How many of you guys have read WLLH?

[brassnuts]

A lot of people criticize it for its weak-tight recommendations, but a lot of the same people talk about it as though it were their first kiss. I've never read it, though. After reading HPFAP, SSH, and TOP multiple times, does anyone think I would benefit much from reading it?

(cross-posted)

[Ajax410]

I think WLLH is a piece of garbage. It teaches you how to play without losing, but some of the advice it offers will never allow a player to become a legitimate winning player. It preaches a tight-passive play which will result in break-even results while a player learns. If you feel you're past the learning process, I don't think WLLH offers very much sage advice.

Ajax

[Cerril]

I'd say no unless you feel like you didn't get much out of the other books.

The benefit of WLLH is pretty much inversely proportional to the experience/knowledge you have going into it. A highly loose/passive player would improve his game immensely by reading it, while a loose/aggressive player might be confused and a tight player of any stripe (even semi-loose, 20-30% VP$IP) would probably not find much new if they had halfway decent instincts postflop.

Further, a player who intuitively played Tight/aggressive would probably find his game suffering if he took it all to heart.

But someone who was completely unfamiliar with hold 'em would probably improve their game pretty dramatically, and it wouldn't be a bad read as long as they were willing to continue reading more detailed books if they wanted to keep playing

edit: Oh, and the books/software forum is really where this belongs. You'll also find more than you could ever want about this book there.

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
I think WLLH is a piece of garbage. It teaches you how to play without losing, but some of the advice it offers will never allow a player to become a legitimate winning player. It preaches a tight-passive play which will result in break-even results while a player learns. If you feel you're past the learning process, I don't think WLLH offers very much sage advice.

I wouldn't quite call it a piece of garbage, but SSHE is much more profitable.

It's certainly better than Ken Warren's book.

Ajax

[/ QUOTE ]

[huxbux]

Having started with the 2+2 books, reading WLLH would be a downgrade. But since I've never read WLLH, I can't say.

[Nottom]

If you are struggling to beat the game, go buy WLLHE and follow its advice. You will win, just not as much as you could be. If you are already beating the game and understand the basics then I don't see much point in gettign WLLHE now.

I read it when I first started out and it was a big help for me as a beginner, but I really had no clue how to play at the time.

[phildirt]

I read WLLH first then read SSH. WLLH is nice book for beginers or someone that is not that good(at the time I read it that was me) and it will improve there play. WLLH helped me improve so I'm not going to bash it like others on this forum will. That being said SSH has been a huge asset to my game taking my play to a new level. SSH is the gold standard and WLLH doesn't compare.

[bisonbison]

We have a books and software forum

Jones' book is a good introduction to actually thinking about the game. It's not as rigorous as a 2+2 book, but it's by no means terrible.

[brassnuts]

[ QUOTE ]
(cross-posted)

[/ QUOTE ]

I just wanted to hear some of the opinions of my fellow Small Stakers. It seems pretty unanimous that the book would do very little for me now. Just tyring to find ways of improving my game. Thanks for the responses, guys.

[Joe Tall]

I've never read it.

Go Sox!
-Joe Tall