Playing Vs. Studying

I don't think anyone can tell someone how much they should read compared to how much they play. Every person learns different, can read for different amounts of time, etc... What you need to do is what you think works best for yourself, all that you need as some of both I would say anywhere from 10% reading 90% play to 90% reading 10% play. I would also say a lot of it depends on what is available. Reading on the toilet is fun!

Don

[johnc]

My personal "formula" is to read a book cover to cover, go back and re-read difficult sections and then apply the concepts learned at the table. It was kinda tough at 1st trying to successfully apply even somewhat straightforward concepts learned from a book to the game such as pot odds calcs, counting ALL my outs, and counting bets (when I played live limit) but as these became gradually easier I was able to apply more complex concepts from reading. I find that, after alot of play, if I go back to certain books ie SSHE and ToP and study certain sections again, my experience gained thru play helps me to understand the concepts in a new light.

[pottie]

My solution: Get a job where you can read forums at the office, play when at home - works perfectly

[AaronBrown]

You left out a third leg, simulated play. Going through 1,000 hands against a simulator, and analyzing the results carefully, is as cheap as reading and improves your game in a way different from both reading and money play. The old fashioned poker expert probably learned their craft on no more than 200,000 hands, split among lots of different kinds of poker, much of it against worse opposition than a simulator, and no record keeping or probability breakdowns. You could get better experience than that in a year if you worked at it with a simulator. I'm not suggesting you actually do that, but it's foolish not to make some use of the computer.

One advantage of simulator over books is the simulator makes your play automatic. You don't have to think about the probabilities or card play, so you can concentrate on the human aspects of poker. Books can make you think too much, so you're ignoring what you should be learning. I like books too, but I would say start with a little basic book, a little actual play and a lot of simulator. As you get better, move on to equal parts advanced books, simulator and play. As you get better, a little book and a lot of play, with the simulator just to loosen up or cool down.

I'd compare this question of whether it's better to learn a foreign language from a textbook or by actual speaking. You need both, the trick is to use the textbook to get to the point where you enjoy conversing or watching TV or reading in the language. Then it's fun, not a chore, to improve your language skills. The same thing is true in poker. With a good base of knowledge, playing is both fun and profitable. But without that base, it's an expensive chore.

[Budget Boy]

[ QUOTE ]
My solution: Get a job where you can read forums at the office, play when at home - works perfectly

[/ QUOTE ]

That's my method. I've done about 20 minutes of actual work today.

Read often and in short amounts. I think my 3 legs of poker is playing, reading and thinking. I love reading 1 chapter out of TOP and then mowing the front yard while I think about the topics. Nothing wrong with reading a lot at once (I do it a lot) but there is something to be said about contemplating hands and thinking about all the other possible ways of playing it.

I have heard that you can become a great player without ever reading a book. What books will do is create a shortcut and save lots of money while you are learning. As a responsible gambler (seems like an oxymoron), I want the biggest edge I can get. Books will always help with that edge.

Side note:
I really don't like posting the "Did I play this right?" Posts because I will get some that say perfect and some that say horrible (and everything in between). I do consult other respected players on certain plays but a mass audience usually only confuses me.

After playing, try an in depth analysis of how you played afterwards (using the theory from books), seeing what went wrong and why, what you could have done differently, what worked well and why.

In my mind it is more play-read, play-read than read-play, read-play.