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....