Theory of Poker -- Obvious information and boring as hell to read

[A_F]

[ QUOTE ]
ToP is great and all, but does anyone wish there was a limit version of NLHE: T&P? I know HEPFAP and TOP are supposed to be it, but for some reason I found NLHE: T&P much more informative and interesting than those two books.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because Ed Miller wrote it. He is a fantastic writer and the main reason I am now richer than I used to be.

[Dendrite]

SSHE isn't it, it's about:

1.) Equity
2.) Counting outs / discounting
3.) Protecting your hand in multiway pots
4.) Getting value from loose callers

It doesn't cover all the LHE bases the way NLHE: T&P does. For example, there's very little info about playing HU pots.

[Blizzardbaum]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm so glad we can add you to the list of others like you on 2+2. [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

What is that supposed to mean? I'm not trolling you know, just stating my opinion and seeing if anyone agrees with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there are a lot of concepts in that book that many people would describe as "obvious" when reading the text, like the idea of not slowplaying made hands vulnerable to draws. But it is one thing to say "I already knew that" in a vacuum, and another thing entirely to have all of those concepts in the front of your mind every time you play a hand, with the ability to marshall the information to make an ideal decision every time. If that book was as basic as you claimed it was, you'd probably be posting from the $100,000,000 mansion you own on top of a hill somewhere.

[CutCreator]

This is a poker book that you have to be ready for. The first time I read it was when I first started playing and it was way over my head. So much so, I was like "wow, what is the big deal?"

Then after about 2-3 years of playing I read it again and it was the single greatest poker book I ever read. It totally changed my thinking about the game.

Honestly your poker career can be defined as pre TOP and post TOP. I can also say the same about Harrington on Holdem 1 and 2.

I just think the OP is not ready for TOP, however I find his lack of respect for the book disturbing. In fact, his comments seem like they are just intended to cause a stir because they are ludicrus.

[Beavis68]

It was not obvious when it was written, but much of the material has been incorporated into books that have come since it was first published