"Hold Em Poker" or "Hold Em Poker: For Advanc

gordan_gecco

Hey guys,

I've already read a basic hold 'em book (by Ken Warren) and The Theory of Poker by Sklansky. Now I want to get one of Sklansky's books on hold 'em, but I'm not sure which to get.

Will "Hold 'Em Poker" be a repeat of the material I've already read, or should I start there before going on to "Hold 'Em Poker: For Advanced Players"? Any advice is appreciated.

Thanks!

Hork42

If you've read Theory of Poker and want to take your game to a different level, I'd suggest the advanced book. Hold'em Poker will be mostly review. A lot of content is repeated in both books, you don't really need both.

hork.

ScottyZ

If you've already read "Theory of Poker" and feel like you understand many of the ideas in that book, you should have no problem with "Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players". I'd say get HPFAP first (you'll probably want to get this one at some point anyway), but if you feel like it's a little too much to handle, you can always pick up the regular "Hold'em Poker", and start with that.

Also, there is some repetition between HP and HPFAP. Namely, if you read HPFAP *and* are quite comfortable with all of the concepts, you might find that HP doesn't have much new to say.

I thought "Hold'em Poker" wasn't too great relative to Sklansky's other books. (This means it's still a pretty good book overall though.)

I'd suggest "Winning at Poker" by Dave Scharf and/or "Winning Low Limit Hold'em" by Lee Jones as excellent choices as possible alternatives to Sklansky's Hold'em Poker (but not really replacements for... all three are probably worth reading at some point I think).

Also, I think at least one the the Scharf or Jones books (ideally both) is *vital* in you're going to be playing cash games US$4-$8 or lower. If you bring your HPFAP game to these limits, you're going to get wiped out.

There are only a few poker books I really disliked, and Ken Warren's "Winner's Guide to Texas Hold'em Poker" is one of them.

ScottyZ

gordan_gecco

Thanks very much for the replies, guys...and I agree with you that Warren's book is trash. In one section he says that you want to play against people with tattoos, because he claims that anyone "dumb enough to get a tattoo" can't possibly be smart enough to be a good poker player.
I almost couldn't believe it when I read it! Thanks again, and I'll be picking up HPFAP very soon.

MiamiKeith

ScottyZ wrote:

Also, I think at least one the the Scharf or Jones books (ideally both) is *vital* in you're going to be playing cash games US$4-$8 or lower. If you bring your HPFAP game to these limits, you're going to get wiped out.

I have seen you recommend the Lee Jones book a lot. I don't own it, and I have never read it cover to cover, but just from flipping through it, I really didn't like what I saw. He gave some advice that I really didn't agree with. For example, he said that in a low limit game, you should not raise pocket queens from the big blind after a few people limp in, because your raise isn't going to get anybody to fold. Of course, this is true.. it almost certianly won't get anybody out. But QQ is a good enough hand that you don't really care. You are almost CERTAINLY winning more than your fair share of pots (the only exception is the unlikely situation that someone limped in with kings or aces) so you want to raise as a value bet. It's just a matter of getting your money in with the best of it. You may as well charge the people who insist on playing any ace as much as you can. Also by raising here you wreck the implied odds of people playing hands like 78s or 44... if someone is playing a hand like this (which is probably true more often than not when 5 people limp in) you are making a TERRIBLE play by not raising... you are essentially letting them see the flop for the right price rather than overcharging them. Any time someone has a hand which they would like to play for one bet but should not be cold-calling a raise with, you are doing them a huge favour when you don't raise behind them with a hand like QQ.

I hate to just pick on this one point... to be honest, there was other stuff that I saw which I disagreed with at the time, but this was a few years ago and I can't remember any more specifics. I just remember not being particularly impressed by what I saw.

I try to base my preflop strategy partially on the concepts discussed here: http://www.posev.com/poker/holdem/strategy/preflop-abdul.html. I think that this is really a great article. When I first read it, I had just started playing poker seriously and only understood a small portion of it. But as I kept going back and re-reading it as I gained more experience, found that I understood more and more of what he was talking about. It's important to understand the CONCEPTS here and not just be memorizing tables, because things change a lot as games change from loose-passive to loose-aggressive games to tight-passive to tight-aggressive. If you understand the concepts it is not hard to make the adjustments. (this is true of any poker book or article... the "why" is more important than the "what") The main concept which applies to what I was talking about above is that, if you figure to win more than your fair share of pots (eg, more than 1/5 of the time in a 5-handed pot) you should raise behind limpers as a value bet, PARTICULARLY if your raise is unlikely to drive out hand that you want around (for example, if you are playing QQ, you REALLY want JJ around since it will pay you off on A LOT of flops. It is true that JJ occasionally outflops you or outdraws you, but much much more often when the board comes all ragged it will pay you off on every street since you both have an overpair. Similarly if you have AK you really want AQ around since you get paid off big time when an ace flops.) I would guess that if 5 people limp in and you hold QQ in the big blind, you probably win something like 30-40% of pots. Admittedly this is just an "educated guess" on my part , but 30-40% is a pretty big range, and I would say that the right answer probably falls somewhere in there, assuming that the probability of someone limping with AA or KK is miniscule. Anyway, if this is true, then not raising QQ in this 6-handed pot is a MAJOR mistake since you win about double your fair share of pots... you are basically giving away a small bet of EV by not raising. This is beyond significant. Even terribly fishy turn calls with hands like gutshots and underpairs don't usually give away a whole small bet of EV.

