Does anyone know good poker book(s)?

KingNothing4

KingNothing4

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Total posts
382
Chips
0
I have been playing poker just for fun for about 3 or 4 years, and recently I have gotten back into playing and am taking it alot more serious and I was wondering if there are any really good books that can help?
 
BigStackJack

BigStackJack

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Total posts
99
Chips
0
Hello King. I have read a lot of poker books, some by phill helmuth, barry greenstine etc... But they all pretty much say the same things. Everyone has a dif. style. I say play (wich you have) and find out what works for you. Thats my opinion. But if you want to read a good one the best one I've read is ace on the river by barry. Check it out
 
KingNothing4

KingNothing4

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Total posts
382
Chips
0
ok ya i was kinda wondering if they were really much different, so i'll have to check that out then, thanks!
 
M

maltz

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Total posts
104
Chips
0
I recommend 3 books:

1. David Sklansky "The Thoery of Poker"

2. Dan Harrington on Hold'em (3 volumes)

3. Doyle Brunson's Super System 2

These three books are very textbook-like. Great read and it will improve your basics to the pro's level. The rest is experience.
 
vanquish

vanquish

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Total posts
12,000
Chips
0
Gordon's Little Green/Blue Book(s), Killer Poker (series), Sklansky's books, Malmuth's books, Harrington on Hold Em.
 
S

Seneku

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Total posts
173
Chips
0
If you're a ring game player, I would highly recommend: No Limit Hold em, theory and practise by Sklansky and Malmuth (supersystems is also good for ring games). For tournaments you should (of course) read Harrington on Hold em.
 
KingNothing4

KingNothing4

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Total posts
382
Chips
0
thank u all, i will start looking into these books!
 
aliengenius

aliengenius

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Total posts
4,596
Chips
0
Here are my suggestions for beginning books.
 
ripptyde

ripptyde

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Total posts
448
Chips
0
ignore all poker books

develop your own style

learn your odds

be original

no great poker player ever got great by reading books

i browsed sklanky and whiffed through a free book from some FPP's but for the most part success will only come through personal experience....poker books are worthless I dont care who wrote it.....if you are building your own style on someone elses words you are already way behind the 8 ball
 
aliengenius

aliengenius

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Total posts
4,596
Chips
0
ignore all poker books

develop your own style

learn your odds

be original

no great poker player ever got great by reading books

i browsed sklanky and whiffed through a free book from some FPP's but for the most part success will only come through personal experience....poker books are worthless I dont care who wrote it.....if you are building your own style on someone elses words you are already way behind the 8 ball


hahahahahahaha
I'll just plagiarize myself to show you how foolish your concept is:

Not let us address the issue of "books" vs. "experience".
In the beginning of his book, 'Your Worst Poker Enemy', Alan Schoonmaker address the question 'How should we learn? By intuition or by logic?'
His arguments can essentially be applied to the book vs. experience question as well [the below argument is mostly a paraphrase of Schoonmaker's].

Let me first be VERY clear that I am NOT advocating book learning as a substitute for playing, only that playing alone can not possibly be as advantageous as structured study combined with table experience.

Why? As Schoonmaker notes, the advantage of a logical/structured/book approach over an intuitive/experience/playing approach are:

1. It is correctable.
Since the process is visible, you can see exactly where your error(s) was, and therefore correct it. With an intuitive approach you might feel something is not right, but not be able to
accurately make the necessary adjustments due to an inexact methodology or thought process.

2. It is easily teachable. Since a logical process can be broken down into clearly defined steps, others will be able to duplicate it. While you might not be able to write 'The Theory of Poker' you are more than capable of reading it and
understanding its tenets and principals and applying them to your game.

And, here is the one I think that translates best to our arugment that experience alone is necessary but not sufficient:

3. Additive. "If I have seen further than other men, it was by standing on the shoulders of giants." --Sir Issac Newton. Schoonmaker gives another example: it took a genius in Euclid to develop geometry, but we learn it easliy and quickly in high school.

Surely you don't think that highly of yourself to claim that you can "figure out" poker simply through your own (necessarily) limited experience, do you?
You can't reasonably claim that leaning something like the basic math of odds is easier to do on your own, or to do individually everytime you run into a situation, rather than memorizing the more commen ones from a chart, can you?
You don't think that you are smarter than someone like Mason Malmuth, and that he and his statistical background can't teach you anyting, do you?
You didn't come up with tournament concepts like "M" and "Inflection Points" on your own, did you?

Thinking that you are "just fine" with your own personal playing experience is utterly ridiculous:

1. You are not smarter than everyone who has ever played the game. You wont figure all this stuff out on your own.

2. Even if you are you will learn much faster and take advanced concepts much father if you do read previous thinkers' works (see the Newton quote above).

3. The human mind is prone to recall bias and self delusion. Even the most brilliant of minds will be hindered by these human flaws, which will, at the very least, slow down your learning and/or understanding of
the game if you are simply attempting to master poker on your own.

So, as you can plainly see, anyone who is serious about their poker game needs to study the works of those who understand the game.

Is experience necessary for mastery of the game of poker? Absolutely. Is it sufficient for mastery of the game of poker? Defiantly NOT.

(originally from this tread)
 
W

whodatdare

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Total posts
40
Chips
0
The first two Harrington on Hold 'Em books blew me away and started me thinking in different ways about how to approach the game. I don't have the third volume yet but I will. These three books should be in everyone's collection, as well as Sklansky's Theory of Poker, and Super System (1 and 2).
 
zachvac

zachvac

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Total posts
7,832
Chips
0
I read a lot of poker books before I started playing. Now after a few years of playing I'm re-reading them and I'm actually understanding what they're talking about. No matter what, books cannot replace experience. If you've never been in the situation described in the book, they're just stories.

That said, Harrington's books were simply amazing. Although they're targeted to the tournament game, his first book applies very much to cash games as well (early stages of slow tournaments are very similar to cash games). I'd recommend his books very very highly.
 
besplatnee

besplatnee

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 7, 2021
Total posts
593
Awards
1
Chips
46
Al-Alvarez has published The Biggest Game in Town, which details the 1981 world series of poker event. This is the first book of its kind to describe the professional world of the World Series of Poker. Alvarez's book kicks off the poker literature genre in Texas
 
Top