I've only read the hold'em chapters from the book, but Hellmuth is not advocating tight-passive in these chapters. In fact, his approach is probably way too aggressive. The most accurate desciption would be something like "supertight-hyperaggressive."

It was my first poker book, and I learned a lot from it since when I read it I didn't know anything about hold'em. I haven't read Super System 2, but based on the reviews I've read, it would be a far better read. But you'll probably learn a lot from Play Poker Like the Pros, and you are getting it for free, after all.

It teaches you to play super nitty poker whilst reading interlude stories of how well PH played some hands back in the 80s.

I was thinking about getting this book. Thanks for confirming my suspicions, guess I'll pass.

The book was one of the first I ever read. I used his Top 10 strategy when I was just starting out at the low limits. Supertight-hyperaggressive is a pretty accurate assessment considering he advocates raising on the flop in limit hold'em without regard to the board, essentially.
I think everyone underestimates the other chapters on non-hold'em games. Mason gave the non-hold'em chapters a positive review, iirc. It's still the only book that covers all the HORSE games in one volume. Can someone name another?

If you haven't yet read it, ill sum it up in 1 sentance. Phil Hellmuth is the best poker player in the existence of time.

Being my first book it really does a couple of good things for you. If you play limit you generally show up with the best hand at show down. If you play omaha 8/B you have a chance to win the tournament. Like i think Phil is a great O8/B player and very good at MTT's. I still think a tight strategy does have merit to it. Obviously there is better No-Limit and online books out there. But Phil has a great grasp on the fundementals. Like you can have a good golf swing but without the proper fundementals you are going to have a tought time down the road.

the biggest lol in books

this is hands down an awful book

This book makes Phil Gordon's Little Green Book seem like NLHE: Theory and Practice.

I'm from Madison, Wi and I have played with a few people who knew him back in the day. I haven't heard one person say he is good or even decent. One guy just said "Have daddy buy me in to every event I bet I'll win one sometime."

My vote for the August's dumbest post...

I think the Limit and NL sections are very bad, but the other poker games he goes over are not that bad.

it doesn't even make a good door-stop.

He actually lifted the concept of labeling players as animals from Ken Buntjer's book, which came out a few years before Phil's book.

Putting Phil's TV shenanigans aside, he really doesn't have much of a clue about poker theory--for years he claimed AKo was a better hand than AKs because AKo can make two suits of flushes while AKs can only make one. He advocates absurdly tight folds in the early stages of tournaments (claiming you should fold "knowing" you have a 2:1 edge early in a tournament because it's not worth "risking your tournament life," which is fine for a recreational player who just wants to last as long as possible but is terrible advice for someone concerned with EV), and then in the late stages will frequently just spew off chips.

The most simple example--if you're going to play a style where you're trying to run people over, as is often optimal in the middle-late stages of a tournament, you really don't want to encourage people to call you, as Phil often does. You really want poker advice from a guy that can't even figure out such a simple concept?

Best description ITT.

First book I ever bought, since I wanted to see if I could 'follow' a poker book since chess books tilted me. Really it could be one page long that just says to play the top 10% of hands. There's more content in googling "Hold'em Strategy".

Its not a really theoretic poker book so don't expect that much. It tries to entertain

it was my first poker book and like my first love, it cost me money, time and effort to realize id be better off with some one else !
seriously though theres a few decent things to take away from it, and as already stated it will give you the basics to the horse games. but in todays aggressive game much of the no limit advice is too conservative in my opinion although i cant comment on the limit hold em as i have never played the game

one thing is for sure about phil, i see him play a lot lately.

he use mainly a short stack strats or close to it, 50bb.

even to he never writes about it and everyone laugh when it hapens...
do u see him tilt a lot, he might jump off and all but when he suffer a terrible bad beat and he lose his nerves what happens.. he just leaves and the table start laughing.....
i just think its a great move from him and its probably why he has so much money ..
he knows when he start to tilt and he go away and not loose much his bankroll due to tilt rage, has i suspect a lot of u know...

when u tilt hard u can loose 20% bankroll in 1 hour...him, he leaves the table instead , contrary to all the others losing more like matusaw when they suffer a bad beat...

no matter what, phil know how to manage his bankroll by not losing a lot on tilt it seem..

and i think leaving a table while u are stuck or on tilt is one of the toughest move to do in poker....for me it is anyway ,and only for this, phil has lot of respect from me, his got character thats for sure and he aint has ******ed like a lot of players here seem to think.
his got holes yes in NL cash game, but...is mental attitude i think compensate a bit and probably saved him from a lot of huge lost that could of happened if he would of stayed.

anyway i always think a B poker player with a tought mental attitude will do better, money wise, in the long run vs a player of A caliber who is can be influenced by a bad attitude ( like tilting).

the lost of the A player on tilt will be much more pronunce then the lost of the B player, B player will win less money but he will loose a lot less as well.

and usually it when the A player tilt that B player gets a lot of tilt money from A...).

and it will take a lot of time to just regain what a lost.

I was reading a lot of reviews of various poker books last night and I came across a review of this book that absolutely slammed it. It didn't seem biased against Hellmuth himself, it just tore apart the quality of advice he advocates. Makes me want to read this book to see how bad it really is!

normanchad'dYP

This was written when he was still in a limit frame of mind. I think he got over that in the mid 00s. Before that, he was obsessed with starting hands. The old rants are of him criticizing players for bad starting hands.

This book is pretty good for low limit no fold em hold em games like 3/6, 4/8, etc. His limit style guarantees action and variance, but after enough experience, expected gains are possible.

It's very similar to Negreanu's earliest limit style. He covers it in his old blog. DNeg quickly moved past it. Helmuth had a rougher adjustment.

I would recommend it before Sklansky's book on small stakes since with today's rake, only by being near perfect or running good can someone beat the rake.

This very old school limit style is perfectly legitimate for a beginner.

Still have a copy?

Slamming the book has nothing to do with feelings about Hellmuth. There are great poker books. Then there are poker books that aren't really very good, but you can pick up a few interesting ideas from (after you've read a bunch of poker books, this is really the most that you can expect usually). Then there are awful poker books that I wouldn't even read if you gave me $20, because my time is more valuable than the amount of time it takes to read the book. This book is one of those. I can't have the time back that I took to read that book, but hopefully I can save someone else.

Agreed and I’ll even go as far to say I would recommend this book for someone who wants an intro to the ORSE games

Hell no don't do that.. Get it please. Who knows we may play together someday and you`ll mesmerise me with your skill set