Andy B's 4000th Post: The Book Thread to End All Book Threads

[Andy B]

At least that’s my hope.

Hi folks,

In the hopes of eliminating future "what books should I be reading" posts, I would like to have a discussion of the various books that are out there so people can get the opinions of informed posters other than myself. I will be sending PMs and emails to a few valued contributors who don't necessarily post every day in the hopes that they will weigh in. In particular, there are some intelligent folks who know something about poker who advocate the books by West, Adams, and Othmer. While I’m not a fan of any of these books, I do want their advocates to talk about them a bit so that we can give a more balanced assessment of the various books. If successful, this thread will be immortalized in the FAQs.

No matter what form of poker you play, even if it's nine-card blind baseball, The Theory of Poker is must reading. Do not skip the draw and razz examples.

For high-only stud, the best book out there by a long shot is Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players by Sklansky, Malmuth, and Zee. Even if you are playing a small-stakes game with an ante structure that is very different from “real” stud, this is the best book for you to read, in my opinion.

For stud/8, the best book out there by a wide margin is High-Low Split Poker for Advanced Players by Ray Zee. Unlike high-only stud, starting hand requirements and how you should play a given hand just don’t change much in stud/8 whether you’re playing $.50/1.00 or $30/60.

Chip Reese’s stud section in Super/System is excellent. Todd Brunson’s stud/8 section in Super System 2 is very good.

Some advocate Roy West’s 7 Card Stud: 42 Lessons as a beginner’s book. I cannot agree with this. It is easier to read and understand than 7CS4AP, but there is just too much substandard advice for me to recommend it. To use an example which I have beaten to death, there is a section where he discusses how to play a pair of Kings when someone with an Ace showing raises. If the Kings are split, he advocates folding (which is quite reasonable against many low-limit opponents), but he recommends calling if your Kings are hidden, because of the deceptive value. He goes on to recommend that you fold your Kings on fourth street if you don’t make trips, however. This is a terrible game plan. Assuming that you’re at a full table and your Kings are live, it is 20:1 against your catching trips on fourth street. You aren’t getting anything close to those odds, express, implied, or otherwise. If you are going to fold on fourth street when you don’t make trips, then you should fold on third street.

I bought Othmer’s book a few years ago and have tried to read it a few times. It is very dense with lots of charts and numbers and things. It may well contain some worthwhile advice, but I find it difficult to read, and I mostly play hold’em these days anyway.

I’ve read about half of Ashley Adams’ book. The approach of teaching things “wrong” at first and then correcting the bad assumptions later has its place. It’s how physics is taught, and I don’t think there is a better way. I don’t think that this kind of approach is really necessary in poker. I have a vague idea for a stud book which would be geared towards low-limit players, if perhaps not complete beginners. I can’t think of too many situations where I would really try to simplify any advice I give very much. Now I would probably recommend that a beginning player dump something like 765 on third street every time while he’s learning, because that’s the sort of hand that typical players get into a lot of trouble with, and it’s not very profitable even for very good players anyway. Admittedly, I haven’t gotten to the part where he “corrects” the first part of the book, but what I have read is weak enough advice that I doubt that the rest of it is brilliant.