Tips for reading NLTP

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]


To be honest, Splawn i do think you have a point. However i do respect Sklansky's books, as he is no doubt a better player than me either way, so i am happy to learn from his books.


[/ QUOTE ]

To be clear, I've always said there was a good side to NLH:TaP too.

[dragon14]

I read most of the book when I first got it. Now I refer to it from time to time after some no limit sessions online to think about my play and alternate ways to play hands.

One thing to consider is Sklansky probably first played no limit in the 1970's and has been thinking about and discussing the game with experts on and off for probably 30 years. He is offering up the best insights and theories he and others have come up with over this time period.

Therefore, it's okay to be frustrated and have difficulty with the book. An expert can make a fortune at the game and an expert is giving you a great deal of advice. Just play the stakes you can afford or win at for now until your understanding improves. It's okay if it takes you even a few years of on and off study and readings to get the book down.

If you want to improve rapidly read the book more often, take notes, and play out practice hands on your own while trying to apply the concepts. In college courses homework is assigned to help students practice difficult concepts. In online poker you have limited thinking time so you need to practice away from the tables to improve your thinking speed.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
I read most of the book when I first got it. Now I refer to it from time to time after some no limit sessions online to think about my play and alternate ways to play hands.

One thing to consider is Sklansky probably first played no limit in the 1970's and has been thinking about and discussing the game with experts on and off for probably 30 years. He is offering up the best insights and theories he and others have come up with over this time period.

Therefore, it's okay to be frustrated and have difficulty with the book. An expert can make a fortune at the game and an expert is giving you a great deal of advice. Just play the stakes you can afford or win at for now until your understanding improves. It's okay if it takes you even a few years of on and off study and readings to get the book down.

If you want to improve rapidly read the book more often, take notes, and play out practice hands on your own while trying to apply the concepts. In college courses homework is assigned to help students practice difficult concepts. In online poker you have limited thinking time so you need to practice away from the tables to improve your thinking speed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only one problem - DS is no expert.

The book much more about how Dave wishes NL were played than how it is actually played.

[dragon14]

I've found the book to be rather helpful and I have done well at NL since reading it. Unfortunately his discussion of bluffing led me to make a few ill advised calls and get stacked by a few players who appeared to be LAG's but were actually nut peddlers. I've yet to see the big river bluff in actual play so far (I've read all about Prahlad Friedman) although it is definitely a possible play.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]

Look at it another way. Why is Slansky, who supposedly has a bankroll in the millions, playing 100/200 LHE all the time if he's so great at other games? 25/50 NL would almost certainly have a higher expectation for a good NL player, is offered @ Bellagio, and as far as I know Slansky has never sat.

Conclusion: One of the following is true
1) Slansky is not particularly good at NL and can't hit a high win rate against reasonable opposition
2) Slansky is so bad at game selection that he's playing the wrong game all the time.

1) seems far more plausible than 2), now doesn't it [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky claims to play:
[ QUOTE ]
25-50 or 50-100 NL. 200-400 to 400-800 Limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Look at it another way. Why is Slansky, who supposedly has a bankroll in the millions, playing 100/200 LHE all the time if he's so great at other games? 25/50 NL would almost certainly have a higher expectation for a good NL player, is offered @ Bellagio, and as far as I know Slansky has never sat.

Conclusion: One of the following is true
1) Slansky is not particularly good at NL and can't hit a high win rate against reasonable opposition
2) Slansky is so bad at game selection that he's playing the wrong game all the time.

1) seems far more plausible than 2), now doesn't it [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky claims to play:
[ QUOTE ]
25-50 or 50-100 NL. 200-400 to 400-800 Limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

That's nice - last time I was at B he was rocking 100/200 and not for lack of a bigger game.

People claim lots of things.

[Jurrr]

The HOH books are much more practical. NLH:TAP has some interesting ideas, but they are intermixed with a bunch of unsubstantiated assumptions and boring math for math's sake.

So OP, you are not alone.