I truly believe that if you read this book and follow the principals closely it could help you advance in tournament poker. However, try these same principals and you basically have no chance for success in cash games.

The book stresses brute aggression and isolation tactics that are simply ineffective in most cash games.

(I'll add more later)

This was the first poker book I read. It has some very basic stuff in it (Charts for the best starting hands in each game), but it does go a little bit more in depth. There isn't much new material for an advanced player (Phil hardly mentions pot odds and things like that), but for a beginner and possibly an intermediate player it can provide a good foundation. I agree with Daniel, sticking exactly to the book is not the way to win, but taking certain things and adding them to your game can definately win you some more pots.

i actually thought the PLO and Razz chapters were quite good. I think his advice is not that applicable to beginners and would be a recipe for disaster in lower limit games (like 3-betting a pair of 6s preflop).

I think Daniel means that if you try these in a cash game, you will get slaughtered....

It's a good thing I haven't yet brought myself around to reading it.... I've had it for some time but other readings have taken priority.

This is the first book i read, and i continue to read it. his limit hold'em methods are kind of agressive. His method of reraising pocket 7,8,9's preflop as if to represent aces got me in a bit of trouble(cause bottome line they aint much after a bad flop).He says to use the raise button to know where you stand after the flop. However this is money we dealing with and if i have pocket 7's and the board comes out 6 j q and a guy bets i dont think i want to raise him to "find out where i am" Someone with a Q aint folding and I am almost sure i am beat depending on the player.
His no limit section is very basic and beginnerish but in your home game and not agianst pros it should help.
In general though the read was fun, the information is good, and the other sections that did not include hold'em made me more interested in trying out other games.

I'm very glad that Daniel was cautious in his praise for Phil's book...I think his aggressive style is overdone. Phil's success is based strongly on his ability to read/guess about his opponents holdings and knowledge about the type of player that they are. At least he stresses this and does his attempts at teaching with the player types in full focus.

One post already commented on how "raising on the flop to find out where you are" has gotten him into trouble. If you read TJ Cloutier's and Tom McEvoy's "Championship No Limit and Pot Limit Hold'Em", TJ says exactly how stupid that is...raising to find out where you are...you can do that with a check...

Honestly, I read the limit and no-limit hold'em sections and put it down. I felt my infant learning was digressing.

this book is for a beginer. i thought the whole book was a waste of time and money. his limit stratagy was way to tight, and the no limit section was a joke. i thought the best parts of the book were on the other poker games. if u r a beginer and only want to learn about holdem i wouldnt waste my money, their are many better holdem books out there. if u want a book that explains how to play not only holdem but omaha and stud this book might not be that bad to get.

read this book a while ago while i was just starting, and it has some good concepts, but seems just to be the start of the Phil Helmuth poker conglomerate/cash-in on the craze. some of the concepts are good, but it is too rooted in the "top 10 only" theory and i dont think that is possible. also, the animal thing is a good analogy, but is really only for beginners

I haven't read this one yet but from what i've seen it hasn't been praised as highly as I expected one of Helmueths books to be. I might read this one though because i've studied Phil playing and his style seems effective. I might not read it though because I've heard it's more for newer players with simple concepts that I don't need to reread agin.

This book in my opinion is EXCELLENT FOR THE BEIGNNER! no better book out there. it teachers tight play,agressiveness and rational thought. Many newbies have struggles iwth those exact to virtues, this book is great for beginners.......

:twisted: Everyone needs to wake up and tighten up ther play now and again. Phills book is packed with usefull plays. Internet poker would be alot harder if everyone playing had read it. The section orefurring to pot odds is weak but it isn,t that hard to count outs and divide. Also the raising to find out were your at on the flop is a strong way to play internet cash games when you consider few other options for making reads are avaible online.

I got some useful info out of this book however I would never tell someone who is just learning the game to read this book first. Most people start off by playing limit and his best hands have more of a NL tournament feel than a limit cash game feel.

I get a lot out of ready various people and try to pull things from each.

How would you suggest you change up your play in cash games according to what Phil talks about in the book? and are you talking about limit cash games or no-limit cash games or both? I do have to admit I have a technique similiar to Phil's and I do very well I tournaments but I have a hard time doing well in no-limit cash games what di I need to do different? I would apprecite your feedback or any books you suggest for no-limit cash games.

