This has probably been answered many times by now but
 

wanted to see if theres a consensus here.Tommorrow im going to buy one so....I should just read the other topics! but i dont feel like it.PLEASE VOTE.

Re: This has probably been answered many times by now but
 

Amazon is selling them both for $45 USD I think, as a package deal.

--Dave.

Re: This has probably been answered many times by now but
 

Thats a good idea...

Re: This has probably been answered many times by now but
 

I kinda liked you before this post, Bryce. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Re: This has probably been answered many times by now but
 

[ QUOTE ]
I kinda liked you before this post, Bryce. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Its ok no one likes me, I [censored] up everything. I'm used to it.

Re: This has probably been answered many times by now but
 

If you are primarily interested in Omaha hi-low, SS2 would be much better than Harrington.

Re: This has probably been answered many times by now but
 

Hahaha, as we all know Harrington on Hold Em is one of the best O8 books ever.

Re: This has probably been answered many times by now but
 

[ QUOTE ]
I kinda liked you before this post, Bryce. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's get this straight. You open a thread that is titled "This has probably been answered many times by now but" and then make a comment about how you don't like that this is a question that has been asked before. If you don't want to read it, don't open the thread.

Re: This has probably been answered many times by now but
 

Silly question. If you are buying the book for NLHE, Harrington is better. If you are buying it for any other game that is covered in SS2 but not by Harrington, clearly SS2 will be more useful.

I am newly addicted to 2-7 Triple Draw -- not sure if DN's chapter in SS2 on that is the best strategy but its the only substantive discussion of the topic in print.

Re: This has probably been answered many times by now but
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let's get this straight. You open a thread that is titled "This has probably been answered many times by now but" and then make a comment about how you don't like that this is a question that has been asked before. If you don't want to read it, don't open the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's get this straight. Just because you preface the post with "This has probably been answered many times by now but" doesn't make it any less asinine or redundant. And I didn't make any comment about not liking that the question having been asked before.

Re: This has probably been answered many times by now but
 

Get them both?
I'd vote HOH, b/c he gives a lot of detail and has a lot of focus. OTOH, SS2 is definitely worth owning. The 7cs hi/lo section and the omaha hi/lo section are very well done.
I haven't read the 3x draw lowball section, b/c I have never played that game, but it is supposed to be excellent.

Also, the limit hold em section is definitely worth a read.

Re: This has probably been answered many times by now but
 

Both are fantastic, but SS2 has some advice from Negreanu and Harman that is really good. Jennifer is hot and smart (WHAT A COMBO!). And also I got a feeling that Doyle would be behind and i wanted to throw SS2 a bone 8) [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Re: This has probably been answered many times by now but
 

lol. Is your sole purpose on the books forum to tell people that they need to use the search function?

Re: This has probably been answered many times by now but
 

[ QUOTE ]
lol. Is your sole purpose on the books forum to tell people that they need to use the search function?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I do a lot of reading/lurking here as I do on a lot of 2+2 forums. But most of my posts here are as you described.

Re: This has probably been answered many times by now but
 

I generally care little for thread titles that are not highly descriptive and as specific as possible in describing the content therein. I like to be able to tell at a glance if it's a subject I might want to learn more about, or one to which I might be able to contribute. As a matter of fact, I downright dislike amorphous subjects. Case in point would be this thread title. It is about as non-descript and unspecific as one can get.

But somehow I find myself drawn to open these nebulous tomes, curious to see what ambiguity resides inside. Perhaps the writers of these inchoate titles purposely utilize this tendency of curiosity that some people have to entice them, to tease them, to make them wonder what they would miss if they didn't open the thread and take a peek inside.

When I find the subject is something I know little or nothing about, or at least not enough to warrant a response on it's own merits, I often invest a bit more of my time and make a response. I'll respond with something, ...anything. Just a mark to show I was there. After all, if the OP doesn't care enough for the reader’s time to make it clear what they will be getting into, why should any readers care enough for his time to worry whether or not their responses will be of any value to him?

If I can't address the question, perhaps I'll address the way the question was asked. I can usually find some detail to ask for clarification about. Or I might know enough about some aspect of the topic or some related element that I can find something to comment on.

Occasionally, ...rarely, ...but it sometimes happens, the opening post may leave me so devoid of any idea on how to answer it that hasn't been adequately covered already that I must then find, like I did herein, another's response to which I can add something.

TomBk