NLTAP vs NLT what's new ?

[Gonso]

I was thinking the same thing. Theory of Poker = ToP.

Also, I don't think ToP is terribly "complex", it doesn't require any special mathematical ability or skill, nor do you have to be super experienced to appreciate it's contents. Still, I don't think it's a very good first poker book, but for that matter I don't think NLHE:TAP is either.

Learn a particular game a little bit and come back to it. You'll get a lot more useful and immediate help from something like Getting Started in Hold'em or Little Green Book at first.

[CPHoya]

The concepts in ToP are very important to a NL player (fundamental theorem of poker, EV, pot odds, implied odds, semi-bluff, bluffing, reading hands. . . Sklansky even gets into an elementary discussion of hand ranges).

I think OP meant ToP when he said "NLT", judging from his third post?

OP, ToP is about limit poker games, but it's also required reading because the theories are still the foundation of thinking about poker. It won't help in the beginning as much as Little Green Book might, though, so maybe get through that first.

Non-Sequitor: Killer Poker By the Numbers is actually very good, and nothing like the other KP books (which didn't have much theoretical content at all).

[bozzer]

You don't have to have read ToP to understand NLTAP, but you should have a basic grounding in poker theory: pot odds, implied odds, and EV.