[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also agree that playing more games aids in your development/understanding of metagame concepts. This, in turn, can strengthen your understanding of your specialty game(s). It's fine to have a specialty, but confining yourself to a single game has a potential fallacy. That is, players who play a single game tend to not have the deep theoretical understanding (in my experience) needed to continue to develop as a poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Deep theoretical understanding.....read The Theory of Poker a bunch of times will do the trick no? is it really?necessary to divulge into Omaha, Limit, Stud, god knows what else? i mean if your trying to get better why not just focus your time getting better at your specialty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the peculiar applications of concepts of other games should help you expand your thinking, and give you different ideas on how to apply those same concepts to your own speciality.

This carries over to a lot of fields. If you play guitar, for example, you can learn a lot by experimenting with another instrument (or even another variation of your own).

Regarding ToP, even that is easier to absorb if you're at least familiar with the most common games. More than that, there are publications in particular games that explain some concepts very well that aren't found in other games. Dan Harrington's books are written for NLHE tournaments, but some concepts are applicable to other games being played in tourney format - even limit games. Short stack strategy found in Ed Miller's hold'em book transfers well to Omaha with a little adjustment too.

I guess you have to ask yourself whether you want to be a poker player, or a no limit hold'em player.