Theory of Poker-- Not to useful - Page 2

That guy · #11 01-29-2005, 12:52 PM

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?

If Chip Reese read the book (which I would think very likely that he has), I could almost guarantee that he would recommend it to others. David Sklansky is extremely well-respected in poker circles. Many pros list TOP as the best book on the market.

Chip Reese already understands everything in the book I am sure... If Michael Jordan went to John Wooden basketball camp, I am sure he would respect what was being taught and agree with it and probably pick up a thing or two...

That guy · #12 01-29-2005, 12:55 PM

"If one really wishes to be master of an art, technical knowledge of it is not enough. One has to transcend technique so that the art becomes an 'artless art' growing out of the Unconscious" Daisetz T. Suzuki

rmr1976 · #13 01-29-2005, 01:03 PM

Taking everything you say is true, it only shows that you understand how NL Hold 'Em game is played under current rules. But suppose some player you don't think is any good challenges you to another game, or a slight modification of Hold 'Em? Are you going to accept or decline?

For example, what is appropriate strategy for the "rock" game version of Limit Hold 'Em?

In this game, there are still 2 blinds, but the winner of the pot has to post the big blind. If the small blind manages to win the pot, there is only the big blind to start the next round.

Is this a good structure for Hold 'Em? Would you play? How would you play it?

The Theory of Poker is essential if you want to play good POKER, and not just good Hold 'Em.

captZEEbo1 · #14 01-29-2005, 01:41 PM

[ 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?

If Chip Reese read the book (which I would think very likely that he has), I could almost guarantee that he would recommend it to others. David Sklansky is extremely well-respected in poker circles. Many pros list TOP as the best book on the market.

Chip Reese already understands everything in the book I am sure... If Michael Jordan went to John Wooden basketball camp, I am sure he would respect what was being taught and agree with it and probably pick up a thing or two...

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said I don't respect the book (or even implied, I hope), because I do. And I WOULD recomend the book to others, as I'm sure many poker pros do too. But assuming Barry Greenstein has not read Theory of Poker, I highly doubt that Chip Reese would recommend that Barry Greenstein MUST read the book so he could improve his game. And I'm sure Michael Jordan would mostly agree with everything being taught at the basketball camp, but he is not necessarily learning anything new. And he is not recommending that other top seasoned veterans MUST attend this camp to improve their game.

captZEEbo1 · #15 01-29-2005, 01:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds familiar....I read all that in SSH and HPFAP.

AngryCola · #16 01-29-2005, 01:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The Theory of Poker is essential if you want to play good POKER, and not just good Hold 'Em.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Good post.

captZEEbo1 · #17 01-29-2005, 01:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Taking everything you say is true, it only shows that you understand how NL Hold 'Em game is played under current rules. But suppose some player you don't think is any good challenges you to another game, or a slight modification of Hold 'Em? Are you going to accept or decline?

For example, what is appropriate strategy for the "rock" game version of Limit Hold 'Em?

In this game, there are still 2 blinds, but the winner of the pot has to post the big blind. If the small blind manages to win the pot, there is only the big blind to start the next round.

Is this a good structure for Hold 'Em? Would you play? How would you play it?

The Theory of Poker is essential if you want to play good POKER, and not just good Hold 'Em.

[/ QUOTE ]

This example seems a little contrived. How about I challenge YOU to a triple flop Hold 'em with 4 blinds and two jokers? Would you accept? According to your logic, since you have read Theory of Poker, you should accept. That would be silly to accept though. Let's say I play all day every day doing this game, and I have a fundamental understanding of all the intricacies of it. If you have never played it before, you won't offhand know all the adjustments to be made from your normal poker game. You'd have to look into it, think about it, read about it. Until then, you can sit out and play one of 1,000 hold'em tables available to you right now, or you can play a slightly less profitable, version of the rock game.

I mean making the adjustments to certain games is not terribly complicated. Before reading Theory of Poker (b/c I have just recently finished), I have played 7card stud, stud hi/lo, omaha hi/lo, PL omaha hi/lo, 2-7 triple draw, A-5 triple draw, heads up limit hold'em tournys, heads up NL hold'em tournys, heads up PL omaha tournys, etc....I've had success at all of them (some much more than others). I don't think Theory of Poker would be the weighing difference in all the games. I mean whether you read "the free card" concept in TOP or HPFAP, does it really matter? It's pretty obvious that these same concepts apply to other games as well; I don't have to read it in a general poker book to know that I can apply it to general poker games.

Beavis68 · #18 01-29-2005, 02:08 PM

I think the biggest problem with TOP is that most of the concpets in the book have become common place and are incorporated in to other books. SSH does a great job with most key concpets. Also, many of the concepts may not be valuable to all games, or all players depending on skills and strenghts.

I think of TOP as a fill in the gaps book for players once they have achieved a certain level of play.

Also, there will be diminishing returns on new poker books, the more you read, the less you will get from each new book.

captZEEbo1 · #19 01-29-2005, 02:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think the biggest problem with TOP is that most of the concpets in the book have become common place and are incorporated in to other books. SSH does a great job with most key concpets. Also, many of the concepts may not be valuable to all games, or all players depending on skills and strenghts.

I think of TOP as a fill in the gaps book for players once they have achieved a certain level of play.

Also, there will be diminishing returns on new poker books, the more you read, the less you will get from each new book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you voiced my opinion perfectly.

rmr1976 · #20 01-29-2005, 02:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This example seems a little contrived. How about I challenge YOU to a triple flop Hold 'em with 4 blinds and two jokers? Would you accept? According to your logic, since you have read Theory of Poker, you should accept.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you should re-read TOP again. You make an assumption that a person who has read this would accept your challenge in such a wild game. Actually, I wouldn't.

The game you propose has such a huge amount of luck involved, I doubt any skill at poker would be useful in such a game. I suspect most other 2+2 players wouldn't accept it either.

You say my example is a bit contrived. Other poker players don't think so, as this was a variation of hold 'em played in casinos that several 2+2 authors have played in.

I'm not that creative. I picked this variation out of a book to see how you would respond.

Understanding TOP is essential if you want to maximize your edge in a home game. If you play dealer's choice, what game are you going to pick? If you are equally good at Seven Stud and Hold 'Em, and your opponents are equally bad at either game, what is the better one to pick? Which gives you a bigger edge? Do you pick a spread limit or a structured limit game? Why?

You still haven't answered how you would adjust to the game I described. You answered with an irrelevant reply: "I've played these games, and have been successful..."

Before I judge your skill, I'd like to know how many hands you have played in each game, and at what limit. If you play online, you should have SOME records of this.