2+2 NLH Conundrum
 

Recommendations please:

A. No Limit Hold'em: Theory & Practice
B. Wait for Professional No Limit Hold'em: Volume 1
C. Get both

Re: 2+2 NLH Conundrum
 

[ QUOTE ]
C. Get both

[/ QUOTE ]

This should pretty much be the equivalent of having TOP and HPFAP for limit hold'em.

Re: 2+2 NLH Conundrum
 

I have a mixed opinion of NLH:TAP.

On the bad side, I think it reads a bit like A Nit's Adventures in NL Land. One of the first things Slansky does is admit that you can learn and apply everything in the book and still get demolished by a player with a better grasp of "art" side of poker who doesn't understand the "science" nearly as well. In other words, Slansky's teaching the wrong things, but they're what he understands so they're what he teaches. That's weak sauce in my book, but fits very closely with the standard 2+2 publishing bias. There are also some sections of NLH:TAP that many strong players and theorists contend are just wrong. The preflop raise sizing stuff for starters. So you need to be careful.

On the plus side, it's the only book I've ever read that attempts a complete treatment of cash game NLTH. That's good. And some of the stuff is very insightful, more so in the postflop sections. There were places where I changed my game (somewhat) because what he had to say seemed to be more correct that what I previously thought. I learned NLTH from SS1 many years ago, and NLH:TAP was FAR more complete. SS1, however, and the advantage of being written by a real NL player, and as a result had the right attitude even if NOT always the needed info or theory explanation. In NL, attitude counts for a lot.

Executive summary: Buy NLH:TAP, but recognize the bias and that there may be errors. Think everything out for yourself before just accepting it, and make sure Slansky's assumptions really apply to your game. If they don't, then don't be afraid to work out new theory for your different situation.

Re: 2+2 NLH Conundrum
 

Easy answer!

Get NLH:T&P now, since Pro NL Hold'em isn't available yet.

Re: 2+2 NLH Conundrum
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have a mixed opinion of NLH:TAP.

On the bad side, I think it reads a bit like A Nit's Adventures in NL Land. One of the first things Slansky does is admit that you can learn and apply everything in the book and still get demolished by a player with a better grasp of "art" side of poker who doesn't understand the "science" nearly as well. In other words, Slansky's teaching the wrong things, but they're what he understands so they're what he teaches. That's weak sauce in my book, but fits very closely with the standard 2+2 publishing bias. There are also some sections of NLH:TAP that many strong players and theorists contend are just wrong. The preflop raise sizing stuff for starters. So you need to be careful.

On the plus side, it's the only book I've ever read that attempts a complete treatment of cash game NLTH. That's good. And some of the stuff is very insightful, more so in the postflop sections. There were places where I changed my game (somewhat) because what he had to say seemed to be more correct that what I previously thought. I learned NLTH from SS1 many years ago, and NLH:TAP was FAR more complete. SS1, however, and the advantage of being written by a real NL player, and as a result had the right attitude even if NOT always the needed info or theory explanation. In NL, attitude counts for a lot.

Executive summary: Buy NLH:TAP, but recognize the bias and that there may be errors. Think everything out for yourself before just accepting it, and make sure Slansky's assumptions really apply to your game. If they don't, then don't be afraid to work out new theory for your different situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you! This is the kind of answer I was hoping to (but wasn't sure I would) get.

Re: 2+2 NLH Conundrum
 

[ QUOTE ]
This should pretty much be the equivalent of having TOP and HPFAP for limit hold'em.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly hope this turns out to be the case. I've heard and seen enough debate to be leery about NLHTAP.

Re: 2+2 NLH Conundrum
 

[ QUOTE ]
On the bad side, I think it reads a bit like A Nit's Adventures in NL Land. One of the first things Slansky does is admit that you can learn and apply everything in the book and still get demolished by a player with a better grasp of "art" side of poker who doesn't understand the "science" nearly as well. In other words, Slansky's teaching the wrong things, but they're what he understands so they're what he teaches. That's weak sauce in my book, but fits very closely with the standard 2+2 publishing bias. There are also some sections of NLH:TAP that many strong players and theorists contend are just wrong. The preflop raise sizing stuff for starters. So you need to be careful.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you emphasize? I'm not done with the book yet, but I thought the preflop sizing section was pretty insightful. Although I don't think it applies as much to online poker (where people pay more attention to the size of preflop raises), it's something I keep in mind when I'm playing live.

Re: 2+2 NLH Conundrum
 

i've read david slansky's book on NLHe it's bad

Re: 2+2 NLH Conundrum
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the bad side, I think it reads a bit like A Nit's Adventures in NL Land. One of the first things Slansky does is admit that you can learn and apply everything in the book and still get demolished by a player with a better grasp of "art" side of poker who doesn't understand the "science" nearly as well. In other words, Slansky's teaching the wrong things, but they're what he understands so they're what he teaches. That's weak sauce in my book, but fits very closely with the standard 2+2 publishing bias. There are also some sections of NLH:TAP that many strong players and theorists contend are just wrong. The preflop raise sizing stuff for starters. So you need to be careful.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you emphasize? I'm not done with the book yet, but I thought the preflop sizing section was pretty insightful. Although I don't think it applies as much to online poker (where people pay more attention to the size of preflop raises), it's something I keep in mind when I'm playing live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a portion of a post I made on the subject in theory:
[ QUOTE ]

The section "If You Want Action" on page 117 of NLH:TAP is a classic case where Slansky reveals the contents of his hand to a frightening degree because he doesn't reccomend that line for anything other than AA, KK, and AK. In reality, against strong opposition, he will get NO action by doing that, which is exactly the opposite of what he was trying to achieve.


[/ QUOTE ]

Now, to be fair, there are those that agree with Slansky. I just happen to think they're wrong too.

Re: 2+2 NLH Conundrum
 

[ QUOTE ]
i've read david slansky's book on NLHe it's bad

[/ QUOTE ]

hows your book coming along