Theory of Poker -- Obvious information and boring as hell to read - Page 2

BigStack650 · #11 06-21-2006, 07:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's metacognition poker and it's not for everybody. I do think a lot of the newbies can't get past the fact that its not all about hold em.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahahaha...great point

7n7 · #12 06-21-2006, 08:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot beleive so many people speak of this book so highly. I read it last week and it did not present a single piece of information that isn't blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain. Sure it might be nice at an introductory level for someone who knows absolutely nothing about poker. But other than that, what is the big fuss about?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your background...anything mathematical by chance? What age bracket you in?

I guess I'm not sure how you'd like those of us that found it so valuable to respond.

Things that I don't think would be common knowledge to the beginning Joe Poker Player out there:

1. Effective and implied odds. And for many, pot odds.
2. Probably never heard of game theory
3. They've probably bet out on a draw, but never knew it was called a semi-bluff.
4. Expectation

I could probably list others but am too lazy to go upstairs and grab the book.

Basically, there is a small amount (and with today's technology, this group is growing) of folks out there that pick up on things so much quicker than most. They don't need to be told.

Am I one of those people? Nope.

Am I jealous of those type people? Yep.

Skipbidder · #13 06-21-2006, 09:44 PM

I can't stand Shakespeare because it is full of so many cliches.

popniklas · #14 06-21-2006, 10:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I can't stand Shakespeare because it is full of so many cliches.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

xxx · #15 06-21-2006, 10:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I can't stand Shakespeare because it is full of so many cliches.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what's the big deal about Watson and Crick? Everyone knows DNA is a double helix. Heck, I knew it in grade school and no one even gave me a gold star.

davelin · #16 06-21-2006, 10:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot beleive so many people speak of this book so highly. I read it last week and it did not present a single piece of information that isn't blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain. Sure it might be nice at an introductory level for someone who knows absolutely nothing about poker. But other than that, what is the big fuss about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Word. Bet/raise your good hands, fold your bad hands. Pokar is easy!!!

Skipbidder · #17 06-21-2006, 11:08 PM

Did this revelation come before or after you were:
"Down $326.50 after my first 100 $10+$1 STTs"?

Courtesy Flush · #18 06-21-2006, 11:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Did this revelation come before or after you were:
"Down $326.50 after my first 100 $10+$1 STTs"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Before that, but after I was up 30k from real poker.

amulet · #19 06-21-2006, 11:47 PM

with all due respect, i will use your words "i can't believe" you didn't get a lot from this book. while several of the subjects have probably been covered in other books you read, this is arguably the best poker book ever written. i certainly think it is.

i reread it at least once a year and get a lot out of it each time i reread it. in time i think you will feel the same way.

UATrewqaz · #20 06-22-2006, 12:38 AM

When I read Newton's laws of motion it's very "DUH" type stuff to me now. It wasn't in Newton's day and he was a genius for it (among other things).

That having been said, I think there is still alot in ToP that even good/great players haven't thought about (or haven't thought about enough or properly).

Oh and 10+1 SNG's are not "real" poker because you suck at them?