Is it a bad thing to be a book junkie?

[bookie socks]

I am constantly looking to buy books about poker. I try to buy used when they are available. In the past few months I have bought at least a dozen books. I can't help myself. Is this unhealthy? Or is it a good idea to keep trying to improve my game by playing and reading as much as I can about poker. I don't think any of my friends read poker books, but when I started playing with them I didn't even know a flush beat a straight, or if the board is paired I could be beat by a full house, so I've had to try to catch up through reading books, watching DVD's, reading online info and playing everyday. Now when I play against them I feel like I have the upper hand. I don't win everytime but I feel like I really know the game better than most of them. They will make obvious mistakes (obvious to me anyway) and get lucky. I see their mistake and I want to tell them so bad but I keep my mouth shut so that when they make that mistake again and don't get lucky, I will crush them.

[Ragnar]

It depends. If you enjoy reading the books and read a lot of them that is fine. If you read several marginal books, rather than studying or re-studying an excellent book then you are making a mistake. If you read marginal books instead of playing and analyzing your play that is bad as well.

[zoobird]

Very true. I really don't think THAT many really good books have been written about poker yet, so I'd say re-reading the best of them is definitely a better move. Beyond that, if you play online reviewing your hand histories and posting any hands that confuse you here is even more valuable.

[hecubus]

In my opinion, you can never stop learning. I also buy every book I can get my hands on, except the ones with the not-so-glaring reviews. Knowledge is the key to understanding. Just don't forget to leave time to actually play! :-)

[ottsville]

I think there are quite a few good books about poker. However, amassing knowledge for knowledge's sake is pointless unless you are applying it(it sounds like you are). The good thing about 2+2's books, is that they utilize similar theories, whereas reading a book by miller, one by cloutier, and one by hellmuth will give you a wide range of info. That can be good for an experienced player or one who can digest that much info and understand the underlying theory/thought but for one with less experience it might be better to stick to one set of similar theories.

I think that many players would be better served by STUDYING one or two books than reading 10 or 15. But it all depends on you...

[smbruin22]

even though i'm a book junkie (from curiousity and self-improvement).

i agree that you're better to really go back and re-read your favorite books over and over again.

[Lanzalot]

It isn't a bad thing, bookie. If you're starting out the quickest way to improve is read the 2+2 books in conjunction with playing regularly. When you have an appreciation of correct strategy/theory, the best way to improve is replay hands in your head from live play. At the table, focus on one player's showndown hand and critically analyze their actions and decisions throughout the hand. No very good players fail to do this, whether they claim to have never read books or not. You will be that much better quicker if you do both reading and table analysis. After you read the best books, table analysis is how you will improve the most, not by re-reading material you read numerous times before.

[jhub30]

Be selective. Only read books with review of at least 8 or 9 out of 10 stars.

[ECDub]

Are there any places to get really good book reviews that are reliable? I realize Mason Malmuth does some reviews, but those are not easy to find sometimes. Amazon reviews are not always the best either. I have bought a few books that I later found out had some incorrect information and it messed up how I initially started playing.

[bookie socks]

[ QUOTE ]
At the table, focus on one player's showndown hand and critically analyze their actions and decisions throughout the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really try to do this alot. Especially with amateurs it seems they will have the same betting patterns. Also, one regular I play with puts his cards in certain places depending on the strength of his hand, and another bets with his right hand if he feels his hand is strong and his left if he feels he'll need to improve his hand.

[MCS]

I feel like I read way too much and play way too little.

[I am fish]

I like NPC Book Reviews (http://www.jetcafe.org/npc/reviews/gambling/).

[deacsoft]

I have an extensive library of poker books and publications. I don't really enjoy reading at all, but I highly advocate the intake of knowledge when it comes to poker. I set aside time everyday to read about poker. The differences between a "healthy" intake and an "unhealthy" intake (in terms of poker) I believe lies in three areas.
1) Can you tell the difference between correct and incorrect advice and stratgies in the books your reading?
2) Are you understanding the concepts you're reading about and applying them correctly?
3) Are you leaving enough time to actually play and to also have a life outside poker?

[Easy E]

Unless you're buying bad books, no it's not a bad thing.

[lemonPeel]

It's fine if you're not completing following all the guidelines strictly, memorizing all the hand charts and playing too mechanically. Poker really isn't a game that you can learn to play well by reading a book. It's just very free form and you have to play it in the moment. It's hard to describe, but coming from someone who has over 100+ poker books, I know this to be true.

[acekingoffsuit]

yes, it depends.

if you just love poker, and love the rush of building, looking at your poker library, then why not get a ton of books, it's not that expensive a collection hobby. It is fun to get a new book, read another new take on poker, etc.

but if you think after reading 50 books, that the 51st book is gonna be the one that makes you into the champion you dream to be, forget it.

and i'll tell you something. I DONT THINK POKER IS SO DAMN COMPLICATED THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE 500 BOOKS WRITTEN ON IT. it's not chess. it's check, raise, or fold. even in no limit, the amounts are basically categorized into "do i want him to call or not, then how much will he call." all these new books are just bait for fanatics, and it seems to be pretty good bait.

if you read the top 5 already lauded poker books such as harrington's books, etc. then everything else (with small exception) is bulls*it.

I mean, "Killer online poker"?? LOL! IMO if you buy such a title, you're an idiot.

[deacsoft]

This is one of the more ignorant posts I've read in a while.

[grapabo]

I think it may be more productive to read the top select books very thoroughly and get into the theoretical questions involved rather than read many books for variety's sake. Those other sources might be useful, but if you already know some poker theory, that's a lot of duplicate information that you're paying for when you're buying entire books.