THE book (Theory of Poker)

[jackaaron]

Why is this such a substantial book, and do you think it would help people that are playing lower level sng's and tournies to build their bankroll (since they would be playing against people who don't have much of a stake in their buy in, and don't understand the gap concept, and such)?

It is a substantial book because it outlines the fundamental concepts of poker generally. It is not a "how to win at poker" book - it is a deeper analysis of the game.

I think it is required reading, but should not be the first book anyone reads - and I say this as someone for whom it was the first book I read - I am now re-reading it after having read SSHE and it all fits together much better.

[cincy_kid24]

It's the bible. When you hear pros discuss hand analysis, they use phrases and words like "positive expectation/negative expectation," and "good decisions/bad decisions," and "correct play," and "long run"
In other words they're discussing specific, real-life hands in a theoretical sense because that is how good and bad poker is evaluated. Fishes make their mistakes because they think winning a pot equates success, it is if they won the pot by making good decisions, i.e. theoretically correct, but if they made bad decisions and still ended up winning, they actually lost money.
Good poker is evaluated over 100 hands, 500 hands, 1,000 hands or throughout a year, 5 years or 10 years - you get my point. This book teaches how to think in those terms.

[UATrewqaz]

This is why I HATE ESPN Shove all in poker and watch us deal the cards!

Player A goes all in with TT, Player B is the single caller with KK.

At that point they are DONE PLAYING poker. The dealer then puts the cards on the board. The results are meaingless to the play.

When a T falls on the river the idiot announcers chirp in with how Player B picked a tough spot, blah blah blah.

I know the second the action is over that player B will win the board crap 80% of the time, what is the thrill to seeing hte cards dealt on the board?

ESPN does not broadcast poker anymore, they simply broadcast cards being placed on the table.

Complete results oriented crap. ToP teaches you what good decisions and bad decisions are, and in the long run good decisions win out.

[jackaaron]

Thanks folks. It's funny, because you are all addressing things that I was hoping to hear. I think, mentally, you have to come at the game from playing many hands correctly regardless of outcome. You're not going to win every sng, every tourney, and so on, but if you're approaching it this way, I feel it's possible that later on as you gain experience, you'll know more good decisions that can be made. Does that make sense at all? What I mean is this...a starting player that makes good decisions might not check the nuts on the river, whereas if you have some experience and think that you can induce a bluff in your opponent, you might check the nuts on the river and get more money out of him than you would have (I'm not saying this is a correct play all the time, it's situational, and would come from experience, but could be hurtful over time if you kept doing it in the wrong situation). I ramble, but thanks for all of your input.

[UATrewqaz]

Quite often there is a 100% best decision and other times it depends on your read.

For example:

Say there are 4 people in the pot at the river and you have the stone cold nuts, the first guy bets out (a known bluffer).

You are 2nd to act.

Do you raise or call?

The answer: It depends.

If you know the opponents behind you are pretty loose and will call a bet then by calling you gain +2BB (both their calls).

If you raise you are pretty sure they'll fold and the original bettor will probably call (thus you gain +1BB).

However if the original bettor folds (say it was a pure bluff) then you gain 0 BB.

However if you just call and hte players behind you both fold anywah you get 0 BB more.

So you can see how your ability to read your opponents hands/personalities/actions factor into what makes a decision good.

[ QUOTE ]
This is why I HATE ESPN Shove all in poker and watch us deal the cards!

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I prefer WPT. 2 hours to show 6 players results in more poker than 1 hour to show 9 players.

[rgschackelford]

WPT doesn't get good until three-handed. But heads-up is very nice. The only downside is you get these morons who think all-in with K9 on the first hand of an SnG is a good play, because they saw John Juanda or Phil Ivey or Daniel Negreanu do it heads-up after picking up a strong read on him. Oh well, more money for me!

Theory of poker is great... However,

i went back to Middle limit poker and small stakes poker to plug some fundamental leaks in my game.

Although these books are limit books... I think they relate largely to no - limit play.