how to dominate and pro no-limit

[facepull]

for anyone who has read both books. which is the best? im gonna assume pro no-limit.

You answered your own question.

[Humble Pie]

Not done with PNL yet but it is very easy to read, flows well and the points are followed up w/ good examples.

[facepull]

i guess that im gonna have to go out and buy the damm book

[pokerdoc32]

Which book should you buy? The PNL book or the DOMINATE book? They aren’t opposed to one another. Their main themes are different and both are full of information.

The PNL book is easy-to-read and is formula oriented with a conventional approach.
The DOMINATE book is easy-to-read and is people oriented with a conversational approach.

The two books contradict in only a few places and most of those can be attributed to a difference in the books’ intent. PNL scopes the entire no limit game while DOMINATE targets low blinds games.

One book is mainly about formulas and objective considerations while the other is mainly about people and subjective tactics.

Both books are excellent. They should not be considered “either this one or that one”; each thrives on its own merits.

I recommend both.

[jeffnc]

You can read both but Dominate is a strange little book, while PNL is much more applicable to different game types. Dominate advocates one specific style of play to the extent that the author actually recommends walking away from very profitable games that simply don't fit the style well. This is just too bizarre for me. "Going home" when your table is loose/passive is just bad advice, especially when you're on vacation.

[howtodominate]

Wow. And I didn't think this thread was going to be around long.

Thank you, pokerdoc32, for a fair assessment. And thank you, jeffnc, for repeating what pokerdoc32 found.

You are both right in that DOMINATE is intended for those who want to win consistently at 1 and 2, not just play the game.

You are right again, jeffnc, when you say the book describes rare instances of when to walk away from a game. However,it describes how to play in a loose/passive game. Maybe that's what you intended to say. The book also goes to great effort to recommend several styles of play.

Sam

[jeffnc]

OK, Sam and others have noted that the book does contain different information in the second half of the book, and I haven't read that far yet. It could address some of the issues. So you might want to take my comments with a grain of salt.

However, if so, there is still a problem. It's not enough IMO to simply say "If the table turns loose/passive, we go home for the night." Now if the author meant to say "At least that is what we will do for now, until we add different skills and can play a different style than I've recommended so far" - I could sort of understand that. Even if the book addresses this later in the book, it leaves things too confusing at the beginning with no good reason. I can think of no reason for implying that the game is not profitable.

If the issue is that adjusting your style to that game will damage your image, and you play against the same players all the time, then I say expert players who change gears and adapt have no trouble winning, so either image must not be very important to your bottom line, or your image remains intact anyway, or your opponents just aren't paying attention. But that begs the question - if you're playing with the same players all the time, then how did the table turn loose/passive? And if you're not playing with the same players all the time, then why is your image important? You don't need an image to beat a loose/passive table.

The author does make the point that swings might be higher, but again some misleading advice is given, to the effect of "you might stay at such a game until you win a pot, then leave. It might be the only pot you win that night." So, there's more variance. It's still +EV. Now I can see the point that you might want to reduce your variance depending on bankroll issues or whatever, but to imply that this type of poker is just a crap shoot isn't right.

The book is long, which is pretty good bang for the buck. And the writing style is not dry. There is potential. The problem is not that there isn't good stuff in the book, or that the author isn't a winner. The problem is that the little glitches are extremely distracting so far for this reader, which I think is a shame. So these comments are valid even if the second half the book is different. But it doesn't mean that I couldn't recommend the book. We've yet to see the perfect poker book.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
You are both right in that DOMINATE is intended for those who want to win consistently at 1 and 2, not just play the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK I think this is a crucial point, so let's talk about it some more. First question: why is winning "consistently" so important? Or to put it another way, why do we assume this should even be a goal?

Consider fundamental poker concepts, such as those explained in NLHTAP. An example would be "when you hold the nuts on the river, don't bet the amount that you think your opponent is most likely to call - bet the amount that gives you the most +EV in the long run."

So your basic premise is in direct contrast with such a concept. You are implying that winning more sessions should be a goal, rather than winning the most money. There is a certain attraction to wanting to win more consistently rather than winning more profit, but you seem to imply in the book it's what should be done. I guess in a nutshell that's where we diverge. I think if that is your position, it should be described more clearly up front, along with caveats such as "this is not necessarily the most profitable way to play."

[Mahdrek]

I'm waiting on both books, I was wondering if I should read 1 before the other ?