[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
The book we all now know as The Theory Of Poker was not originallly entitled that and was repeatedly revised until we get to the present edition which became standardised some time ago. This great book became greater with its later revisions/expansions.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't accurate. Sklansky on Poker was published in 1978. In 1981, the book was rewritten with the help of a professional writer and republished as Winning Poker. In 1994, David (with some help form me) went through the book and made some changes and updates. We also changed the title of the book to The Theory of Poker and re-typeset it. That's all the changes it has gone through.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the claim that all of the poker literature derives from it is clearly incorrect as Mike Caro's Book Of Tells is in no way dependent upon anything written in TOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about that. Doesn't Hold 'em Poker talk about tells? Also, in terms of poker knowledge evolution, caro's book is sort of a dead end in that you can't add much to it.

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, the no limit hold'em literature is hardly beholden to TOP for much if anything and would all nod to SS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here I disagree. This is like saying that concepts like implied odds, inducing bluffs, betting for value, semi-bluffing, etc. have no part in no-limit hold 'em. If anything they are more important there.

[ QUOTE ]
The no limit literature would not acknowledge Hold'em Poker which originally dealt with single blind limit hold'em: a game which no longer exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

But Hold 'em Poker is the first book to discuss ideas like semi-bluffing, implied odds, inducing bluffs, reading hands, and so on. Isn't this what no-limit is all about.

best wishes,
Mason