Thanks
Paul

I've said it before... and I still think it's true... the book is a good READ for beginners, meaning it's an easy read, and you understand all the concepts fairly easy, but if you play like that as a beginner you'll lose badly. You can't bet and raise just to see where you are all the time. Read it, but only take away a few ideas from it.

It was also the first book I ever read, and the super super tight advice is just plain wrong. You cant win any pots to compensate for the times that one of his "top ten hands" are beaten. I mean - 3 betting pocket nines preflop is just plain wrong. Even if you do win a few pots with the top 10, the other players will never give you any action (unless they can beat you) for the times when you do actually pick up a hand.

Also, I think that amarillo slim's blurb about it being the best strategy book ever written is utterly misleading.

Today I tried playing nothing but his top ten hands, I played three hands in five hours at the table. I lost all three. :doh:

I've had surprisingly good results after reading just the beginner section. I was playing a lot more hands positionally when I was first learning and was breaking even or losing every time I went to the poker room. After tightening up to just the top 10 hands (okay, I'm also playing Ax suited as well), I'm not playing nearly as many hands, but I'm playing them so aggressively that I'm taking much larger pots than I was as a limper. When I'm not in a hand, I'm getting to observe the other players a lot closer, and I'm learning to read them better than I would if I was under the stress of being in the hand. After only a few sessions playing this way, I've erased my early losses and I'm up (yes, I keep a log).

I've also managed to go a lot farther in online tournaments. In NL S&G's, I'm cashing almost every time I play and I'm making the top 10 percent in 2000+ player NL tournaments. In my online cash games, I've almost completely made up my early losses.

This isn't a great way to play your entire career, but, as a beginner, it does a lot for your confidence to take down those big pots. Also, it's a lot easier to get the wife to let me go play when she knows that I'll probably be bringing some extra cash home. I'm sure I could be making more if I knew more, but that will come with time and I learn a lot from observing.

I'm going to move on and read the intermediate section now. I'll let you know how that goes.

Rich

Thanks for you honest reply Rich. His strategy probably is the best bet for a newbie...Please let us know how the intermediate section works out for you.

I thought that it was pretty solid, but the LHE section uses a system of play that I don't think works. I liked that it has more then one game covered (albeit not in great depth) since most books on poker these days are strictly hold em or cover only one game. I gave it to a friend for Xmas and he has improved his overall game play a great deal. We play a mixed game of Limit Omaha, Stud, Holdem, NLHE and Crazy Pineapple and he has a much better grasp of all games now. I really don't like the stories he has though as I don't think they add much to the book and look more like bragging then poker theory. I also don't think that he understand the way that Daniel N. plays and incorrectly classifies him into a certain "breed" of player, he does this for a few other players as well. But that is a different subject.

The main problem with this book is that he has no idea about what goes on in a low-limit game. His plays may work in the higher levels....but agression runs nobody out in the lower levels.

that s my take exactly he has one style of play that (may) work in a higher limit game, but would never fly low limit.

if i fold everything but aces and kings I'll get my my stake money chewed up by force bets.

a rock is the easiest thing in the world to beat easier than a sucker, at least a sucker playing k4 os has some mystery to the game.

This book just seems to be an extension of phils ego, and maybe a little elemetary poker lesson thats all.

My mother caught me skimming through it and proceeded to berate the book so much she needed to sit down afterwards. Lol. I picked up Lee Jones' Low Limit Hold'Em...now she loves me again.

True, but OTOH you don't really care if most of them fold or not at lower levels - you just want them to pay a lot of money to chase their two-outer when you've got a decent hand. His hand selection seems somewhat shaky to me, but the basic idea is just what many beginning players need to hear: play tight, and play aggressive. Most beginning players seem to be too loose and too passive.

His suggestions for higher limits are a lot harder to implement, because they rely very much on reads without a lot of guidance on how to get good at them. I think this is a problem that a lot of read-oriented pros have when they're writing their books - it might be easy for them to figure out quickly whether somebody's bluffing or has the goods, but it's hard to teach J. Random Pokerplayer how to do that.

