First Book I ever read on poker

Status
Not open for further replies.
Leftylou

Leftylou

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Total posts
54
Chips
0
Was called "The Education of a Poker Player" by Herbert O. Yardley.

It must have made a good impression on me because I remember that 40 plus years later. It's a good book for beginners, primarily about 7 card stud, and I remember it being pretty funny, but educational too. Like the three most important things to know:
1. Never draw to an inside straight
2. Never carry a package by the string
3. Never trust a man named "Whitey"

C ya at the tables Leftylou :hello:
 
H

Heshkak

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Total posts
342
Chips
0
My first book was "Killer Poker". I really don't recommend it for newbies, but is really good for classifying players.
 
E

ericraider1

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Total posts
33
Chips
0
The first one that I read was Play Poker Like the Pros by Phil Hellmuth. It has a lot of good stuff in it, including classifications of players. It goes over a lot of different games and types, and I firmly believe that this has helped me play much better than I ever would have if I hadnt picked it up. Id have to recommend this as a good buy.
 
S

superdave

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Total posts
22
Chips
0
My first was Hold 'Em Excelence by Lou Kreiger. It was a pretty good book for a first. Really good section on how to play big slick. Check it out.
 
Leftylou

Leftylou

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Total posts
54
Chips
0
superdave said:
My first was Hold 'Em Excelence by Lou Kreiger. It was a pretty good book for a first. Really good section on how to play big slick. Check it out.
That is a good piece. Here it is again:

What follows is a short chapter frrom my first book, "Hold'em Excellence: From Beginner to Winner." It talks about playing A-K in a limit hold-em game. In a no-limit cash game, you have to make your decision about how much to bet with A-K based primarily on your opponents and your position, while in a tournament, these same to factors are of importance, but so is your stack size related to the blinds and antes, and your image at the table.

There's no formulaic way to play A-K in no-limit poker, regardless of whether you're in a tournament or cash game. But here's the discussion i authored on Big Slick in fixed limit games.

You'll notice that I equivocate, and that's because I think there are arguments for raising with A-K and arguments for just taking the flop and seeing what happens later.

My own tendency is to raise with this hand, and to do so in a no-limit game too. But I will usually raise about twice or three times the big blind, see the flop and adjust my strategy from there. n The chapter exerpt follows.

CHAPTER 6. PLAYING BIG SLICK

Big Slick
When it comes to big hands, all of us want to be dealt A-A or K-K. The reality is that we'll be dealt A-K more frequently. In recent years there has been some debate over how to play A-K. Exploring each camp’s reasons will expose you to some strategic thinking you can use to assess other poker situations in addition to this one.


Conventional wisdom says that when you’re dealt Ace-King, or Big Slick as it’s called by most hold’em players, you do one thing with it: Raise. While some players call occasionally just to incorporate some deception into their game, most play Big Slick as fast as a pair of aces or kings.

To many players it is a power-raising hand. You’re dealt Big Slick and there’s a raise in front of you? No problem. Reraise. What if you raise and flop three rags? No problem when you’re holding Big Slick. Come out betting on the flop and bet again on the turn. Conventional wisdom holds that if the flop doesn’t hit anybody, your pre-flop raise and subsequent bets will probably drive out all but the truest of kamikazes. Your raise may even limit the number of players so that you have a reasonable chance of winning even if you don’t flop anything, and if that’s the case you ought to raise most of the time.

Is Conventional Wisdom Correct
But is conventional wisdom correct? Just because it’s “conventional” doesn’t make it so. Remember, conventional wisdom used to believe the earth was flat. No less a poker authority than Mike Caro expressed the opinion that you’re usually better off calling with Big Slick, taking the flop, and seeing what develops.


If Caro’s opinion is correct and conventional wisdom — still gospel to the vast majority of limit hold’em players — isn’t, then substantial profit opportunities are available by exploiting incorrect strategies and employing correct ones.

