idiot. And anyone who knows who I am and reads my posts would probably not consider me a very good target.


The point I was trying to make, and that I think you missed, was that "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing". It is true that I don't think much of Warren's book. It is also true that I am of the opinion that if you were to only read two books, and you took Warren's book to be "the way to play holdem", that you won't do well at all. Even so, you may still be way ahead of some of the biggest fish at the table, but you will be way behind someone who has done their homework well.


My comments may have seemed like they were coming from someone who THINKS they know it all, but I am not that self deluding. I am perhaps a little arrogant at times, but it's a fault I can live with. I am not a self deluded know it all, so do not assume that I am.


Dave in Cali

What bothers me about Warren's book the most is when he talks about playing "the rush" and playing low cards. He acts as if there will be times when you are on a rush and it's ok to bet anything that you are holding and this rush could be considered over after you've lost three or so times. Also regarding low cards, he says that if only low cards come on the flop for several hands in a row it is ok to bet with low cards. It's disturbing to me that he is trying to convince readers that "streaks" exist rather then to apply the rules of odds to every single time they bet. You might roll a pair of dice ten times and get snake eyes an unlikely 9 times but that doesn't mean you should expect it at all!