A Fiery Mountain of Books
I have heard people say on a few occasions the following comment, "I don't read poker books, I'm running well and don't want to mess with my game". I know, at first this seems like a rather uneducated and ignorant point of view. I would partially agree with that initial assesment. I consider the reading I do here, on CPF to be 'a book' of some sorts. It is in fact one of the best books that I've read, of course that's not saying much. I've read three poker books in my time and none of them are worth talking about, allthough I will mention them. Hellmuth's book, "The real Deal" and Andy Reid's book. All very basic books, I believe I could write something comparable if not better. Again, that's not saying much.Â
Due to the fact that I haven't read many books that challenge my way of thinking about poker I have thought about the following theory. Could reading a more complex book that really challenged the way I play my game be detrimental? I suppose it could be in the short term, likely not in the long term. I assume that is the knee jerk answer specifically for me. The other side of the coin that I would have to look at would be the old adage, "If it's not broke then why fix it". I know that with a game like poker that takes a minute to learn and a lifetime to master that any serious player would be amiss if he was to choose to not take the opportunity to learn from the likes of Dan Harrington. So, if it's not broke then why fix it? I suppose that might not be the best line to use here because a) you may not know it's broke b) you might not be fixing anything you may just be improving on existing tools.Â
There is an argument here that may seem elementary but nonetheless is an argument. If everyone follows Harrington's advice/thoughts on Hold em' then the game could become very easy by simply playing a different way. One piece of advice that most novice players know: play the opposite of the table, if the table is aggressive/tighten up and vice versa. I have found that in tournament play the players I have the most difficulty with are the ones that play with the most unorthadox styles. I can usually figure out the 'book readers' within the first few orbits and take advantage of them because of what they appear to know. Of course, I try and take advantage of the 'non book readers' due to what they do not appear to know.
Ok ,so what have I said here? Books are for geeks, no I haven't said that. Books can improve your game, yes. Books are most often repeats of what everyone else has already said, yes. Books can, in the short term, be detrimental to your game. Most likely if you have a dim understanding of the English Language or your general poker knowledge is vastly inferior to the book you are reading, then yes books can be detrimental. I would also say that 90% of the time reading most of the poker books (I've heard) would not significantly change the way you play your game.Â
Has anyone actually encountered this? Having read a book that has altered your thinking to the point that your game has faltered because of it.Â
On a side note, my general indifference towards poker books up to now has basically been because of the lack of print on the subjects that I find most fascinating. The psychology of poker, the things you say, the way you look, how you speak etc. I find my game is very much based on feel, it'll be an exciting journey to read Harrington's books and see how it alters my understanding of the game.Â
stp
Due to the fact that I haven't read many books that challenge my way of thinking about poker I have thought about the following theory. Could reading a more complex book that really challenged the way I play my game be detrimental? I suppose it could be in the short term, likely not in the long term. I assume that is the knee jerk answer specifically for me. The other side of the coin that I would have to look at would be the old adage, "If it's not broke then why fix it". I know that with a game like poker that takes a minute to learn and a lifetime to master that any serious player would be amiss if he was to choose to not take the opportunity to learn from the likes of Dan Harrington. So, if it's not broke then why fix it? I suppose that might not be the best line to use here because a) you may not know it's broke b) you might not be fixing anything you may just be improving on existing tools.Â
There is an argument here that may seem elementary but nonetheless is an argument. If everyone follows Harrington's advice/thoughts on Hold em' then the game could become very easy by simply playing a different way. One piece of advice that most novice players know: play the opposite of the table, if the table is aggressive/tighten up and vice versa. I have found that in tournament play the players I have the most difficulty with are the ones that play with the most unorthadox styles. I can usually figure out the 'book readers' within the first few orbits and take advantage of them because of what they appear to know. Of course, I try and take advantage of the 'non book readers' due to what they do not appear to know.
Ok ,so what have I said here? Books are for geeks, no I haven't said that. Books can improve your game, yes. Books are most often repeats of what everyone else has already said, yes. Books can, in the short term, be detrimental to your game. Most likely if you have a dim understanding of the English Language or your general poker knowledge is vastly inferior to the book you are reading, then yes books can be detrimental. I would also say that 90% of the time reading most of the poker books (I've heard) would not significantly change the way you play your game.Â
Has anyone actually encountered this? Having read a book that has altered your thinking to the point that your game has faltered because of it.Â
On a side note, my general indifference towards poker books up to now has basically been because of the lack of print on the subjects that I find most fascinating. The psychology of poker, the things you say, the way you look, how you speak etc. I find my game is very much based on feel, it'll be an exciting journey to read Harrington's books and see how it alters my understanding of the game.Â
stp
Comments
Close, but I think you have this statement backwards.