To shed some more light on this murky subject, let’s begin by examining why you might raise or call with Big Slick. Assume there are four or five players who have already called the big blind and you’re in one of the later positions. It may seem obvious, but it’s important to recognize that when you raise in this position, you’re doing so to get more money in the pot. When you’re a late raiser and there are already a lot of callers, you’re not going to thin out the field. Whether the blinds call is another story, but each player who called the original bet will call your raise.


By raising in this position you’re representing a big hand. If the flop contains an Ace or King, you’re probably in the lead. However, if that flop contains one of your cards and two or three sequenced or suited cards, you could very well be in trouble. What do you do in this situation? To bet or not to bet, that is the question. A bet ought to eliminate anyone the flop hasn’t helped, but it certainly won’t chase out someone who is drawing to a better hand than yours. If the board is three-sequenced or suited, your opponent may already have made his hand, and he is simply waiting until the turn to check-raise.

Moreover, if you power-raised before the flop, anyone holding second or bottom pair who called your initial raise (and now has two bets invested in his hand) may be tied in to it. While he might have tossed his hand away for a single bet if he hadn’t previously called your raise, he may now be married to it. Thus committed, there is always the chance he will draw out on you by making trips or two pair on the turn or the river.

What About Limping In With Ace-King?
What if you simply limp-in before the flop with Big Slick in late position? If the flop contains an ace or king and nothing else threatening, you can bet when it gets around to you or raise if there is a bet in front of you. That will certainly chase out all those who hold lesser hands, but might otherwise have stayed to draw out on you. However, if a connected or suited flop is present, anyone with a big draw is still likely to play.

What if you’re holding Big Slick in early position, or in late position when no other players are active except the blinds? Raising will certainly knock out anyone who might have considered taking the flop with a marginal holding but now has to cold-call a double bet. One or both of the blinds are likely to fold too, unless they hold a premium hand or suspect you of being on a steal. If you quietly limp in from late position with Big Slick, you’ve given no clues about the quality of your hand. While this doesn’t get any more money into the pot and allows weaker hands to play against you, it provides plenty of deception when the flop is favorable.

Anytime the flop contains an ace or a king, you have to assume you’re in the lead, particularly if you’re up against only one (or even both) of the blinds. If the flop is ragged, however, you’ll simply never know where you are relative to the blinds. Since the blinds, in an unraised pot, can be expected to hold anything, they are just as likely to be helped by a flop containing three rags as three big cards. This is particularly true for the big blind, who is getting a free play in an unraised pot. If rags flop and one of the blinds bets, you can toss your hand away unless you suspect your opponent of bluffing.

The philosophy behind just calling with Big Slick is this: Although a powerful holding, Ace-King is still a drawing hand. Given the fact that most of the time you’re probably not going to like the flop, it is cheaper to see the flop and play appropriately from there. Why is the flop so critical? Simple. Before the flop you’ve seen only two cards. After the flop more than 70 percent of your hand has been defined. Moreover, because the majority of players raise with Big Slick, by limping in you are creating deception in the minds of your opponents.

If you’re in the kind of game where players routinely limp-in with hands like Ace-Five, or King-Nine and subsequently bet out if an ace or king flops, you are in position to raise them because you only called with Big Slick. Had you raised before the flop, those same players who limped in with no-kicker hands would probably not come out betting when a big card flopped — since they are likely to fear that the raiser has top pair with a better kicker.

Yet if everyone stopped raising before the flop with Big Slick, and simply limped in, you would lose the deception factor associated with making that play. But as long as players routinely raise with Big Slick, you can incorporate some deception into your game by limping in, taking the flop, then speeding up when the flop proves favorable.

Reasons to Raise With Big Slick
Why fire in a power raise with Big Slick, since by doing so you’re announcing that you have a big hand? Here’s the conventional wisdom side of the debate. If you raise with Big Slick and you’re able to thin the field, you can generally take control of the play on the flop. If the flop, for example, comes Queen-Seven-Four and one of the blinds checks with a hand like Four-Five, your bet might cause him to fold the best hand. Because you raised before the flop, he has to put you on something. You could have raised with a pair of Tens through Aces — as well as with Ace-King. If you had raised with a big pair, your opponent is a real long shot to draw out on you.


