|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Theory of Poker-- Not to useful
A little background for me first. I've been playing for about 1 year now. Up until the past 3 months, I've almost exclusively played NL tournaments (mostly SNGSs), except the ocassional dabble in limit. I then switched completely over to limit recently and now play between $2/4 to $5/10 (6max).
Right from the beginning, I'd read some stuff on the internet to get stuff about odds. Not knowing much about poker books, I decided to get Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players. This book proved to be not tremendously useful to my NL game, but did give me some good ideas of plays to make (after I applied them to NL). When I started to play limit a little more, I reread Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players. Some of the plays made more sense, and I appreciated the book more. Then about a month ago, I read Small Stakes Hold 'em. This gave me many new ideas to be a little more aggressive than I was and different ideas for raising preflop. The biggest help to my game was likely the section on playing overcards. Now I just finished Theory of Poker, and I can't say that it's going to help my game at all. There really isn't anything in here that I didn't already know. The most interesting part of the book to me was pp. 182-183 where they take an unprofitable situation (24:18 underdog) and make it a profitable situation (23:19 favorite) by adding x amount of cards to bluff with, even if you TELL your opponent the strategy. That was pretty interesting, but not direclty applicable to my game. The part that was most useful to me was probably the part on pp. 270-272 where they discuss "Types of Mistake" opponent makes and "Best Strategy" (for eg. Type of Mistake: Bluffs too much, Best Strategy: Induce a bluff, then call). So I guess I got something out of the book. But most of the book was so fundamental to me, that the sections proved to me not too helpful (oooh, semi-bluff? there's a novel idea! Free card? lemme try that one out!!!). I'd recommend this book to Poker n00bs and not to people who've read other good books on poker and have been playing for awhile. When I hear people saying they've read and reread this book a dozen times, I'm completely baffled. What on earth are they getting out of the book each time that they didn't already know? My guess is that they are spending TOO much time reading and not enough time on the poker tables learning for themselves and practicing themselves. Overall Small Stakes Hold 'em proved to be the most useful book to me for improving my game. My main questions are: (1). BACKGROUND: It'd be helpful (to me, at least) to see what books you've read and perhaps what order. And also, how experienced are you in the game you play and what game you play. (2). BEST PART OF THE BOOK: What are your favorite/most useful sections of the book? (3). RERADING TOP: When you RE-read Theory of Poker, what stuff do you get out of it that you didn't get the first time? (4). HELPFUL: How helpful do you think reading Theory of Poker has been to your game? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Theory of Poker-- Not to useful
Blind People don't think the Grand Canyon is all that.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Theory of Poker-- Not to useful
Rainbows, blind people don't seem to appreciate rainbows.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Theory of Poker-- Not too useful
[ QUOTE ]
blind people don't seem to appreciate rainbows. [/ QUOTE ] And there are none so blind as those that can see, but won't. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Theory of Poker-- Not to useful
[ QUOTE ]
I've been playing for about 1 year now. Up until the past 3 months, I've almost exclusively played NL tournaments (mostly SNGSs), except the ocassional dabble in limit. [/ QUOTE ] Based upon that amazing amount of experience, you probably do already know everything and shouldn't expect to learn much from a book. I am going to start calling this Sklansky's Razor. If a relatively new player reads TOP and doesn't get it, does it mean the book isn't very helpful and the relatively new player could learn more on his own or is the relatively new player clueless? [ QUOTE ] My guess is that they are spending TOO much time reading and not enough time on the poker tables learning for themselves and practicing themselves. [/ QUOTE ] |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Theory of Poker-- Not to useful
Glad you've put so much into a thoughtful response!
[ QUOTE ] Based upon that amazing amount of experience, you probably do already know everything and shouldn't expect to learn much from a book. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, I know I'm not ULTRA experienced or anything, but I do feel I have learned most everything from TOP already. Is that so wickely impossible? That after reading tons about poker, through about 6 different books, and lots of time on forums and other strategy sites that I have figured out the necessary conditions for a check-raise? Is it that weird that I have figured out the power of the semi-bluff? I'm not saying that I figured out every poker concept without the aid of Sklansky, I'm saying after reading SSH, HPFAP, and 2+2 forums that there was a very little amount of poker concepts to be learned. What part of TOP didn't I get? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Theory of Poker-- Not to useful
TOP is a classic. Although nearly all 2+2 books are great, this one was actually well-written too.
Theory of Poker preaches the core fundamentals of poker. If you don't find that useful, then you are probably just not thinking about poker correctly. Saving a few bets here and gaining a few extra bets there is what limit poker is all about. Each situation is different and requires thinking. 'By explaining the logic of poker, the book will, I hope, show the reader what kinds of things to think about in order to become a better player.' |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Theory of Poker-- Not to useful
[ QUOTE ]
Theory of Poker preaches the core fundamentals of poker. If you don't find that useful, then you are probably just not thinking about poker correctly. [/ QUOTE ] So let's say Chip Reese reads Theory of Poker for the first time today. He finds nothing particularly helpful. Are you saying that he is not thinking about poker correctly? I'm obviously not Chip Reese, but that's just an exagerrated example. ______________________________________ Please be specific as to where TOP actually improved your game. I'm not just being a dick. I honestly want to see what I'm missing, as I suspect I am missing out on something. I feel like with everyone saying how good of a read this book is, that I must have missed something big. I just found that TOP did not say really any concept that I had not already come across in another form of reading or thinking about the game. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Theory of Poker-- Not to useful
"Game Theory and Bluffing" chapter - I don't think this is covered in the other books and probably not something you'd come up with on your own from experience.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Theory of Poker-- Not to useful
TOP inspired me. TOP made the game much more logical to me...
How it specifically helped me? the art of 'adjusting outs' for the situation psychology of getting drawn out on 'imaginary outs' and randomized bluffs inducing overcalls vs re-raising playing vs weaker players just generally helped me understand the game. what is not helpful about that? I agree that the book is not a specific hand analyis type of book (which by the way are very useful in my opinion). But that was the point of this book... to make you think at a higher level and give a roadmap for all the technical poker you need to learn to be good... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|