Books

[KingBorgo]

I went out to Barnes and Noble and looked through some Poker Strategy text to brush up before Vegas. I own a few, but nothing really new. So, I went and poked around, and looked through some. I first picked up one of Hellmuth’s books, considering he is, no matter what you say about his attitude, one of the best tournament players on the circuit. While the book may have been good and informative, I could not get past his tone in it. All I could read was, “Damn right, I’m Phil Hellmuth”. That one went back on the shelf.

I next picked up Negreanu’s “Power Poker”. I thumbed through a lot of the early sections, and, to be frank, those seemed worthless. David Williams’ section looked promising though. When I got to Negreanu’s section (most of the book), it really only reaffirmed a lot of my play. I started a small ball style about a year ago, and while it is nice to have my thoughts reaffirmed, what I found was not very revolutionary to me.

I wanted to find “Winning Poker Tournaments One Hand at a Time” by Eric Lynch and others. I’ve heard a few good things about it, but it was not on the shelf. What was on the shelf, that is probably my next purchase, is Phil Gordon’s Little Green and Little Blue books. They seem to have some really good concepts behind them. I think I could add a couple new weapons to my arsenal when I get out to getting them. Obviously, if I add even one profitable play from a book, it will pay for itself hundredfold.

What I ended up deciding to purchase is The Theory and Practice of No Limit Hold’em, by David Sklansky and Ed Miller. If you haven’t read Sklansky before, pick up his Theory of Poker (for beginners). You may get bogged down in his math at times, but his reasoning is so very clear. I have already gotten some things I want to try, and I’m not even 25 pages in yet.

With that said, I do not always put stock in the plays these books proclaim. However, they still provide one very valuable function: they force you to consider WHY you disagree. Sure, they advocate a check/raise here, but I think a bet/reraise would be more profitable, or a check/call. Why? Now that is where you will improve your game. You will have to break down exactly how you will benefit from your play, and consider how you can benefit from changing it. This is how the game evolves, and such thinking is invaluable to progressing as a player.

[Fonzi]

I told you, you should be reading poker for dummies. Just look at what it's done for Targetguy's game.

[pkrplr4116]

Since you are going to be in town, may I respectuflly suggest that you stop by the new Gambler's Book Shop? They moved from their Trop location to a spot on Eastern between Russell and hacienda. EVERY major poker book is in stock there. You can check out their inventory on hand by going to their website, then go to the shop itself, if you don't want to wait for shiping. They let you browse there for as long as you want to. Nice group of folks.

[pkrplr4116]

In My Opinion:
I find Sklansky writes for those who are already way smarter than I am. And I have a law degree. But I SUCK at math. If you're not a math person, I'd strongly suggest avoiding books written by Sklansky and Bill Chen (The Mathamatics of Poker ) and "Professional no Limit Poker" writen by Mehta, Miller and someone else. Wait till you get a more solid poker education, before embarking on reading a book that makes you feel stupid. You're not stupid but anyone who is not a math person will feel like an idiot reading Skalnsky, Chen and Mehta. Skalnsky has this nasty habit of talking down to people who don't understand his high level of thinking. the lothers are kinder, but still the level of math is for folks who are already very good at poker. Read any poker books written for the 'common' person. I don't men to insult you by calling you common; I'm common, most people are common, lol. And most people aren't math wizzes.

I remember sklansky putting McEvoy down by telling McEvoy he writes for the common man. Well, duh. McEvoy's books are understandable. Skalnasky's are not.