Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Are most poker books irrelevant? Are most poker books irrelevant?

09-04-2013 , 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RagingBull
Okay, I will accept your points as correct.

Given this premise, what are the books I should read that will give me a foundation that will allow me to think about the game in a more effective way and grow into a more winning player?

I will repeat the books I've read so far:
  • Harrington on Cash Games
  • Harrington on Tournaments
  • Super System 2 - Brunson
  • Professional No Limit Hold'em - Miller
  • Winning Low Limit Holdem - Lee Jones

Those are the main books I've read so far, and I have glanced at The Theory of Poker as well.

What do you recommend?

(thanks in advance)
I recommend that you read each book in your list three times from cover to cover. This is how long it took me before the ideas finally managed to sink in, and then I went on to win money.
Are most poker books irrelevant? Quote
09-04-2013 , 09:21 AM
And when you have the basic fundamentals down then you can start looking at more advanced theory
Are most poker books irrelevant? Quote
09-04-2013 , 09:35 AM
Have you considered that you're drastically over-thinking things? Over-thinking is a serious leak and you should plug it if that is the case.

The reason people recommend developing solid fundamental poker is more often then not you can be extremely profitable by just sitting down and waiting for people to make mistakes. Not making plays, just waiting for people to make mistakes. Especially at the lower limits.

You're acting like poker is a solved game or something and is impossible to be profitable for anyone. Which is impossible, because while poker as a game, and the forefront of poker theory has evolved significantly over the years, humanity as a whole has completely devolved. So while the top players have gotten a lot better the majority have just become more degen.
Are most poker books irrelevant? Quote
09-11-2013 , 12:48 PM
I just started to reading this book but i think that already the first 10-20 pages of introduction exactly describe the topic thats discussed here:
No Limit Hold 'em Theory and Practice (David Sklansky, Ed Miller)
Are most poker books irrelevant? Quote
09-11-2013 , 04:37 PM
i post my 3 favorite quotes here, hope thats ok. the first one i put in there because thats really what a good book should be about. the other 2 are just perfect for the discussion in this thread.
Are most poker books irrelevant? Quote
02-01-2014 , 03:00 PM
There are two things you appear to be saying:

1. The version of "how I learned the game" that you hear from some tournament winner when a microphone is shoved in their face should be taken at--you should forgive the pun--"face value." And,

2. That learning the ABCs is somehow irrelevant to authoring a great work.

The problem with 1. is that there's nothing that you say which sounds like a study of all people winning at poker, tournament or cash. It's a little less than scientific in its breadth, as surveys go, but you have drawn a universal conclusion on the basis of a microscopically tiny sample.

While the problem with 2. is that Shakespeare learned his ABCs before writing Hamlet, the same way that anyone aspiring to win at poker needs to learn to play what is known as "ABC Poker" before showing up at a table (cash games, especially), ATM card in hand and a sign around the neck reading "here to learn." Of course, you WILL learn (or at least get schooled, whether you learn from the lessons or not), but the poker classics are the shortcut to understanding WHY you don't call 3 pf bets with KJo. Anyone who can pick up on the reasons for not doing that without reading it in a book is pretty damned smart, and, yes, there are such people in the world, but to suggest that the "grammar books" are no longer of any value is an amazingly long stretch from there.
Are most poker books irrelevant? Quote
02-04-2014 , 09:07 AM
Quote:
Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
- some random Donk an era ago
Are most poker books irrelevant? Quote
02-05-2014 , 02:07 AM
Poker books are irrelevant if you are phil ivey or think your the next phil ivey

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xe3...nd-tips_school

Poker is just a crazy game. I've never played a perfect session where at the end of the day I said "man I played perfect today" . When I play a session, I always make mistakes. Theres so many invariables of Poker. Poker is definitely a game where you have to live in the moment. No matter how good of a player you are , or how good of a player you think you are there are just going to be days where you can't do anything right and your going to lose. To be one of the best players in the world your going to have to put in time. Theres weeks where I put in 100 hours playing poker. You can read all the books you want that doesn't really matter. Once you get to a certain level in poker it comes down to whether or not the guy actually has the hand he's representing or not. " I had you " Im not a prodigy I just work at poker very hard. Im always thinking how I can get better at it. - Phil Ivey. The ****ing King.


Wow. Phil Ivey . Mind blown . Heres the thing he's saying once your at a certain level. I would assume 90% of players are not on this "level " he's describing. He didn't say I've never read a poker book. He is personally beyond them.

