Theory of Poker-- Not to useful

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
Did it ever occur to you that the reason you may not have learned anything "NEW" from TOP is that the other poker books you have read are based on the foundations set down by Sklansky? Most of the poker books out today are just slick re-packaging of existing information.
Despite the above, I think it more likely that you are just missing the boat entirely. If you can't learn anything by re-reading TOP, then you shouldn't bother reading anything about poker at all because you are obviously not too receptive to information.
Bashing TOP makes as much sense as joining the flat earth society.

[/ QUOTE ]

funny, i never got from his post that he was bashing TOP. sounds to me like he was stating his personal take from what he got or did'nt get and then asked you all how TOP benefited and improved your game. am i missing something in what he wrote that you so clairavoyantly picked up on?

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

who does'nt get this? who sees Beavis as bashing TOP?

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

i can can comprehend what you say perfectly without thinking you're a "already-knowitall-about-poker". some people take things too far to the extreme when your opinions and personal observation are at odds with the majority.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's skill at craps, there's skill at most forms of gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

No skill in craps, that's why the make you bounce it off the back, so you can't control the roll of the dice. There may be an optimum strategy so you lose less but there is no skill in craps.

If you don't even understand that, I can't help but think, you are not as well informed as you would like us to believe.

I am not posting anymore in this thread because your mind is tightly closed. You are absolutely convinced you are right and nothing, I or any of the posters have said has shaken your convictions.

FWIW, the downswing is coming, get ready.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to the optimum strategy in craps, by no means do I think it's a beatable game.

I sure hope a downswing doesn't come :-D

And sorry if I came off sounding like a complete dick in this thread. I probably am too stubborn to change my mind, but I was just curious as to what kinds of things everyone is getting out of this book on rereads, because I didn't get too much out of it on my first read (having already read the material in other books or on the forum, or through my own thinking of the game).

[/ QUOTE ]

you're not alone. i'm part of the population who has repeatedly went back to re-reading TOP. i'm not bashing TOP, but i can't say i've learned anything new or different from going back over the material repeatedly. that's does'nt make you or me a dick. don't feel like you gotta bite your tongue. anybody that's trying to put you down because of your own PERSONAL observations is more of a dick than you.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
Captain:

I'm sorry to come to this party late.

I'm not going to argue with your assumption, that you already know everything in TOP. If it's correct, I'm sure that you're crushing the games you're playing in, and don't need this book.

If, like most of the rest of us, you still feel you have a lot to learn, you'll probably be well-served by reading TOP. If nothing else, the review won't do you any harm.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you making the assumption that anybody who knows and understands TOP to a tee is crushing the games that their playing?

[sthief09]

I read TOP a few times, and it's definite a great book. It took a lot of experience to fully understand it. However, I think it I were at the point where I am now and hadn't read the book, I'd find much of what he writes about self-evident, but I could be wrong since I've read the book and would have no way of knowing. The game theory stuff is really useful though playing shorthanded limit hold'em. It proves that against good opponents, predictability will cost you money. If you fold too much to blind steals, they can steal with impunity. If you bluff too much, they can profit off calling you. It really quantifies the value of mixing things up and staying balanced, both for you and your opponents. I think that's the best part of the book, and I still don't understand it completely. But in general, the statement that everyone makes, "you MUST read this book to become a good player" isn't necessarily true. It'll definitely help speed up the process, but I'm sure there are some pretty damn good players who haven't read IT.

[sthief09]

yeah, learning optimal bluffing stategy and the concept of auto-money isn't optimal for PP 3/6. but against good, aggressive players, it's a concept that'll help you adjust your game to your opponents' tendencies

[sthief09]

that's probably because you already know about the easy stuff in the book, like pot odds and implied odds, and don't understand/can't apply to your games the more important stuff, like the last third of the book. I've been playing LHE a lot longer than you and still wouldn't be able to read and teach all of it. it's complicated stuff. just because you can't apply it doesn't mean it's not helpful. one day you'll be playing against good, aggressive players and it'll have a use. I haven't gotten to that point yet either

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So by this opinion works by Euler, Newton, Taylor, McLoran, Rheiman are all useless now?

[/ QUOTE ]


I think he qualified his statement by saying that it doesn't apply to all games. Take my physics education. I took 2 years of physics in HS, and 2 semesters in college. in HS, we took Newton's laws as a given and didn't worry how they were derived. in the second year of HS, we learned to derive them. in college, we learned how he derived them, then then derived other equations out of the. the point is, for PP 3/6, there's not much use in knowing about game theory and bluffing tendencies. at shorthanded PS 100/200, there is. most people just aren't at that level.

however, what bothers me about the statement is, just because you can't apply or understand it doesn't mean it's not useful. you're better off knowing it than not knowing it

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

who does'nt get this? who sees Beavis as bashing TOP?

[/ QUOTE ]


your reading comprehension isn't very good if you think he's bashing TOP