Anyway I am rambling here. I should probably get ahold of a copy of Jones' book so I can form a more complete opinion of it, and stop talking about QQ. But, still, I just really remember NOT being impressed with what I saw.

Keith

ScottyZ

For example, he said that in a low limit game, you should not raise pocket queens from the big blind after a few people limp in, because your raise isn't going to get anybody to fold.

Maybe you saw this in the 1st edition of the book (which I haven't seen myself). He mentions a few corrections from the previous edition along the way, and they all sounded like good improvements to me. This seems to be one of them.

From the 2nd (and current) edition (pg. 49):

"In the first edition, I encouraged you to not raise much in the blinds. I now believe it's correct to raise simply because you probably have the best hand, and this punishes people who limped in with trash.
...
Raise [from the big blind] with AA-88, ..."

I agree that this book isn't perfect (I think the starting requirements, while generally solid, could use a little tweaking), but I still think it's one of the best low limit books out there.

I do completely agree with you that "because you can't get people out" is not a good reason to avoid raising with good hands. There is such a thing as raising pre-flop for value. 8)

And I'd also have to say that if I picked up a low limit book that recommended checking QQ in the big blind, I probably would have put it right back down too.

ScottyZ

MiamiKeith

ScottyZ wrote:

For example, he said that in a low limit game, you should not raise pocket queens from the big blind after a few people limp in, because your raise isn't going to get anybody to fold.

Maybe you saw this in the 1st edition of the book (which I haven't seen myself). He mentions a few corrections from the previous edition along the way, and they all sounded like good improvements to me. This is seems to be one of them.

From the 2nd (and current) edition (pg. 49):

"In the first edition, I encouraged you to not raise much in the blinds. I now believe it's correct to raise simply because you probably have the best hand, and this punishes people who limped in with trash.
...
Raise [from the big blind] with AA-88, ..."

I agree that this book isn't perfect (I think the starting requirements, while generally solid, could use a little tweaking), but I still think it's one of the best low limit books out there.

I do completely agree with you that "because you can't get people out" is not a good reason to avoid raising with good hands. There is such a thing as raising pre-flop for value. 8)

ScottyZ

Oh, hey, I didn't know that there was a new edition. I should definitely try to get my hands on it then, and see if my opinion has changed any.

I would also suggest that everyone (who hasn't already) should read that article which I linked to in my previous post. If you are a new player, and don't understand all of it, that's ok. It will give you some idea of where you are and where you are trying to get to. You could even post intelligent questions here (I love this forum). However, I would suggest saving any REALLY intelligent questions for at least 5 days, so I can get my free hat. ;-)

Keith

ScottyZ

However, I would suggest saving any REALLY intelligent questions for at least 5 days, so I can get my free hat.

Oakie-doakie. How about this one:

When I'm in the shower scrubbing my backside (if you know what I mean), it always seems to bleed. Am I using too large or too small a piece of steel wool?

ScottyZ

MiamiKeith

ScottyZ wrote:

When I'm in the shower scrubbing my backside (if you know what I mean), it always seems to bleed. Am I using too large or too small a piece of steel wool?

I have been repeatedly assured that size doesn't matter.

Keith

ScottyZ

MiamiKeith wrote:

ScottyZ wrote:

When I'm in the shower scrubbing my backside (if you know what I mean), it always seems to bleed. Am I using too large or too small a piece of steel wool?

I have been repeatedly assured that size doesn't matter.

Keith

LOL

ScottyZ

ConfusedONE

ScottyZ wrote:

MiamiKeith wrote:

ScottyZ wrote:

When I'm in the shower scrubbing my backside (if you know what I mean), it always seems to bleed. Am I using too large or too small a piece of steel wool?

I have been repeatedly assured that size doesn't matter.

Keith

LOL

ScottyZ

ROFLMAO

Jay

I'd suggest the Advanced book since you've already read those two books. But to warn you, some of the stuff in this book shouldn't be used in games like the $5/$10 at Brantford Casino because it won't work that often against less skilled players at the lowest limit offered. I've already tried some of the stuff and have been unsuccessful sometimes.

SupaMuncher

I agree. I love HPFAP (so much that I brought it with me regularly, and lost it one day ). However, so much of it is completely irrelevant to normal low-limit games. Still, very good book.