Maybe someone can give me an intelligible answer to this question. Everyone is dissing Phil's book, especially the limit hold 'em section, because they propose that Phil calls for super-tight play. My question is: What's wrong with tight play?? In limit hold 'em, especially at a lower leverl, you are not going to force someone to fold, so why not just wait till you have have the best of it. I mean, in No limit, play whatever you like, you can always push someone off their hand, but in limit, I think that tight-aggressive play is the best strategy. After all, what's worse, Being up only a few big bets after playing a few big pots with good hands and folding the rest of the time, or being down for the night because you couldn't stand "not playing a pot"

Generally nothing, but specifically in this case his hand list has some problems (IMHO). For example, pocket pairs as low as 7s are one of his top 10 hands for "supertight" play, and he recommends playing them pretty much regardless of position and betting patterns. That can get beginning players into some trouble. He also doesn't do a good job of letting players know how rare his top 10 hands are - it's quite possible to sit down at a B&M game for an hour or two and get zero playable hands, following his rules.

Another problem with his advice is it's focused on games where TPTK is often the dominant hand and raising to protect that hand works. Most low-limit games are sufficiently loose that TPTK isn't necessarily all that great, and depending on the table you might actually lose money pushing it too hard.

Play Poker Like the Pros was the first poker book I purchased.

I like his aggressive style very much. I think it can be used in low-limit too, but you have to adapt it a little.

I started with that book and the hands I play are still based on his reccomendations. But I made several adjustments after reading Sklansky, SS2 etc.
But I feel better this way then if I had to build my strategy on Sklansky first.

And if you read Jennifer Harman's section in SS2 there is one thing she repeats and repeats: Aggression!

But I agree with Daniel that using his style by the book might get you in trouble. You pay a price for aggression: Even if you raised pre-flop - if you missed the flop completely it is time to fold and say goodbye to you initial investment. This results in bigger pots to win, but bigger swings due to a lot of failed attempts.

It will pay off, but only if you can fold consequently. If you are the type of player who likes to fight for the "money invested" even if you are only second best than indeed his strategy will get you in trouble.

Love it Love it Love, I hope to work with Phil in some of his future projects.

I was a pretty good Hold Em player before I read the book, PPLP got rid of the kinks.

The biggest problem with playing the top ten hands only is that you will suffer (seemingly) more bad beats. Give it some time, and I am sure that your winnings will catch up and surpass your losings. :wink:

Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! For sheezie off the heezie.

I agree with Daniel's assessment. It was the first book i purchased. It gave a good foundation, and his animal types helped me to begin to read people, and act based on their styles. If his no limit section were larger, it would be a MUCH better book. His omaha section was also surprisingly informative. For limit it was just too agressive, especially at low limits where some of those donkeys will never fold their gutshot.

Like several who have posted here, it was the first book I read. I bought it along with Super Systems (the original) and after reading through the first part of the NL section of SS I felt it was a slow read because I found myself having to look back over things as I my only foundation for poker was what I had picked up from personal experience.

Hellmuth's book reads very quick and easy. There's a lot on which he could expand, but I think that would take away from the value he gets from it being so easy to read and implement quickly. Like Rich mentioned, he was able to read the beginner's section and immediately correct some of his mistakes and take the opportunity to observe while not in hands due to the tight nature of his game. I think many people who already have a good foundation in poker devalue Phil's book because they think it makes you too tight as a beginner. The whole purpose of his tight Top 10 strategy is to give you plenty of opportunities to observe and pick up on your opponents' plays so that when you expand to the intermediate and advanced play of LHE you have those skills under your belt.

Like Rich, I initially did very well after reading Phil's book. Unfortunately its aggressive approach can cost you a lot if you miss too many hands, or make poor post-flop decisions. Phil's goal is to put you in a position to win big pots and establish yourself as the aggressor at the table. Like DN stated, I think this works much better in a Tournament Situation than at cash games because people will turn into calling stations when they figure out your style. Since they've invested so much preflop, many times, they're correct in calling it down based on the pot odds and implied odds they are getting (which Phil doesn't go into much at all).

I would recommend this book to any new poker player as a starting point. Read it once...play for a month or two til you feel comfortable in that style, come back and reread the intermediate and advanced LHE sections because I guarantee you will find things you were doing wrong. Play another month or two under that system and if you play with any regularity, move directly to Small-Stakes Hold Em by Sklansky, Miller, and Malmuth.

I played for over a year under Phil's system and started losing money over the long run at the low stakes tables. I can't refute what DN says about this strategy in the higher limit games since I've never played them, but I can say that over the long-run it doesn't seem to work well in low limit.