When you examine the flop and are trying to determine if it helped anyone, you need to be very aware of the game’s texture. If, for example, you’re playing in a game where there are typically very few callers and you suddenly find yourself in a pot with six or seven way action, you can assume your Ace-King is up against some quality draws (Jack-Queen suited) or mid-sized pairs. But if you’re dealt Big Slick in a game where nearly every pot has six callers, the calling hands are likely to be weaker. You can probably expect to see hands like King-Nine, Ace-Eight, or worse at the showdown. When you’re in a game like this and make two pair, you are hoping that your opponents also make two pair. If the board shows Ace-King-Eight when you’re holding Big Slick and your opponent has Ace-Eight, you’ll get all the action you want — and you’re gonna love it!

How Should You Play Big Slick?
Now that you’ve seen both sides of the argument, what should you do? Do you raise with Big Slick or simply limp-in. Do you try to take control of the hand on the flop — regardless of what might fall — or quietly call while simultaneously setting yourself up to raise your opponents if the flop is favorable to you? How should you play it?

I find some merit in each of these somewhat conflicting strategies. My own inclination is to limp-in with Big Slick if I’m in late position and three or more players have called the blinds in front of me. With four players already active, I’m going to assume the flop will help someone. If that someone is me, I’m going to raise anybody who comes out betting on the flop — unless, of course, the board is three-sequenced or three-suited. In that case, I’ll just call if my ace gives me four to the nut flush and hope to raise on the turn or river. If I’ve got the wrong ace, I may raise anyway, to try and get heads up with the bettor and steal it on the turn. If I don’t raise, I’m usually going to toss my hand away.

On the other hand, if only the blinds are active, or if I’m up against the blinds and only one caller, I’ll usually raise. If the flop is favorable, I will have gotten more money in the pot. If I miss the flop, I still have an opportunity to bet out and steal the pot. In this situation, I’ll usually play the same way regardless of whether my hand is suited or not.

Two diametrically opposed strategic approaches to the same situation leads to the obvious question: Which one is correct? I’m not altogether certain, but I believe that conventional wisdom is correct most of the time. Nevertheless, the choice of which strategy to employ depends in part on the texture of the game, how many aggressive players are at the table, and how much control you can exert over the your opponents when you raise.

While I see merit on both sides and my own inclination leans in the direction of the conventional wisdom, I believe many of my opponents overplay A-K. They see Big Slick as a premium hand. I see it as a premium drawing hand. Because of that, I don’t put it in the must raise category. I also believe a mixed strategy is proper — sometime calling, sometimes raising, depending on position, the number of active players when it’s your turn to act, and the texture of the game.

Poker expert Mason Malmuth suggests there are four A-K variations, which should be played as follows:

If your raise will limit the field, raise with A-K offsuit but call occasionally with A-K suited. When your raise will not limit the field, call with A-K offsuit and raise with A-K suited.
_________________
_______
Lou Krieger

Raise your game with Lou Krieger, best-selling poker author, at Royal Vegas Poker.
 
H

hallos

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Total posts
15
Chips
0
First book was Super System. Nice book =)
 
Prysm

Prysm

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Total posts
80
Chips
0
Im reading David Sklansky's Tournament Poker and Hold 'em
 
M

mdk2all

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Total posts
16
Chips
0
I read Super System first. Very good description on how to play aggressively. Didn't improve my limit game much though.
 
V

VegasGrinder

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 6, 2005
Total posts
109
Chips
0
Get Super System 2....Jennifer Harman wrote the Limit section....It isn't anything fancy about her play in limit but She is one of the best Limit Cash Players in the World.
 
RammerJammer

RammerJammer

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Total posts
757
Awards
1
Chips
0
Leftylou said:
Like the three most important things to know:
1. Never draw to an inside straight
2. Never carry a package by the string
3. Never trust a man named "Whitey"
To which I would only add:
4. Never say "never".

Prysm said:
Im reading David Sklansky's Tournament Poker and Hold 'em
Hope you have plenty of Tylenol on hand for a session with Professor Sklansky!
 
