My only two exclusively no limit hold'em books in my poker library are Harrington on Cash Games 1+2, and Sklansky's NLHE Theory and Practice, both of which I have purchased and read within the last 3 months.

I read Sklansky first, and seemed to think that it was just OK, and then I got a hold of Harrington and I really enjoyed them. I have felt that Harrington's book has helped me, a true beginner the most so far, mainly because it seems so well organized and specific. It has seemed for me to be more in-depth and more understandable with a great wholistic approach.

Do you all feel the same about these two books in particular? Do you find one to be superior to the other, or are they just appropriate books for different readers with different skill levels?

I have just found Harrington's books to teach strategies that I can more or less conceptualize in their entirety, regardless of the stage of the hand or the stakes of the games...granted I am a beginning/novice player. Perhaps it is due to the fact that Harrington addresses only full-ring cash games, where as Sklansky's book additionally addresses tournaments, (or rather is not cash games specific).

i read "TAP" and thought i missed something and went back to read the book a second time before i realized i was looking for something that wasn't really there IMO.
Harrington on cash was a great refresher and an amazing leak finder.
The book i really enjoyed was PNL and found it a refreshing read - shame 2P2 wont be putting out a follow up.

I was just listening to Harrington on the 2+2 pokercast... his opinion of Professional No Limit was that they focused too much on pot odds...he says they overemphasize it.

I haven't read Professional No Limit, so I have no opinion.

Actually it was SPR or Stack to Pot Ratio that he felt was overemphasized.

good call...my bad

Being a newbie the NLHT&P is far to advanced for you at this time. HOC is excellent for your current education

I liked PNL vol1 a lot and it had a lot of good examples but I too think it overemphasized SPR but i am not good enough how they could have fixed that problem.

The main point that I got out of PNL is to have a plan and a way to figure out that plan was based on your PNL related to factors in the game such as your holdings, opponents SPR, the board texture and a few other main things.

For what stakes would you say each book is most appropriate? Clearly both books have a weak games section, but they arent weak games books primarily. In fact, Harrington has several mega-high stakes examples ... not that Harrington's book is for mega-high stakes either, or that those specific examples cannot teach weak beginning players something.

Im curious though, what people would peg down, more or less, as a suitable limit to be playing/following book advice rigorously. Not that either book is a recipe book... Sklansky talks about that very issue out of the gate. But I do think you could pinpoint limits where book advice can be very valuable as opposed to only modestly valuable.

I too am a beginner and have just finished my first read of Theory and Practice - my only NL book so far. I thought it was good a introducing various concepts, but is not a beginner book.

Also, I am not sure how applicable it is to internet micro limit games. For example, it seems that the PF recommendations are too passive. If you have thoughts on the PF recommendations in Theory and Practice, I'd like to hear them.

BTW - I will be ordering HoC v 1 and v 2 this weekend.

HOC is clearly the most comprehensive and best of the 3 books. It will teach most beginners and intermediates how to play better and think better.

NLHT&P is somewhat helpful and interesting, but it doesn't really teach someone to be a better player, and it doesn't go into the depths that TOP did.

PNL took one idea and turned it into most of a book. It is decent, but not great.

I have to somewhat disagree. While there are definitely concepts that are going to be hard to apply at low stakes the principles of the book are good for any level. I think if you can understand and apply the concepts while not trying to think too far past your opponent's thinking, which is discussed in the book, then it will be very helpful even in lower limit games where players aren't thinking on the level of an experienced players.

The book pretty much addresses live play at $5/$10 NL and above, but I've found it to still be helpful to online play at the micros and low stakes. You just have to know what's not going to work with players not thinking past their own cards.

Now that four months have passed, I have had plenty of time to digest Sklansky and Harrington both, multiple times. All of the other poker resources (DeucesCracked, HEM, etc.) I have found and utilized since reading the traditional literature have honestly been more valuable to me.

However, in evaluating the books, today I find NLHE:TAP to be more valuable to me than HoC. Two factors have contributed to NLHE:TAP being a more valuable resource to me.

1) Unlike HoC, NLHE:TAP does not focus on full-ring games. I don't play full-ring at all any more, and I really don't care to play full-ring any time soon. I play 6-max now. So, the current HoC book has diminished value to a player like me.

2) NLHE:TAP really focuses on not being a "recipe book." Sklansky states this intention at the outset, and he successfully achieves his aim. Now that I've got more experience under my belt, Sklansky's consistent approach of "listing factors to consider" is much more helpful to me. More specifically, the one section of NLHE:TAP that validates the point I am making is the "Concepts and Weapons" section. That is the most valuable section of either book to me currently.

I relish its rapid-fire and conceptual nature, and I think an extension of the "Concepts and Weapons" would be a hot item. If I could demand a title be written by Sklansky, Harrington, or anyone at 2p2, it would be an entire "Concepts and Weapons" book. It wouldn't have 60 concepts---instead it would have something like 500. Infact, if I really got what I desired, it would be a conceptual book directed exclusively at 6-max cash games, just like Harrington's upcoming new title. So, I suppose it would tackle the 6-max cash game topics, but would mimic Sklansky's conceptual style.

I am a beginner. I have been playing for about 2 weeks. I have GSIHE by Miller and NLHE:TAP. I read some of both. Should I start with HOC?

All you need is NLTAP and TOP and you're good to go. Everything else exists online (DeucesCracked, PokerSavvyPlus, LeggoPoker, CardRunners).

YES. HOC WOULD BE VERY GOOD FOR YOU.

THESE ARE TOO ADVANCED FOR YOU.

I really hate HoC. I think it's terrible. Some of the advice it gives are either too nitty, narrowminded, or just straighforward bad. Sometimes it doesn't even extend to level 2 thinking much less level 3. Guh.