I just got SSHE last monday. I have read all the way through the post-flop play section and hope to finish the river chapters this weekend. I can't tell you how much of a difference it has made in my game. The one thing I can say about SSHE is that if I read it out of the gates, I'd wouldn't have been able to digest half of what I've been reading. Even now I find myself having to adjust my game because I took something out of context or forgot how that particular situation should be played. SSHE tames the aggression that Phil advocates to the level that is very successful in low limit games.

Like others I also found the chapters on Omaha 8/b, Razz, and 7 stud to be well written and put you in a great position to be successful in those games. I have a home game I play in where we often play dealer's choice (every once in a while someone will call some crazy stuff like 3 5 7 or follow the queen, but that's less than 1% of the time). I love it when a friend of mine calls Razz (or when I call it) because I don't think anyone in that room besides him and me know any level of strategy in that game. I owe that all to Phil's Razz section.

Also, if you made it through this far, I have read the SS chapters on NLHE and LHE and after reading Phil's book, found it to read much easier and that Doyle adds a lot more finese to his aggression...didn't want anyone to take my comment about SS out of context.

It's only good if you want to get familiar with the games.

Haha, I wish I had read this post sooner.

I bought Phil's "Texas Hold'em" book, which are just the hold'em chapters from "play like the pros".

I took his advice on how to play limit.....and got killed.

Raising to "get information" doesn't work when the person calls with anything, all it tells you is he/she could have anything.

I think most of Phil's success comes from talents that can not be taught.

The section on No Limit Touranment play basically said nothing that wasn't totally obvious. I was already doing most of those "techniques" without ever reading a book on poker in my entire life.

I feel like recommending this book to my friends, so I can beat them more often!

If I were you guys I would skip the hold'em section. The rest of the book is ok, but the hold'em section is terrible. He suggests to cap with hands like a pair of sevens. We all know why Phil isn't a famous cash game player now.

First poker book I ever read. It was ok.

Good book for a beginner wanting to learn hand values?

Playing 6-12 hold em in a nor cal pokerrom, I can see where DN is coming from. It is way too loose of a game t try all of those isolation tactics or post flop raising to "get information" Limit hold'em is all about pot odds and reading your opponents. I would say Lee jones book on low limit hold em is much better for limit players. Good book for tourny play though.

I started reading this book the other day. I am about 1/4 of the way through and am hoping to learn something eventually towards the end...

Not nearly as good as Harrington's or TJ's books. I'm glad I borrowed it from a friend, instead of buying it.

Never bothered to pick this book up, when's DN's new book supposed to hit shelves?

This book is great for Limit Holdem tourneys. Low level cash games....this book is next to useless in most games in my opinion.

I hope to run across the people that play stud hi lo according to this book. While it it ok....I think it makes stud hi lo players too loose in some aspects, too tight in others.

It's crap.

It's probably a matter of opinion but I've been waiting for two years and still no more!

Wow. There should be a poll somewhere. What was the first poker book you read. I have to agree with a LOT of the posters. Yes, this was my first poker book. Wonder why that is? Well, for me...I think it was because it was what I found at the library. And I knew who Phil was from TV. If there's one thing Phil can do...it's marketing. LOL!

Greatest Poker Book ever


Cash games are overrated

This was actually my second book, behind Gary Carson's The Complete Book of Hold'em Poker. It is a decent book for a beginner, but I would recommend Phil Gordon's Little Green Book and Harrington's book for more indepth strategic play. Hellmuth does have some good stories as well.

Ah yes, I also lost my poker book virginity with Phil as well, and I also got it from the library. I remember that one of his starting hand charts was missing a hand. I think it was the Omaha (High) Starting hand chart? I think he missed Q-Q-J-J, it should be hand #19. If might be a different chart, but I know he missed one somewhere.

I also watched his Dvd's but only liked the tournament one, because of his entertaining stories about how great he is. I'm also hoping that he has some funny comments in the new WSOP video game, due out in late September. He plugged it on PAD. Yes, he is a master marketer. He could probably sell sand to the Middle East.

Play poker like the pros is the most underated poker book in poker book history. I read both supers system's; the theory of poker; Limit hold'em for the advanced player, and a johnny chan book, and I have to say Phil's theory towards hold'em is above the rest. After all he is probably the best texas hold'em player in history. His personal insight into the book will help all crops of players.