Books can, in the LONG TERM, be detrimental to your game. You have to progess past the 'knowledge of the masses' if you want to continue being a longterm winning player and moving up in limits. You have to take the ideas and concepts of the book and evolve them on your own into a new strategy. Rote hand charts and the highly situational examples in a book become useless over time. Your opponents begin to figure your strategy out and you are a dead man.
I think a large problem in the TAG community is to read the book, kinda figure it out and then stop thinking and playing on autopilot.
I think you need to define what category of Book you are talking about. Sure, all poker books are the same: They all talk about poker. I think though there are books that come out that revolutionize the game as it's played and to ignore them is to live in the past. Super System, Theory Of Poker, SSHE and Harrington NL1&2 are easily the best of breed and required reading for anyone who wants to take the games seriously.
There is a reason we see a book come out every 10 years or so that revolutionizes the game: we easily stop growing as poker players.
Now, what about DVDs? I hear Devin has one out, oops, can I mention that here?
The best thing about books is that it can save you many many hands worth of expensive 'education', showing new players how to save a lot of money. Also, anyone who plays a decent amount will learn very quickly that some things work and some don't, such as the tight table / be loose example stpboy mentioned. However, I have often found that some books will tell me things that I already do, but then it tells me WHY i'm doing it, rather than (as Mario w ould say) 'going with my guts'. This allows me to apply certain theories to other similar, yet less often cited examples - things like betting into a pot that you're only going to get called by somoene with a better hand (eg. I have trips with a four flush on the board, why bet?) has translated VERY well into other games such as OM8.
That's just one example, and it's always nice to have a hole in your game pointed out in an obviously non-offensive manner (i.e. Harrington isn't making fun of YOU, he's writing this book for EVERYONE when nhe says playing J-9 suited UTG is a bad idea - who knew?) but it is also nice to hear that the pros agree with your standard plays.. at the very least this is a confidence boost, and as any player knows, confidence can make up most of your game! Think of it as a verbal placebo.
Mark
Now you read a cookbook and try your recipe on next weeks meatloaf and it may turn out great or it may end up being the worse meatloaf you ever had."Why do we fall Master Bruce, So we can get back up" The more you read cookbooks the greater the knowledge you will have in what will work in your meatloaf and what will fail. One day you will be able to create some of the greatest combinations for meatloaf and you won't even need a cookbook.
Of course you may be a naturally great chef and no matter what you do, your meatloaf is always fresh, great tasting and creative. Then you don't need a cookbook. But just remember the best Chefs will read cookbooks and magazines to get ideas when there menu gets stale.
the information is your choice, and determines the amount of +EV they are in the long run.
Ya right. Excerpt from TPFAP, David Sklansky: "If you don't know how I got that, stop reading this book right now. You are not ready for it. You don't know enough about poker. And, you deserve to lose."
Whoa. Slow down there. They contain what now?
Sklansky's too funny.
Phil Gordon says a few things along those lines too. For example, "If you're wearing sunglasses at the $2-$5 table, you look like an ass." Or something to that effect. He rides those style of players pretty hard.
You're right. Poker is a game for playing. How many professional hockey players have read books on how to play hockey during their teens? One of my friends is a successful player. The interesting thing I found about him was that while I was out drinking and partying during summers, he was studying the game. During each summer vacation he was working on his game -- he was studying power plays/ short handeds/plus minus systems etc. He did this every summer during his teens until he was drafted when he was 18. Without his talent, he wouldn't have made it -- but I think his study of the game really separated him from the pack (Ron Francis).Â
I find the challenge needs to come from within, rather than from the book.  Every poker book I've read has made me much more money than the actual cost of the book.
I found this forum after a few years of playing. I bought Dave Scharf's book to support him and to know what I was recommending. It's really targeted at someone who is more novice than myself. However, there's lots of stuff in there which has helped me tremendously. The story about going into battle, and the red/amber/green light analogy hit a note with me. In Zen and the Art of poker (a much lighter read and less worthwhile book) I got one saying "These cards raise". That's another thing which has helped my game.
