|
|
#41
01-31-2005, 03:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Theory of Poker-- Not to useful
[ QUOTE ]
Your post reminded me of the frequent complaint: "Shakespeare is full of cliches." They became cliches because people quoted him so often. You have heard of many of these concepts precisely because David defined and explained them in TOP. Regards, Al [/ QUOTE ] Dr. Al gets a cookie for ripping off my exact post before I could make it. Kudos -- and warnings. Seriously, though, this is precisely the point. I am confident that 2+2 is the finest poker publisher in existence and one of their keystone books is Theory of Poker. I don't know their sales figures and it's certainly not my business, but I can't imagine that this isn't one of their more successful titles. Lately much of the talk, sure, is about Small Stakes Hold 'em and now even more recently Dan Harrington's phenomenal NL tourney tutorial, but we must never forget the foundation, and that is The Theory of Poker. Perhaps if one is exposed to all of the other 2+2 books first, one will get less from it than just coming into it a 2+2 virgin (okay, that's a moniker that certainly won't catch on), but you still will get something out of it. I've read everything 2+2 has on the market multiple times. I STILL reread Theory of Poker -- and it's not like I have a reading comprehension problem. Brushing up on basics and mining the fields ALWAYS is +EV. Read it again -- do yourself the favor. Barron Vangor Toth www.BarronVangorToth.com 
|
|
#44
02-01-2005, 05:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Theory of Poker-- Not too useful
[ QUOTE ]
"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 [/ QUOTE ] I don't understand the last part of this quote (everything after 'technique'.)
|
|
#45
02-01-2005, 05:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Theory of Poker-- Not too useful
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if I've offended every Sklansky fan here [/ QUOTE ] You didn't offend me. I sense you're asking the question fairly and with an honest desire to learn. Although clearly some other posters did not get that impression. This possible deficiency in their reading comprehension might partly explain why they benefit so much from rereading things, but I speculate. I do feel the average person can usually get a lot out of rereading a technical work like TOP at least several times. I have only just started reading TOP myself, and I find it informative and useful. However, I haven't even finished my first reading of SSH and have only been playing a third as long as you. I consider myself solidly in the ranks of the beginners. I will admit, however, that I am slightly distubed at the incorrect use of the preposition 'to' in this thread's subject rather than the correct adverb 'too' meaning very.
|
|
#46
02-01-2005, 07:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Theory of Poker-- Not too useful
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Sorry if I've offended every Sklansky fan here [/ QUOTE ] You didn't offend me. I sense you're asking the question fairly and with an honest desire to learn. Although clearly some other posters did not get that impression. This possible deficiency in their reading comprehension might partly explain why they benefit so much from rereading things, but I speculate. I do feel the average person can usually get a lot out of rereading a technical work like TOP at least several times. I have only just started reading TOP myself, and I find it informative and useful. However, I haven't even finished my first reading of SSH and have only been playing a third as long as you. I consider myself solidly in the ranks of the beginners. [/ QUOTE ] Ah the first kind words. =) [ QUOTE ] I will admit, however, that I am slightly distubed at the incorrect use of the preposition 'to' in this thread's subject rather than the correct adverb 'too' meaning very. [/ QUOTE ] I made the post, checked back like 5 miuntes later to see how many people looked at it already, and I instantly noticed the error. I went to click edit, and it was already TOO late! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
|
#47
02-12-2005, 05:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Maybe this will help
I think that, on the one hand, you are right that you don't HAVE to read TOP to become a better player. It sounds like you are (at least) a decent player, who has learned a lot through experience and reading other books. So many books have reproduced the key ideas from TOP, that there is no way that anybody absolutely has to read TOP.
Here's why I think reading and rereading TOP, even for a developing player who is already beating low-limit games, is a good idea. 1) It emphasizes the importance of analyzing various situations, and equips you with the tools to make such analyses. A lot of the benefit of the book for me comes when I read something, think about a situation which seems relevant to the discussion at hand, and decide to do a detailed analysis of the situation. Strictly speaking, I could have produced the analysis without TOP, but in reality, I am often aided by thinking about the ideas presented in TOP. (Note here that reading TOP isn't enough; thinking about the concepts on your own is also essential.) 2) One of the biggest improvement in my game was learning to adjust my play to the tendencies of my opponents. I learned about semi-bluffing pretty soon, and even after reading about it in several places, managed to misapply the ideas fairly often. I would often semibluff raise heads-up on the turn against someone who I knew always called down after he bet the turn. After rereading the relevant section in TOP, I realized that I was missing out on something obvious. Semibluffing loses its value when your opponent won't fold. And, conversely, outright bluffing goes way up in value if your opponent folds too much. Simple stuff, but it took me a while before I was thinking this way in the "heat of the moment" at the poker table. Now I do a much better job of taking small pots from players who I know won't call without TPGK or better. Whereas I have stopped putting in lots of bets on the turn with the nut flush draw and an overcard, when I suspect I am behind and I know that I am going to have showdown a winner. I can't promise you that TOP will be helpful to you, but if you (like most of us do) have leaks in your game, TOP gives you the tools to detect and correct them. It's true that there are other places you can go that will also do this, but I don't know of one that is better and more applicable to all variants of poker than TOP. Generally speaking, TOP is a book that is supposed to be paradigm-shifting in how you think about poker. It is supposed to take you from playing based on hunches and hope to playing based on a rigorously analytic framework. Most of us on these boards have already achieved this paradigm shift, many by reading TOP as well as the many other good sources of poker ideas. But few of us have come very close to perfecting this approach, and so going back to the "basics" every once in a while can have a significant benefit.
|
|
#49
02-13-2005, 12:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Theory of Poker-- Not to useful
I read TOP after I had already read about 15 other books (2+2 and others). Because virtually all of the information in TOP is presented in those other books (usually in a clearer way), I found it almost totally unhelpful. The only material in it I had not seen elsewhere was the hardcore game theory stuff, which is unlikely to help my game.
I don't have a reading comprehension problem, I am not blind, and I have been playing poker for about 5 years. Clearly TOP was incredibly influential, and I'm not bashing it. I'm saying that the OP probably had much the same experience as me--having basically read the material in TOP in other places before, it came off to me as not particularly useful. Had I read it first, I would probably have felt differently. The people on this thread who can do nothing but call the OP blind or ignorant need to grow up.
|
|
#50
02-13-2005, 12:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Theory of Poker-- Not to useful
Come on, you should know that anyone who doesn't agree or like a 2+2 book is either a weak-tight player or an idiot.
Let's be honest here - with the explosion of poker books today, there isn't much in TOP that isn't covered well by other authors in an easier-to-read way. I guess if you desperately needed to know about optimal bluffing theory you'd have to pick it up, but it's just not required reading any more.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
