49 replies to this topic

[royaltrux]

It seems from your posts that you have a ways to go in your poker journey. No offense, we all do. But here are some points from your posts that contradicted itself or showed that you didn't fully comprehend what you were criticizing.

Quote

His theory (if I remember properly) of something like "If you play your hands like you can openly read your opponents' hands then you win, and vice versa..." is kind of difficult to understand.

If this is all you got from reading it seriously looks like you spot read. What he is talking is the Fundamental Therom of Poker and he goes into great detail explaining what he means by that and it takes a thorough reading of the book to make sense of the whole thing since the explanation comes full circle by the end.

Quote

2. I prefer other books because they are fun to read and easier to grasp. Books like S/S (can't wait for SS2) got me hooked right away. And honestly, I am not a pro and I play online just for fun (but I do manage to make profit, and I have a day time job), I don't have that much time to read on an relatively boring book (ok, lazy excuses, got work to do, family to run...)

No offense but the old saying of "If it was that easy, everyone would do it" comes in to play. You can't become a professional or even a consistent winner without putting in the time and effort.

Quote

4. Some experiences very important like patience, discipline, observing your opponents, changing gears, courage to bluff, choosing the right time , right people, and right position to bluff, avoiding trap, setting trap, etc are something you can't read from a book. If you don't have the talent to sort things out on your own, you will never be able to be a fine poker player or a successful person.

Books can't teach you this per se, but they do make the beginner aware that you should look out and think about these things. TOP does this very well. Then you end point 4 by saying "If you don't have the talent to sort>>>>(see above) and then state in point 5 that you want Daniel to show you what to look for. That just proves your own point that you at the moment are not a "fine poker player or a successful person."Maybe I misread what you were getting at, but your posts seemed muddled, uninformed and contradictory.

[JaysonWeber]

This book changed my poker playing... period... Its not the first book you should read.. or the second... You should read this after you have a good feel for odds etc... I really think that this book helps you learn pot-equity, pot odds, betting for value etc....After reading this book I finally began winning online... I'll put it that way, and I win more in B&M games as well.

[bourbenz]

i agree with jason this book was the difference between playing poker and understanding it to me, the theory is simple but so complex, a must read for anyone serious about making money.

[digitalmonkey]

Gonna get it. Theory of Poker

[Swift_Psycho]

It's good.

[greatwhite]

best book ever written, hands down

[Mattnxtc]

rereading it now and its great...this combined with SSHE is such an advantage over the fish that swim around the sites

[AceOfSpaiDs]

DanielNegreanu said:

This book is a must have for any poker library. It teaches you all you need to know about pot odds and general theory. (I'll add more later)

if DN recommends it I'm down...

[greatwhite]

If you don't want to improve your game don't buy it. If there was one book in the world I had to recommend it would be this one. :-)

[project240]

Definitely +EV

[fckthis]

Why hasn't daniel added like he said he would lol.

[KyleStark]

Hey DN, if you ever get back to this book review...I was over at 4 and watching Sklanksy really tear into Lee Jones lately, so I went to RGP just to cross check and I came across Gary Carson really tearing into Theory of Poker:

"Gary Carson" said:

The first thing to do is forget everything you might have read in the dummiesbook of a theoretical nature. It gets some fundemental concepts just downrightwrong.The second thing to do is to realize that Theory of Poker isn't theoretical,it's about tactics and how to choose tactices. Things in that book that aredressed up as theory are also just wrong (The Fundemental Theorem of Poker isthe prime example).Then to address your question about pot odds and implied odds, we can't reallyhelp you unless you know what pot odds is and how it's used.

I know you've had issues with Carson over at RGP (including the 10:1 HU challenge) before so I know you have an opinion about how the guy thinks. Personally I agree that Theory of Poker is one of the most important books ever written and just would love to know wtf Gary is babbling about...again.

[aadams_22]

Excellent book, It is definitely money well spent.

[hblask]

When I was just starting I read this book, and it paid for itself within a week. By then end, I got kind of annoyed, because it seemed like every example started with "Say you put your opponent on JT suited pre-flop...." If I could do that, I wouldn't be reading the book. This is not a problem unique to this book, so it is more a general observation on poker advice everywhere. The heart of the game is putting your opponents on hands, and I have yet to see any good advice on that. Maybe because there is none, only experience will do that.Anyway, this book (ToP) is worth reading.

[cu in 4years Dan]

daniel i know you have other stuff to do but i mean 2 years ago?you dont owe me anything but if it were possible just add a bit more?

[jbage007]

Sklansky's books help explain better than anything else why Sklansky rarely if ever appears at final tables of major tournaments. His theory is easily summarized by the following statement: If you ain't got the nuts, fold. To the extent it is helpful in teaching you how to recognize whether you got da nuts, it is an excellent resource. To his credit, Sklansky's books accurately reflect his own style of play--he inevitably folds to a raise or play-back, after he goes through a detailed analysis that leads him to the conclusion that he ain't got the best hand.

[antistuff]

jbage007, on Saturday, December 9th, 2006, 8:09 PM, said:

Sklansky's books help explain better than anything else why Sklansky rarely if ever appears at final tables of major tournaments. His theory is easily summarized by the following statement: If you ain't got the nuts, fold. To the extent it is helpful in teaching you how to recognize whether you got da nuts, it is an excellent resource. To his credit, Sklansky's books accurately reflect his own style of play--he inevitably folds to a raise or play-back, after he goes through a detailed analysis that leads him to the conclusion that he ain't got the best hand.

uhhh..........no. it is seriously the best poker book written so far. this book does not teach you a style of play. it teaches you how to think about poker. an example of a book which teaches you a style of play would be like sshe.

[aadams_22]

jbage007, on Saturday, December 9th, 2006, 10:09 PM, said:

Sklansky's books help explain better than anything else why Sklansky rarely if ever appears at final tables of major tournaments. His theory is easily summarized by the following statement: If you ain't got the nuts, fold. To the extent it is helpful in teaching you how to recognize whether you got da nuts, it is an excellent resource. To his credit, Sklansky's books accurately reflect his own style of play--he inevitably folds to a raise or play-back, after he goes through a detailed analysis that leads him to the conclusion that he ain't got the best hand.

It's clearly evident you didn't read the book, and if you did then you sure as hell didn't get what he was saying.

[jbage007]

aadams_22, on Friday, December 15th, 2006, 10:20 PM, said:

It's clearly evident you didn't read the book, and if you did then you sure as hell didn't get what he was saying.

Oh I have certainly read the book alright and if you have also, then I invite you to meet me at the MGM any time of the day or night for a friendly game...especially if you are going to PLAY like DS because if you play like his book suggests, you'll be a "winner" to the same extent he is. That is not a knock against DS--I recognize him as one of the foremost authorities on the nuts and bolts of the game, but PLAYING the game is something completely different, and something that DS has not, and never will completely understand--he IGNORES the human element in its entirety. Thanks but no thanks. I'd rather play like DN than DS any day of the week.