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)

Ah, I bought this book long ago but stopped after a few sections for the following reasons.

1. David Slansky's grammar is as bad as I DO. 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.

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...)

3. I know how to calculate the pot odds. Why bother? And sometimes in tournament plays (not cash games) even though I know it's against the odds but I still have to go for it to stay alive. Take drawing hands for example, I view it as 3 chances instead of 1 (bluff to win, rebluff to win, and draw to win, and of course I will raise for my draws. But I only do this when it's really needed).

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.

5. I am lazy I admit. I will wait for Danny to give more words of wisdom on this book like what to look for in this book, why it's good comparing to the others, etc, then I will read it. I know many recommend it, but like playing low limit NoLimt holdem cash games, I will waitttt...

Best Regard.

got this book for christmas, paged through it so far but no in depth reading. i think this book is excellent because it doesn't tell you what to do in all situations, but it tells you what you should CONSIDER doing. it also gives you strategies into watching betting patterns, psychology, etc.

great book

This book changed my poker play forever [for the better] To this day no other poker book has positvely affected my play as much as the theory of poker.

I just finished the Theory of Poker (because when I started reading poker books, I started with a lot of small smakes books) and I thought it was great. I got this one because I like Slansky's approach, especially after reading his small stakes limit holdem' book and it didn't dissapoint.

Details on pot odds and strategies definately very good.

One more point I will like to add.

I'm more a tourney player than cash game player (I don't have what it takes to be a great cash game player: time, energy, concentration, the excitement of playing tournaments...). In tournaments, I view getting into each hand as 4 battles: preflop battle, flop battle, turn battle and river battle. I would like to win the battle as early as possible yet take them very carefully after postflops. As you can see now, I like to play with people not my cards (Of course I will study them a while before I go twisting their mind)! I always receive online railbirds' criticism because due to my "maniac" plays, but I always salute them with "lol, gg".

So what's my point? Here it is: poker is a special form of gambling that involves making money from other players but not from the casino. It's a either-you-die-or-I-will-so-why-don't-you-first situation. It's cruel but true (I am a nice person but not when playing poker because I will be wild and fierce, but don't mistake that with me being rude or abussive). So I am afraid of after reading Theory of poker, I got framed at thinking hmmm, what should I do with this hand in this position, what will be my return rates comparing to my investment, is the pot odd good enough to warrant my chase, etc. I want to think the other ways, hmm, this person just calls, is he slowplaying his big pp, having small pp wanting a trip or he wants to see cheap flop, if he wants to see cheap flop and I raise big with my junk hand then will he fold? Now he calls my big raise preflop and the board shows 259 rainbow, will he misses his AK/AQ or does he have pp, will he think that I've bigger pp if I bet the pot size and then he will fold, is he a weak passive player, is he a tight aggressive player, etc.
Believe me, poker is a game of gambling, if you always think about your cards but not your opponents, you won't go too far. I see people saying online that they will study other players before they sit down at cash game. That's a wrong attitude to start with for me. You study to BEAT them, not just studying them!

SuitedBullets, what was the point of that post? You rambled incoherently about sklansky making you think too much and then essentially claimed that odds and such were unimportant.

He covers the levels of thinking, and how to go deeper and deeper, through what the opponent thinks you think he has and expresses this focus and psychology, especially for hand-reading in multiway pots.

He covers the chink in the armor of each classic mistake and the means to exploit it. So you see their play, discern their weaknesses and you capitalize; you study your opponenet to beat them, similarly it teaches you to analyze the "beatability" of games as well as players.

I don't know what you were getting at, but it certainly doesn't reflect on Theory of Poker at all.

suitedbullets, do you see the pros going in on every hand because they think they can outplay the opponents every time? no, even gus hansen knows when to do this. you're right, you should be playing the people, but poker is a special form of gambling in that there is a balance between luck and skill. the better the players, the more skill, and the worse the players, the more luck has a factor. you aren't trying to win all the money in every game, hence the studying part: you want to be able to beat them later on as well. But, since you have viewed yourself as primarily a tournament player, i can see what you mean.

Theory of Poker is a great book! It is not a "how to" book, which is what most people are looking for. It teaches you to start "thinking" like a poker player...asking the right questions in your head when you need to make a decision (which is all time in our beloved game). It is not for beginners and only after you have been playing for awhile should you begin reading it. It's not going to tell you how you should play suited connectors, but what you should be considering before you act when faced with a four flush on the flop and you have put your opponent on top pair. Each situation is different, there is no right or wrong answer to this question as there are so many variables to consider. "Theory of Poker" helps you consider those variables so you can recognize when you have "the best of it" and thus making correct decisions. To a player who wants to take this game seriously...it is a MUST read.

Should I read Theory of Poker or Hold em poker for advanced players first. Thanks!

Theory of poker 1st

theeeeeen hold'em for advance people

thx, but looks like i better stop reading hold em for advanced players... im about 60 pages in.

If you've got it, may as well read it....if you are going to read both ~now, I'd get ToP though. Its a good foundation book for any game, any limit.

ok, thanks for the tip

If you understand the material in theory of poker, you'll probably have an easier time digesting or absorbing the material in HPFAP, as some of the explanations in HPFAP are too short to really understand unless you have a significant knowledge of the background theory. Finishing HPFAP won't hurt, but reading the theory of poker first might actually make things go more quickly.

ya, I have found that some things arent explained in great detail. So I will definitely get theory of poker and read that first. Thanks to everyone who gave me advice on this topic.

