blonde poker forum

hi all.any advice on good poker book.i think im a solid player but would like to take it to another level.thanks

I like the Harrington books but then I could well be newer to the game than you. 

Blonde has a book review section http://www.blondepoker.com/books/210000.html that maybe worth a read

It has to be Harrington, its not rocket science but it is laid out well and easy to learn from, slansky is good but not as accesable.Don't think harrington's book is some secret weapon most pos ROI players hav read it now.

Harrington makes me laugh - I like the book (only read the first one), but you can feel the pressure now when you lead out in a pot with a continuation/probe bet, everyone saying "harrington, harrington"...

Two "pearlers" from the book. You can see the common sense in them....but still good advice.

-When you play the opposite to your table image, that is when you will make most money

- Dont make bets you cant collect on - eg the only way he is calling is if he has you beat.


I have heard there is a 3rd book in the pipeline....

There is, but it's a workbook of hand examples - scheduled for publication in May.

Surely the third book is on deal-making  ;)

PS. Fran I have both Harrington books if you would like to borrow them.

Before everyone jumps on the Harrington bandwagon, just be aware that these are books on NLHE tournaments, so if you're planning to play Pot Limit Omaha cash games they won't be much use to you (brilliant though they are).

What's your background (i.e. experience level) and what games are you looking specifically to play?

Sheriff

I never knew that book bit existed, Graham. I must just be abit slow  :D

For NLHE, has to be Harrington. Read them both then read them again. Then once you are comfortable with your strategy then go on to books that cover more intricate game plans in detail, but Harrington I and II are uncomplicated and perfect to start out with.

LONG LIVE HARRINGTON!!!

I've never read one of his books but its so easy to spot someone who has and is playing as the book says chapter and verse so i can adjust my game accordingly :)

But that's not a bad thing. I haven't been playing very long and you have to start somewhere and Harrington gives a good grounding in the game. But it's up to the individual whether they follow his text to the letter or not. I don't but the books made me think a lot more about the gameplay and using odds and outs instead of taking chances and is a lot more readable to newbies than Slansky's book which I think should be read after.

I think most people will vary their game enough to not be too predictable, and I can't yet identify anyone making a 'Harrington play'.

I bow down to your amazing perceptive monkey sense  ;)     :D

to be honest it was about 3 years after starting playing that i bought my first book (then i got 3, supersystems and two of sklansky's) as my philosophy is that you cant beat experience - and only by playing the game itself can you gain this. I tried to figure things out for myself and then when found that when i read the book i that it was telling me pretty much what i'd already learned (plus the occasional good snippet that i hadnt).

I agree, Sklasnsky can be tough reading even for someone who knows a bit about the game but you'll be surprised at how many people dont vary there games enough not to be predictable, i love reraising, sometimes on a complete bluff a player who is making an obvious "continuation bet" on a flop and watch as they pass time after time after time :)

That's 100% precisely what it comes down to. There will come a point where the books stay on the shelf and I know and play my own game - hopefully with somebody else's chips    8)



 ;hide;

But how will you know what your own game is if you keep reading the books? All the books try to do is show you how the game should be played but they all do it through the eyes of the author. Therefore seven different poker books could tell you how to play seven different ways is certain situations depending on the style of play of the person who wrote the book (or is supposed to have written the book ;)).

Also i tend to find a lot that some people read and understand the books perfectly but then when it comes to putting into practice it all goes pear shaped because other people do things that the books havent prepared them for and they then dont know what to do.

My best advice would be to play the game first and get as much experience as you can then when you appear to come across a stumbling bloke then pick up the books and look for advice.

Chicken-Egg.
I have gained from the books as I start out as they give me an understanding of poker pshycology and gameplays at the table and at the same time get ideas on removing definate no-no plays that were regularly in my game which were costing me. I can play along the same thinking as the textbooks, or not. I decide this as I see others play and try and weigh up weaknesses.
I'd like to think that I'm able to vary my game enough not to get stereotyped and have some success, but only my bankroll will confirm this.


You summed it up already. Experience. But I don't think that generally someone can come into the game without any knowledge of it and just play and play and become a champ (unless they are a fabled 'natural poker genius'). There has to be someone to advise and explain - for me the books and playing lots and lots and lots. I've only recently found a live game to play which is also helping in very different ways.
For other's it may be by starting out sitting at a table and playing live and asking lots of questions. I didn't have that option.

Do you think it is possible to start improving and winning at poker without knowledge and understanding of odds, risk, tells, etc... I agree you don't necessarily need books for that - a good mathematical mind or grounding in odds-based games is a massive yum-yum - but could it be done by sitting in front of internet games just playing and playing?

Ok, I can already hear Matt..." she is rubbish,ect"..lol

But Jenifer Leigh said in a recent interview with Mike the Mouth on the radio, that she read over 20 books in her first year of starting out.

Like Matt, Mike Matasow(sp?) is against reading books. However Jennicide justifys her use of books by saying it allowed her to understand the fundamentals alot clearer and was important in her success so far.

I use her as an example only because I listened to a similar discussion during this radio show. She may have been bankrolled, ect, but this still doesn't dimminish her achievements in only two years of playing. Perhaps this was down to her initial study using books. Everyone learns differently and for some, books are the way to go. However other people prefer to study other people playing. I remember a post by Matt a few weeks back, in it you said for four months you watched the winning players on pokerstars play. This obviously worked for you becasue you are now a winning player. I don't think any way is wrong, it is just personal choice.

 I use a mix of watching and reading. So far I am still crap...

thanks for the advise.i went to work not long after i posted and i bought the first harrington book.ive already read 70 pages.


p.s.Ralf ill take you up on the second one if thats o.k.




thanks for all the feedback.BLONDE RULES

Lol, I never said she was rubbish - all i said was that she has still got a long way to go before she can be called one of the top female players and it'll probably still be a while before she becomes a household name when it comes to poker.

I also didnt say i'm against reading books - all i was trying to convey is that you have to be careful not to fall into the trap of being led into playing a certain way, one that would be different to the way you would normally play. A players style is usually created by the players personality and therefore it is better to try and let that style come to the fore and experiment a while before trying to change it because the book recommends something else. A quiet person by nature usually takes a more catious approach to someone who is more adventurous by nature and therefore a book that tells a player he has to raise and reraise at any given opportunity would be against the players natural instincts and could lead to that player making more mistakes than if they played their normal game.

Like you mention in the post from the interview its different horses for different courses, what works for one may not necessarily work for another, as this is a forum i was just trying to point out to LittlemissC and other members that it could be possible that they may learn more without studying the books to hard to start with.

Ok, I understand.

This actually makes sense. A player like Mike Matasow(sp?) is attacking and loud.  A player like Howard Lederer is more cautious.

What about Phil Hellmuth?  He is loud, but isn't he suppose to be really tight and cautious.. :-)

No, Hellmuth is just a bad loser with a big ego!!  :D

but yes that was the point i was trying to make - if someone like Mike the Mouth were to write a book and someone who had a playing style more like a Howard Lederer were to read it then chances are it would contradict their natural playing style

Yea, I totally see where you are coming from.