PHIL HELMUTHs PLAY POKER LIKE A PRO

dmoney · #1 06-14-2005, 12:14 PM

Ok. I read this as my first poker book, id say in general is a good book, nothing in there strikes me as being wrong. Ive read it probabbly 50 times cover to cover and know / can apply most of it well. The only thing is, It seems to me that even the advanced stuff in the book is more intermediate. The advanced holdem theory seems to be lacking a little.

I havnt read any Skalansky and malmuth yet, (I plan on getting some of them as my future books) Although im not a HUGE #s person so i dont know ho much it will help me, im no Math Major. Im more of a people reader kinda person. and a Bet reader.

How would you rate the Phil Helmuth Books out of 10? and be HONEST and TRY not to be bias becuase u all love this site and S & M.

nrinker · #2 06-14-2005, 12:19 PM

I give Phil's book a 4 out of 10.

But ya, you can't go wrong with a plate of Sklansky and a side order of Malmuth.

Read those 2p2 books.

dmoney · #3 06-14-2005, 12:24 PM

4 out of 10. Hmmm.

What is it lacking compared to these other books?

Why are 2p2 books so amazing?

Do they have more statistical play in them?

I would equate myself to a style more like Phils (agressive and player reader, vs mathmatics kinda guy.

Should I put on the reading glasses and dust off the ol stats book if i buy 2p2 books?

sinfulslick18 · #4 06-14-2005, 12:30 PM

hard to explain but the 2p2 books are simply amazing when compared to phils book. i agree a 4 out of 10 for phil is accurate.. good to start you off if you know nothing.. but wouldnt read it more than once.. if i were you i would go look into some 2p2 books.. not even joking. you will notice the difference in the end

-sinful

fnord_too · #5 06-14-2005, 01:02 PM

PH's book seems really good if you haven't read other books (or haven't played enough to realize its weaknesses). The limit hold'em section is pretty bad, but the other sections are not that bad. It is definitely not an advanced book.

I would give it aboout a 5 if you ignore the LHE section, a 3 if you include it.

About your not being a math person: You need to know the basic math of the game, but that is not hard. (That is, you need to know things like how to count your outs and how that translates into the liklihood that you make your hand. Also you absolutely must be aware of pot odds.)

Your next book should probably be Small Stakes Hold'em if limit hold'em is your game. There are some good non 2+2 books out there, but for LHE, Stud, Stud/8, and Tournament Play I have not found any that can compete at the advanced level.

fnord_too · #6 06-14-2005, 01:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I would equate myself to a style more like Phils (agressive and player reader, vs mathmatics kinda guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be confusing weak tight with mathematical. Knowing the math of the game actually pushes you towards being more aggressive in a lot of spots. The 2+2 books are not math laden. They use some very basic math from time to time, but nothing really advanced.

dmoney · #7 06-14-2005, 01:08 PM

Oh really? I was told many of the S & M books were similar to reading text books (boring and tough to digest)

fnord_too · #8 06-14-2005, 01:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Oh really? I was told many of the S & M books were similar to reading text books (boring and tough to digest)

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should read one and judge for yourself. I've read a lot of text books in my time, and I certainly don't think they read like text books. (They don't have amusing stories in them, but they are about improving your poker, not entertaining you).

For reference, I have a BS in discrete math and an MBA, so you could aptly classify me as a "math guy." How ever, all the math in the 2+2 books is adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing.

If you want to ease into it, pick up something like Caro's Fundamentals of Winning Poker (or something like that). He does a little math and phillosophy and writes in a light style that is not intimidating.

phish · #9 06-14-2005, 01:20 PM

Strikes me as very odd that you would read this one book 50 times instead of just picking up another poker book. What are you, some kind of toddler?

dmoney · #10 06-14-2005, 01:23 PM

Nope, I like to make sure I UNDERSTAND and MEMORIZE everything from one thing before I move on to the next. I dont want to be jumping from one thing to the next and have no real solid proof that it is helping or hurting my game.

I dont think this is anything to be ashamed of. If u can memorize an entire poker book your first time thats awesome but i cant. I need to read and re read.