PDA

View Full Version : Real Poker II - The Play of Hands - Roy Cooke


lostinthought
03-03-2004, 04:30 PM
Just finished this one and was wondering what everybody else thought of it.

Background - I've read through most of all the 2+2 books and all of ciaffone's books. Also some trash by warren, and silberstang which I promptly got rid of (I bought these before I knew about 2+2). I've played online for slightly more than 1 year now, and have consistently beaten 2/4 and 3/6 games. I hover between those limits and 5/10.

It seemed like a great book for someone in my spot. All the hands are from real life situations and are from mid limit (15/30 to 30/60) games mainly from las vegas. It was helpful for me to get an idea of what a successful mid limit player's thinking process is while playing, as I want to move up as soon as I get the bankroll to do so. I followed everything he wrote, wasn't ever really confused, and found his writing style entertaining. The book was much less tedious the Ciaffone's and Brier's Middle Limit Holdem, but less interactive, as I rarely paused and tried to figure out the 'solution' because it was kind of embedded in the story.

All and all, not a very difficult read, but helpful. I still think HEPFAP is superior to this book and Ciaffone's, but the other books (Cooke's and Ciaffone's) are great because they give examples where the concepts from HEPFAP apply (or aren't applied in the case of Ciaffone's book).

I would give it a 8.5 on a scale from 1 to 10.

Thoughts, Comments, Suggestions?


Edit - I also own Super System and Caro's Book of Tells and some others.

MRBAA
03-03-2004, 04:52 PM
Cooke's stuff is generally excellent and tends to be good reading, too.

onegymrat
03-04-2004, 03:32 AM
Hi Jazz,

I own all three books and can confidently say that they are all essential for improving one's play. All three books show what winning poker is all about. Middle Limit Holdem shows real situations and how they should have been played. Play of Hands shows how Cooke does it. And HEFAP explains why.