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

Courtesy Flush · #1 06-21-2006, 06:33 PM

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?

Leavenfish · #2 06-21-2006, 06:58 PM

Read it again...you missed something.

---Leavenfish

philnewall · #3 06-21-2006, 06:58 PM

Or he is a poker god.

BarronVangorToth · #4 06-21-2006, 07:02 PM

Realize that concepts of Theory of Poker you may have already gotten from other poker books ... but they all got them from TOP in the first place.

It wouldn't be out of line to call it the most important poker book ever written.

gila · #5 06-21-2006, 07:06 PM

The first time I read TOP, I thought the same thing. The second time I was in awe. It seems simple on the surface...it's not.

chicagoY · #6 06-21-2006, 07:33 PM

Not one word of it was obvious when he wrote it.

MicroBob · #7 06-21-2006, 07:36 PM

Something semi-similar to this happens to me all the time with a lot of 2+2 books the first time through (TOP, HEFAP, SSHE, HOH, Poker essays).

I think, "That's pretty obvious, isn't it?"
Then when I re-read it later I might realize that it really is a fairly important point to concentrate on and that just because I 'kinda/sorta' realized it (or thought I could figure it out already) I didn't really have as solid a handle on the concept as I thought I did.

I think it has to do with the way the authors take a concept and explain it fairly clearly and simply.
Yes, yes, I know that some people think that some 2+2 books aren't written as well as they could be.
But this used to happen to me just as much with HEFAP and TOP.

I had a similar feeling that a lot of the HEFAP stuff was stuff I already knew even the first time I read it.
I had only learned how to play poker 3-4 months earlier and had played at a B&M maybe 2-3x.
I had no idea how much of it I was NOT getting.

chicagoY · #8 06-21-2006, 07:38 PM

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.

MicroBob · #9 06-21-2006, 07:45 PM

I'm not a newbie anymore, and the non-holdem stuff still throws me.

I get some of the general concepts that he's getting at in these examples.
but I certainly feel like I'm missing a bit of it when I have no idea about how to play Razz or triple-dra lowball or something.
I mean, I understand some of the basic rules now. But since I have never played it I don't really know what really constitutes a good hand in that game and how it is supposed to be played.

Kind of left there thinking, "Okay, so he's got a pat-8. I know that's supposed to be pretty good. But I don't really know exactly HOW good."

BigStack650 · #10 06-21-2006, 07:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
did not present a single piece of information that isn't blatantly obvious

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be obvious after reading it, but I doubt you would have thought it up yourself. Sklansky's whole objective is to teach so that people read this work and say, "Gee, how come I didn't think of that?" because it looks very obvious.