I love getting years of knowledge in a book that's a few hours to read. Does it mean I'll read every book I can find -- not likely. Does it mean books are for everyone -- not likely. Can someone become a world class player without reading a book -- sure.Â
The other thing you mentioned was that "book" players are easy to beat. I believe that most "book" players really don't understand what's being taught in the books. It's their interpretation of what's in the book, rather than what's actually in the book. I think that's where a book can be detrimental.Â
I know I'll keep reading books, as I'm not as talented as the best players.
Cheers
Magi
As one of the newest players (I started playing at the end of June), books are easily 1 of the 3 things that has helped me advance so quickly (the other reasons being this forum and the calibre of the KW players). I've always been fairly "me" focused with my playing, and the books help me understand what other players are doing (specifically when there styles are unfamiliar to me). I've also found that books help me to identify/plug specific leaks. Personally I think that I have my own style, and books have helped me to refine that. To be honest, I don't totally understand some of the stuff I read fully yet (but I keep trying), and it takes a bit of time to get it applied correctly for MY game. Generally I find reading a book to be immediately helpful (since it changes my game, I'm a little less predictable), slightly harmful short-term (as I practice the concepts and begin to understand them and when to apply them), and long-term it simply gets assimilated into my entire game (where it isn't uniquely identifiable).
As far as easily beating book players, there is a lot of room for movement once you understand how to apply those concepts, so you shouldn't be as predictable as you're suggesting (or you didn't really understand the book
Whether you are reading a book, scrolling through the forum or watching poker on television you are presented with new ideas and situations and these cause your brain to challenge your fundamental understanding of the game. As we progress to become more complex players we become better players. We are able to better deal with the situation in front of us because we have seen it, read it or discussed it before.
Books can be detrimental only if you use them as textbooks that dictate your every move. Poker is inherently unpredictable because people are unpredictable. Use Books, the forum and tv as theory and mind puzzles to become a more diverse and complex player and in turn you will become a better player.
I couldn't agree with this statement more.
I've only been playing for 2 years now, and I still consider myself a novice....there's so much to poker that I'm just starting to learn. Books, articles, this forum....it all helps me to understand the concepts of the game. That said, to me, there's no better teacher than playing - that's where I've learned the most.
In Skalansky's video "The Seminar" he talks about poker players and evolution. His comments are applicable to anything competitive really. Out of the mass of Poker players there are a few able bodies that rise to the top through natural selection - a survival of the fittest kind of thing. These “natural†poker players instinctively have a style that ensured they would survive – if they didn’t they went broke. There are other poker players who rise to top by studying, reading, playing, learning etc. etc. etc. Sklansky's argument is that your chances of making it to the top are slim however your chances are better if you do study/learn etc.etc.. Really, in my opinion, it’s a matter of knowing yourself and realizing that if you are not one of the first group, i.e. a "natural" poker player, the only chance you have of long-term success is to study, read etc. etc..
Admittedly Skansky's comments were made to players who were "shooting for the stars" (it was filmed at the WSOP Silver Anniversary) however I think they are applicable to anyone who wants to have success at poker. People play poker for a multitude of reasons and not all are concerned with winning. If your goal is to win (money or tournaments) I think his reasoning is sound. You have a better chance at winning if you study, read books and learn than to hope to win by "natural" ability. If someone happens to be one of those "natural" players and they are satisfied with their play why would they need to read a book?
I was sitting at a table the other day not saying a word as I chose to do while watching this game from the rail and I realized this was a line up of weekenders and wannabees. I said to myself I'm not tipping off players to my level as I want no intimidation factor to diminish my action. Sitting there for 3 hours I heard some of the worst comments and actions in the poker world.
Things like:
"I had to call with 3 of a kind right"
"Sure he could have had the flush but my straight could have been good"
"at least I can still catch a jack to win"
**6 limpers in a 1/2 NL game and the BB makes it 7 to go.... huh?
**2/5 NL limp limp raise to $10 raise to $15..... Huh?
"so I have to put in $6 more... how much to raise?"
It's actions and comments like these that keep reassuring me that I am doing the right thing by learning strategies and theories, Reading hands, and watching players hand selections....
In conclusion... Learning is fundemental if you don't want me making fun of a comment you made in my next post!