Also, what other books should I be looking to read next? Thanks!

blknines after you finish reading The Theory of Poker and Tournament Poker For Advanced Players I recommend that you do the following this is based on the huntch that you are a beginner and that you are primarily interested in No-Limit Holdem Tournaments. You should read Super System II, Championship No Limit and Pot Limit Holdem by TJ Cloutier and Tom McEvoy, as well as Harrington on Holdem vl1 before venturing into real on line tournaments you might also want to purchase a computer software called Tournament Texas Holdem to sharpen you're skills against all of this stuff can be purchased at gamblers book shop in LV Nevada. A amateur player named Jim McManus did the above and finished 5th in the mainevent of the WSOP in 2000' he later wrote a book about his exsperience titled "Positively Fifth Street." --Good Luck

Not to detract from the above post at all, it was good info. I'm just curious in general about something. Did any of you actually get a lot out of the TJ Cloutier/McEvoy tourney book?

I own it and have read it twice. I remember everyone telling me it was "the bible of tourney play." If that's the bible, I'm changing religions. Maybe I missed something, but I really didn't find it that helpful. Plus, about a quarter of the book is not spent on instruction, but rather his old road poker stories. Mostly throughout the book, I was thinking to myself "How can Cloutier play that unbelievably tight and win?" Sure, you should fold a bunch. But with his advice, you'd be folding yourself right out of a tourney, IMO.

The very first "technical" poker book i ever bought. Basically the first really supplement to all the information I gleaned from occassionally playing online on my mother's name. I highly recommend this book for anyone who wants to jump start their poker initiation. Sometimes the language and syntax needs a second or third read but it's managable and more than worth the trouble. Basically I love it.

Pros- Applies to all games. Can be reread many times, in full or by section.

Cons- Ha.

-Abraham

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.



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.



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.



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.

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.

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.

Gonna get it.

Theory of Poker

It's good.

best book ever written, hands down

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

Theory of Poker first, then Small Stakes Hold-em, then the advanced text would be better.

if DN recommends it I'm down...

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. :-)

Definitely +EV

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

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:



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.

Excellent book, It is definitely money well spent.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Just before the 2005 WSOP ME I read Sklansky's Theory of Poker to see if there was anything I could add to my playing style. For some reason I had paid attention to a comment from David Ulliot made about Sklansky and how he sucked. I found a lot things I could use in the book to tweak my game.

Anyway, I rode the roller coaster with a high point of about 25k in chips through out day one of that ME and got busted down to 8k during the final round of play that day when I got moved to Skalansky's table. His stack wasn't very impressive, but much more impressive than mine. I was in the cutoff when he was in the big blind, so I had position on him. In all honesty, I believe jbag's description of skalansky's style is true. If it wasn't for sklansky's abc play, I wouldn't have made it to day two with about 20k.

I realize D.S. think's he's a pimp, but his strat just doesn't work in tournaments these days.

his book does not suggest you play in any particular way. its obvious that the entire book went completely over your head.

exactly, besides if anyone tries to play like someone else then they are a complete idiot...you should always take lots of different viewpoints and try to craft your won game

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought that he didn't understand what the book was trying to convey.

thanx

My bother bought me that book for my birthday, I have since read it so much it is in a plastic bag with tea stains all over it a pile of pages,I know a dude who can audiotize so I can listen to it. I reads it over and over; the theory itself is very useful because if you know what they have anything mustly by far what you do ends up right; now if you add on some way of playing so they will not be able to do the same ( even if they have to play a certain way to profit) You are going to be very accomplished and get to set back and not have to follow; all that risk of loss is gone and life is good and fun. You can play 7 card stud this way very enjoyablely and that is also the way to higher limits. About all the flak over the author I heard him say he was the best player in the world if all the games are included and I don't think anyone ever tried to find out the truth to that ; He beat Huck Seed and only lost to Johnny Chan when Chan hit a full house. Also that book isn't directed towards NL ; as for the hand reading it states under table analyse the initial process . You start by what the board shows and how they act then what they show down even to know if your hand is better and they are betting is a big money maker then if you kown they will keep going on like that ; Knowing the exact cards doesn't usually matter, you have kk and have to call allin for all your stack you happen to know he does have AA but still call he has not gained anything keep playing him and in the end he will be paying for your new life. You can go on to doing anything ( I don't even need a bank roll anymore-only enough to buyin for a day) Ideas like those are why you see a stratifcation of poker players, the whole correct play concept goes out the window

I think 2 years, 11 months and 6 days is stretching the concept of 'later'.

Is this book any good for limit play? I've got SSHE. Does this book expand on it anyway, or is it more for no limit?

It doesnt deal with any particular game I dont think. I think it teaches you concepts that can be used in all/many forms of poker. Im not 100% sure on this though because I just got TOP in the mail a week ago from the FPP store and haven't started reading it yet.

its almost only for limit poker... it only touches upon the differences of NL and FL when he talks about implied pot odds or the importance of not giving a free card in both type of games ...
this book is just amaizing, i've read it twice. if there is one thing i have learned from that book is that you have to RAISE to win ....

Thanks for the advice everyone it's a big help