[ QUOTE ]
NL is a more psychological game than mathematical. We had this discussion on the Caro article. Math applies, but, implied odds are more important. You can give up correct pot odds for the chance to stack a person if you make your hand. You're right, it's not the perfect book for beginners, but, it doesn't hurt to read it and try out the ideas. I mean, you only learn how things work through trial and error.

[/ QUOTE ]

russian bear, you make a good point!

alot of us (and i'm probably one of the biggest culprits on this forum) seem to want books to tell us exactly how to play.

but i'm learning that there are so many types of hold-em (limit, no-limit, short/long tourney's, short-handed) not to mention so many types of opponents (adjusting to the different games), that books are only starting points.

i find it very helpful to engage a cycle of books/reading, playing, thinking about it, simulation (or trying stuff for free on wilson software). don't get me wrong, i still love books.

i guess worst case, i'm looking for a book to give me a few "aha!!" ideas, where i realize i've really been doing something wrong.

also, all the good books seem to get into player reads pretty fast. i.e. there's a limit to how far you can take your poker without that....

note that i've liked low limit hold-em as there have been alot of loose-passive games (and i can watch TV while multi-tabling and do o.k.), but i see those games tightening up as poor players either 1) quit; 2) get a book and learn absolute basics; 3) move to shorthanded (where they can play slightly better by accident); 4) move to no-limit (cash/SNG/tournament).

one last question: do people find it difficult to move between all the different conditions (limit/no-limit, cash/tournament, full/SH, passive/aggressive, loose/tight).... am i doing myself a disservice by jumping between these on an intra-daily (or more frequent) basis?