Last edited:
B

bakl68

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Total posts
14
Chips
0
I read Sklansky's Theory of Poker first, but in retrospect I think it is too advanced for beginners -- a worthwhile book to be sure, but not for newbs. I switched gears and went to Harrington's book, Harrington on Hold 'Em and I think that would have been a wiser choice for my first book.
 
C

chickensuit

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
May 9, 2006
Total posts
16
Chips
0
I think my first was killer poker also...God that book was useless...theory of poker was the first good book I read. My most recent read was the stuey ungar story.. that guy must have been awesome.
 
starfall

starfall

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Total posts
574
Chips
0
My first book was Play Poker Like the Pros - useful, not perfect, but does cover PLO and Omaha Hi/Lo, which is nice. Basically tends towards a very tight strategy.
Then I got another book on poker which was so memorable I lent it to a friend and can't remember what it's called, then Super System - good, but I'm presuming Super System 2 is better since it covers current blind and ante structures and also games like Omaha. I've read a few others since, but Super System or Play Poker Like The Pros will give you a good start.
 
t1riel

t1riel

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 20, 2005
Total posts
6,919
Awards
1
Chips
16
Does Mike Caro's "Book Of Poker tells" count?:confused:
 
medeiros13

medeiros13

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Total posts
491
Chips
0
Lefty, HO would be disappointed you didn't add play small pairs very cautiously and if the board pairs and you don't have a piece, bail!!!

All kidding aside, this was also my first book and I thought it was great. Really emphasises TAG
 
D

DukeDrew

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 13, 2006
Total posts
109
Chips
0
Harrington on Holdem, 1 and 2. Thought they were great for tourney play and I can say without a doubt they were the main reason I placed in my first two live tourneys.
 
Stick66

Stick66

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Total posts
6,374
Chips
0
DukeDrew said:
Harrington on Holdem, 1 and 2. Thought they were great for tourney play and I can say without a doubt they were the main reason I placed in my first two live tourneys.

Wow, nice job! I'm almost done with HOH 1. I'll have to pick up HOH2.
 
spore

spore

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 4, 2006
Total posts
491
Chips
0
I read Hellmuth's book first. I know the guy whines like a baby, but he knows his poker for sure. That got me some basic hold'em stragey.

Then I read a couple books by Sklansky that gave me some deeper insight into statistics, limit strategy, pot odds, implied odds.. etc.

I'd reccommend reading the Sklansky books.. one was "The Theory of Poker" which helped my general poker game across all variants. The other was "Hold'Em Poker for Advanced Players".
 
D

DukeDrew

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 13, 2006
Total posts
109
Chips
0
MrSticker said:
Wow, nice job! I'm almost done with HOH 1. I'll have to pick up HOH2.
HOH 3 is out this month. I believe it's a workbook... so if you enjoyed all of the problems in the first 2, this will be cool! Amazon gives you 10% off if you buy 2 at a time.
 
V

VegasGrinder

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 6, 2005
Total posts
109
Chips
0
Harringtons books are good for tourney play.

Caros Tells book is a must read for anyone playing live games.
 
joosebuck

joosebuck

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Total posts
4,193
Chips
0
theory of poker -> super system -> mike caro's book of poker tells -> harringon's holdem -> small stakes holdem
 
N

njo1987

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Total posts
5
Chips
0
phil hellmuths book, but mainly focuses on cash games. great start though
 
reglardave

reglardave

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Total posts
2,264
Chips
0
My first poker book was "No Limit Texas old'em" by Tom McEvoy.....A good, but not great read. I'm currently working on Sklansky's " Holdem Poker for Advanced Players" and then gonna reread HoH1, and then read 2 and 3. Just got a nice deal on the set of 3 on eBay.:_
 
M

MakMan

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 28, 2005
Total posts
54
Chips
0
my first poker book was harrington on holdem (vol1) which i got as a present last yr. i enjoyed it so much that i went and bought the other 2 volumes.

all in all, a must read for any poker fan/enthusiast regardless of skill level, bankroll size etc etc
 
alluz

alluz

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Total posts
9
Chips
0
My first book was Sklansky's Theory of Poker. Others books I havent read yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top