WARNING YOU ARE NOT PHIL IVEY. YOU JUST THINK YOUR ON THAT LEVEL. YOUR NOT. He is always thinking about how he can better. Are you? or do you just brush off someone shipping Quads and you boating up calling a river bet a cooler? Do what suits you.

From my personal experience : All the good players ( people playing for income) I spoke with discuss HH constantly******** and read literature whether it be on 2p2 or books. if reading books by famous and wildly successful players is a waste of time then surely reading a 2p2 post by an relative unknown has zero value as well right?
Are most poker books irrelevant? Quote
02-05-2014 , 03:02 PM
[QUOTE=WickedChippa;42063309]Poker books are irrelevant if you are phil ivey or think your the next phil ivey

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xe3...nd-tips_school

Poker is just a crazy game. I've never played a perfect session where at the end of the day I said "man I played perfect today" . When I play a session, I always make mistakes. Theres so many invariables of Poker. Poker is definitely a game where you have to live in the moment. No matter how good of a player you are , or how good of a player you think you are there are just going to be days where you can't do anything right and your going to lose. To be one of the best players in the world your going to have to put in time. Theres weeks where I put in 100 hours playing poker. You can read all the books you want that doesn't really matter. Once you get to a certain level in poker it comes down to whether or not the guy actually has the hand he's representing or not. " I had you " Im not a prodigy I just work at poker very hard. Im always thinking how I can get better at it. - Phil Ivey. The ****ing King.


Wow. Phil Ivey . Mind blown . Heres the thing he's saying once your at a certain level. I would assume 90% of players are not on this "level " he's describing. He didn't say I've never read a poker book. He is personally beyond them.

WARNING YOU ARE NOT PHIL IVEY. YOU JUST THINK YOUR ON THAT LEVEL. YOUR NOT. He is always thinking about how he can better. Are you? or do you just brush off someone shipping Quads and you boating up calling a river bet a cooler? Do what suits you.

From my personal experience : All the good players ( people playing for income) I spoke with discuss HH constantly******** and read literature whether it be on 2p2 or books. if reading books by famous and wildly successful players is a waste of time then surely reading a 2p2 post by an relative unknown has zero value as well right?[/QUOTE]

+1

Many pros spend 50% of their poker time studying. Andrew Robl was described by a friend as "fanatical about studying the math."

Those who succeed in almost any profession are always working at fixing leaks and getting better. An obvious example is doctors who read several medical journals.

World-famous cellist Yo-Yo Ma has appreared all over the world, from the White House to The Simpsons. What does he do with his free time? When he's on the road he has been known to practice scales for six hours straight in his hotel room. That's some serious grinding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo-Yo_Ma

Once my wife got a degree, then worked for 25 years as a medical transcriptionist, she certainly knew what she was doing, but she didn't stop learning. While many of her co-workers were whining about how hard it was to keep up with medical developments and changing technologies, she made a decision. She wasn't going to be left behind. She got subscriptions to trade magazines that discussed things like medical transcription and coding, voice detection and editing, electronic medical records, and medical privacy issues and laws.

She has now been doing transcription for over 35 years. Two years ago she was promoted to a position as quality analyst for the transcription department. Now she rates the work of transcriptionists who didn't put in the time to get better, and the whiners still whine--when my wife gives them a low rating.

Whenver I see a "Could I made it as a pro" thread, I always look for one thing. Does the OP say, Do I have to (fill in the blank.) Do I have to know odds and outs? Do I have to know the math? Do I have to pay attention to bankroll managment, or should I move up where they will respect my raises? (The last one isn't posed that way, but it's really what is being asked.)

You really do need to learn from books (and/or videos and/or coaching sessions.) But there are some things you need to learn on your own. Here's an example:

I remember when I first read that to be successful as a player, I needed to put an opponent on a range, and then play hands in the top half of his range. OK, that makes sense, because I will have the better hand more than half of the time.

If I pay attention, I can tell that villian is raising with about 10% of his hands. That means I have to respond with the top 5% of hands. But I didn't know which hands were in the top 5%! I realized that I had to learn that somewhere else. Of course, that meant that I should also learn the top 10%, top 20%, etc.

That lead me to think about other such problems. Did I need to memorize a table of every hand against a random hand? What about if I'm in the button and I want to know how my hand ranks against two random hands (SB and BB)? In poker, the more you know, the more you know you don't know.

Of course, poker decisons are about more than math. If the blinds fold a lot, I can raise the button with all but my worst hands. The point is that being good at poker, or anything else, takes work. There are all kinds of charts and tables online (pokersyte.com is a good one) where you can find out things like, if I have an ace preflop against n players, how likely is it that I hold the only ace? But how many players actually study things like that?

