Should a new player spend more time reading about poker or playing ???

[Thundercat32]

Here's my dilemna... I'm not sure how much time each day I should be spending playing poker and how much time I should be reading about it? Usually when I lose I want to quit and study poker and when I win I don't make time to study (until I lose again)

I've been playing for about 8 months now and only in the last 3 months or so have I gotten serious about studying poker. I started off reading the Real Deal by Phil Gordon, than I got his Little Green Book. Next I read portions of the Art of War and Super System. Recently I've been wearing out my copy of Phil Gordon's Final Table poker. I also visit Two plus two and Cardplayer.com daily. Any other suggestions for where to go or what books to read?

I'm much better than I use to be due to this studying, but also I haven't been playing as much. Even though I'm smarter I don't seem to be winning alot more, just not having as many losses. Lasting longer in tournaments but still not winning big prizes.

To get there should I be playing more and reading less or vice versa? It seems as though I don't always have time to implement a new strategy I learned. Another question, how many hands should a player be in each week to consider themselves playing enough to get good enough for an eventual move to poker as a career. I've been thinking 5,000 but I'm not sure if that's enough. Also I don't consider playing at 6 tables at the same time a good way to get to 5,000.

I'm talking about 5,000 at one table only, so you can learn to read opponents. You just can't play your best with 6 tables going at once.

Thanks ya'll for your feedback and advice, it's very much appreciated

[TheWorstPlayer]

Play until you're tired. Then read 2+2. Mostly those books are just annoying drivel. That is coming from someone who has never opened one, though, so of course I could be completely wrong.

[Go_Blue88]

Books give you basic, standard fundamentals. What will make you a better player at the stakes you play at is your instincts, which you improve from playing many many hands.

[Iconoclastic]

Playing

[Cosimo]

I think there's a limit to how much you can study and absorb. You really need time at the tables to put what you read into context. I'd say play about twice as much as you study.

[tree_stump]

One thing to keep in mind is that right after you read a book you can expect to go on a losing streak. This is because you're applying new things you've learned, and haven't mastered yet - all part of the learning experience.

But yeah, play 3-4x more than you read.

[wyrd]

Read to get a general idea of what you're supposed to be doing, and how to play correctly. Then hit the tables. Go back to your reading every week or so to refresh and correct your play.

A poker book cannot teach you;

- Heart.
- Courage.

The two prime ingredients a NL cash poker player needs. Without those, you will lose. The only way to gain those two required traits is to sit at the poker table.

Book suggestions;

- It doesn't sound like you fully read the NL section in Super System. Read it, even if his play style does not fit yours. It'll give you insight as to how loose/aggressive opponents think.

- Harrington's first book, then play some tournaments. While they are not cash games, they are a cheap way to learn how to play. If you go all-in on a huge mistake and lose, all you lost is your entry fee.

- Poker novels. Surprisingly, they provide some excellent strategy and tips if you pay close enough attention. Not to mention they're very entertaining. Try Cards by Maxwell for a start.

Search the book forum for further recommendations.

[Thundercat32]

thank you for your suggestions wyrd, greatly appreciated

[Maulik]

Mindless playing is no good.

[Thundercat32]

Great point

[Maulik]

I benefited from posting more. The more you post the more unique and difficult situations you'll be exposed to.

[WeirdoC]

No 2+2 titles on that list? Shame, shame /images/graemlins/blush.gif ... Seriously, though, at this level of play, you need books that are specifically geared towards low-limit play. It differs quite a bit from the high-roller stuff that most poker books talk about (like Phil Hellmuth's book, Play Poker Like the Pros ).

Sklansky's Theory of Poker is required reading to understand why you need to do things in poker, rather than just how to do them. If you want to play limit hold'em, get Small Stakes Hold'em by Sklansky, Malmuth, and Miller. For no-limit, my personal favorite is Getting Started in Hold'em by Ed Miller. Read the NL chapter in that and you should start winning pretty consistently right from the start.

Remember, too, that you can play very well and still lose for long stretches. Don't assume that you're playing wrong every time you take a big downswing and rush off to figure out what you need to change. Just keep applying the concepts you know to be right, and you will come out ahead in the long run.

As far as reading time vs. playing time goes, read until you understand the concepts well enough to remember them at the table. Then play as much as possible. Every few weeks, skim back through your books, just to refresh your memory and prevent yourself from developing bad habits. Sometimes you'll notice something you missed before, or something you never really understood will make sense the tenth time you read it. Mostly, though, reading should make up a small fraction of your poker time. Experience is slow and difficult to obtain, so you need to focus more on that than reading.

[Thundercat32]

Maulik, do you mean posting more of the hands you played and were unsure about your play or posting more to other players questions about their hands?

[ajmargarine]

[ QUOTE ]
Maulik, do you mean posting more of the hands you played and were unsure about your play or posting more to other players questions about their hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both. Post hands that you are honestly unsure whether you played it correctly or not. And then post in other people's hand threads. Way better learning tool than reading a book, IMO. (Although books should be read as well)

[Thundercat32]

WeirdoC, thanks for the insight. Yeah, Yeah I know no 2+2 books is bad, I guess you could call me a Phil Gordon disciple right now. Which I don't think is a bad thing, that's probably in line with where I am at right now. My friend though recommended this site and some of the Harrington books as well as some 2 plus 2 books so I think that will help me alot. I know this site has already.