Matching Books To Style

[MrMon]

Okay, I've already done my search on this topic and found nothing, so don't shoot me.

Are certain books more appropriate for certain playing styles than others? Of course there are books that are applicable to all players, but have any of you found books that are good but completely unmatched to your style? (Doesn't mean it shouldn't be read, as it's nice to know what your opponent with a different style might be thinking, but applying it to your style could be disasterous.)

I've finally figured out that I have a certain natural style that wins, but it's not the classic TAA that everyone seems to recommend. Try as I might, I'm never going to play that way. (Or I'm not going to enjoy playing that way, let's put it that way.) There are many ways to win, but which books match to which styles?

[Sniper]

Have you read Psychology of Poker?

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
I've finally figured out that I have a certain natural style that wins, but it's not the classic TAA that everyone seems to recommend.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate on this?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi MrMon:

I don't think this is the right approach. What you need is a good understanding of poker theory and the appropriate underlying concepts for the particular game(s) that you play. Then you'll gradually be able to see the appropriate style adjustments.

best wishes,
mason

[amulet]

i think you are saying that you want to play a lot of hands, because that fits your personality. it is not correct to play more hands in most types of poker. you will lose over time. however, different games do allow you to play more hands then others. therefore, you might want to specialize in a game that allows you to play more hands. but the idea of taking a game, and making it fit your style is not really an option if you want to win. if you just want to have fun, and do not care about winning, then it works.

[MicroBob]

you might be correct amulet...but for some reason I read it differently.

When he said he doesn't enjoy playing the TAA style I thought that meant that he probably doesn't like pushing his smallish post-flop advantages.
Your guess is that he's looser pre-flop...my guess is that he's weak-tightish.

bisonbison for example admitted that he just couldn't bring himself to raise for value to knock out opponents in many situations where he knew it was the correct play.
I think that for some players, raising with middle-pair just 'feels' too weird.


Again...amulet's assumption that the OP just can't bring himself to play tight pre-flop might be the correct one.
It's just not the idea that sprung to my mind when I first read that.


Middle Limit Holdem is a more passive style of play that is still likely to win in the long-run against most types of opponents (although not with as high a win-rate imo).

I think the aggressiveness that is pretty much shown in the quizzes in 'How good is your limit hold-em?' could help get the OP on the right track.


I think the OP needs to realize that it's possible he's just justifying HIS way of playing as being 'different...but just as correct'.

Trying to change things up TOO much to support the way you might prefer to play can be dangerous because if you aren't appropriately objective you are just finding excuses to continue making the same mistakes over and over.

[amulet]

bob, if your correct a game like nl would meet his aggression standards vs a game where he can't or should not play many "more" hands (like limit hold em for example). which is it mr. mom?
although now that i have read mason's post, i think he coved it well.

I hate Super/System because it makes me play too loose. I hate Harrington's books because they make me play too tight.

[MrMon]

Thanks for the response so far. My style comes up in PokerTracker as sLAA. Now, I'm playing at a pretty small level $1/$2 or $2/$4, often 6 max, but full ring as well. (My VP$IP will never go below 25%, it's usually 28%-30% full ring.) I realize this may not work in higher level games, but it has worked amazingly well at this level. (My nemesis is the calling station, as you can't bluff them. That calls for a quick style adjustment or a table change.)

Yes, game selection is important, as is table rep. A big stack helps as well. (At 1/2, that's $100.) Playing sLAA at this level, I'm basically intimidating the table, after establishing the fact I'm on a "lucky" streak. Mix in some slow play, tighten up for a period, or win a big pot with "odd" cards, you can get a table totally confused as to what you have. Played well, it looks maniacal, but isn't. Think Gus Hansen on a good day. The downside is, you can lull yourself into thinking you can win with anything, which is a really bad idea. Think Gus Hansen on a bad day. (And I'm not a Gus Hansen fan, he's just the most obvious example.)

I suspected Harrington would be too tight for me, but I'd still like to read the book with that in mind. Interesting though that Super/System makes you play too loose. Again, I'll need to reread with that in mind as well.

I guess the real question would be, since I have some ability to play this at lower levels, can it be translated up the ladder? You can't change the math of any given poker hand, so of course you need to stick within theory, but does any book take a sLAA perspective? Or am I just going to have to go TAA?

[amulet]

mush, nothing makes you play any style. they give you ideas and suggestions, and teach you. you can then take that where you want to.