Andrew Robl probably does, if he hasn't memorized most of it already. You (most of you reading this thread) don't. You are probably annoyed that I said that you should.

You won't be a winner, because you won't do the work.

Last edited by Poker Clif; 02-05-2014 at 03:07 PM. Reason: spelling
Are most poker books irrelevant? Quote
02-06-2014 , 03:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by klondi

Then on top of that, you need to a have a huge mental plus. If you can not control yourself when things are going against you there is a high chance that even if you are a winning player when you are at your best, then you could spew most of it away when things are going against you because of tilt.

You must be willng to keep going, and playing your best A game day in a day out even when there are periods off days, weeks, maybe months where you get nothing in return for all your hard work, just because variance is a bitch.
This is just as important as anything you'll find in a poker book. No matter what you read, if you don't have the metagame going, it's all for naught.
Are most poker books irrelevant? Quote
02-06-2014 , 06:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuubimon

Wrong. The right answer is the +EV answer, regardless of whether this particular hand
Wrong. The right answer is the one that gives the most EV. Just because is +EV to shove aces pre 100bb is not the "right" play. Also the some right answera are -ev (when you are in the blinds).
Are most poker books irrelevant? Quote
02-06-2014 , 09:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oigres02
Wrong. The right answer is the one that gives the most EV. Just because is +EV to shove aces pre 100bb is not the "right" play. Also the some right answera are -ev (when you are in the blinds).
The right answer could be considered the one that gives the most long-term EV. As an extreme example, a player may be playing against regulars and make a -EV play ( instead of a zero EV play by folding ) in just one hand to influence future play to gain back even more EV.
Are most poker books irrelevant? Quote
02-09-2014 , 05:22 PM
There is about no way to win without the abcs the necessary books give. The exception partly happens when one is good at one or more poker forms and has lots of experience and can use thinking to bridge the missing parts.

The experience and overall understanding, knowledge of the game can still bring success at easier games even with the lack of knowledge, but to get as high as one would like will not be possible without theoretical books, and not too many can or bother to figure all that out so they buy books, that help one also to think about the game.

But i very much dont over value the theoretical works, but there is no way to win without understanding the theoretical bases.

There just is too much practice in poker that mostly it looks like the books are useless, but that is no way the case.
Are most poker books irrelevant? Quote
02-10-2014 , 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6471849653
There is about no way to win without the abcs the necessary books give. The exception partly happens when one is good at one or more poker forms and has lots of experience and can use thinking to bridge the missing parts.

The experience and overall understanding, knowledge of the game can still bring success at easier games even with the lack of knowledge, but to get as high as one would like will not be possible without theoretical books, and not too many can or bother to figure all that out so they buy books, that help one also to think about the game.

But i very much dont over value the theoretical works, but there is no way to win without understanding the theoretical bases.

There just is too much practice in poker that mostly it looks like the books are useless, but that is no way the case.
This is pretty much the case. No matter how out of date a book might seem you can always find usefull info to help your game
Are most poker books irrelevant? Quote
02-10-2014 , 04:25 PM
I also find it matters to where I apply the knowledge...

Against noobs and utter fish - EVERY poker book is a weapon - however, how I apply that knowledge to certain scenarios is the key. Against better players, I will require different knowledge.

Currently my favorite book is 2+2 because it's SPECIFIC to my current gameplay. I'm starting to post hands and get some feedback on my CURRENT skill level.

Going back to using books, for example, book A says I should raise AA/KK in EP. Pretty standard "theory" - but villain in CO is super spew aggressive so Book B says I should limp and hope he raises.

Both books are being dependent on an outcome to which, villain might call or he might raise and in a way, both books cancel each others theory out or propose they are the better theory.

But this is DEPENDING on an outcome which a book CANNOT predict. I am not a math person AT ALL, but the math can get closer to the optimal outcome (disregarding all other factors such as tells, betting patterns etc - if v plays over 75% hands it's therefore VERY likely - but NOT ALWAYS gonna happen- that he will put chips in. This is a large oversimplification).

Both theories are solid- but human tendencies cannot be predicted in a book because one day a super nit you've played is suddenly having a bad day/he's drunk/financial pressures etc etc - and he's playing a game that contradicts your notes and your game plan

This is what strategy is - strategy must be fluid and open to adjustment otherwise all you simply have is a plan and get disgruntled when things don't go to plan

Last edited by Rags2Rickius; 02-10-2014 at 04:32 PM.
Are most poker books irrelevant? Quote

      
m