O.T. No Limit Theory and Practice...

[xdeucesx]

If any of you have looked at it...is it worth reading for a mid level NL player?

[ArturiusX]

Here's my review:

"No Limit Hold 'Em: Theory and Practice", by Sklanksy and Miller

I admit, I had no idea what to expect. 2p2 has a reputation for bible like poker books, but some initial reviews left me a bit puzzled as to whether it would be worth it. Finally, I decided to fork out the $30 for it, mostly because I suck at NL, but also because I wanted to settle everyone whether this book is good or not.

Firstly, this book is not SSHE for NL. This is good and bad. Bad because its more work for the player. Good because now TAGs wont have cookie cutter strategies (or maybe it'd be good if they did in NL?!), but thankfully its not. It reminds me more like poker essays sewn together to produce a text which talks about common aspects of NL. It has two sections; fundamentals, and concepts and weapons. The first section deals with basic ideas as to why we play a certain why, and uses math to try and justify why certain plays may be more +EV. It argues about why we bet certain sizes, why we don't just 2/3 pot every time, and why different bets yield greater +EV. Before this book, I sucked at thinking of a betting size. Now I can't wait to try it out. How to address preflop/postflop betting size is a big issue in NL, one thats difficult to quantify, but one that Sklanksy does admirably well at doing.

Sklanksy love for math shines through, but unlike limit poker, its very hard to do for NL. He admits this, knowing that different styles can produce the same winrate and results. But what he does argue, is that for every style, it can still be proven to be +EV by math. Some NL losers were up in arms about this, their so called 'artistic' game was turned into a series of number crunches. I don't think thats what Sklanksy was trying to do, he knew its not possible. What he's saying is, you can reason every different move by looking at a wide range of variables, but by inputing those variables, we can see how changing each variable effects the situation. He does it well in my opinion. Its good to visualise, even if its some random equations, how making certain changes can affect your opponents reaction, and what we have to look out for.

Probably the biggest improvement for me will be how I view making reads. Previous I tried the old limit style, talking about tidbits rather then play style. Sklanksy makes a very good point about playing against people; some guys will be bad players when the pot is small, but always seem to make the right moves when it is large. These players are the least profitable and should be avoided getting into large pots with. Its very true from my experiences, I never really thought of it that way. Bad loose players can still avoid major spewing, while seemingly decent players tend to tilt off stacks. Recongising these players is the key. Another topic was 'levels of thinking', eg zero level which is 'what are my cards, what are his', first level 'how would he play his cards', second level 'how would he play if he thought I had XX', and third level 'how would he play if I knew I know how he'd think I play XX'. Its a great topic because everyone sort of speaks about it, but no one hammers home how to really make it profitable.

Concepts and weapons is just #50(?) pointers on how to be sharper at NL. It talks about common situations, and instances when its better to play a certain way. I'll breach copyright for just a sec to give an example:

"It can be right to call with a decent hands that have little chance of improving even if you plan to fold if there is a bet on the next round." pg248 NLToP

He then proceed to talk about why this is the case, and what you should be thinking about in some instances.

Now, one thing this book doesn't have is hand guides. This is not Harrington on Hold Em (although a volume IV about cash games is coming out apparantly!), and does not go through hands at any depth, only illustrates specific points. Like I said, not SSHE. That doesn't worry me, but this does make it a little heavier for newer players to read. The books best used as a cross over for decent-great limit players to move over to no limit.

I can see why the veterans didn't like the book. It kind of doesn't teach them anything, maybe a few pointers, but overall nothing new. I can see why mid limit players looking to move up didnt like it. It doesnt teach you how to beat games above you, it doesn't teach you how to play with the big boys explicitly. I can see why new players didn't like it. It doesn't teach you a preflop strategy (kind of, but not really a chart), and doesnt tell you any step by step advice. But I loved it, and can see my game improving immediately. If you're willing to cast your ego aside, look at things critically, and accept maybe math does play a part in NL, take a look at this book. I'll enjoy my increased winrate for sure.

[xdeucesx]

Thanks for the reply. Might check it out.

[LearnedfromTV]

Good review Arturius.

I liked the book also. I think it is best suited for decent low to mid-limit players (winning players at 100NL-400NL online or 2/5-5/10 live.) who happen to be more inclined to learn and think theoretically than empirically. This describes me almost exactly. I think it has improved my game and I expect I will get a lot more out of it over time.

I would bet that very good 600NL and 1000NL players would need to already understand nearly every concept intuitively or explicitly to be winning players at those levels. This doesn't mean it is worthless to them, especially if they think theoretically. I also think that empirical learners, even very good higher stakes players, could benefit from taking a theoretical look at the things they already know and implement, but I can't be as confident that the book is worth their time as I am that it is worth mine.

[adanthar]

I'm 2/3 of the way through this, and so far, it's so much better than HoH2 or HoH3 it's not even close. I'm pretty shocked, because I wasn't even going to pick this up, but it turns out it's a really solid conceptual book and did wind up teaching me a couple of tricks.

It also gives away more than a few donkament tells [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

good book

[Josh.]

[ QUOTE ]
mediocre book

[/ QUOTE ]

[captZEEbo]

I'm about 1/2 way through the book maybe (just read it while I go to the bathroom). Most everything is pretty basic so far. And all the examples are really contrived and somewhat hard to see how to apply them. They would be better off giving some hand examples instead of just making up percentages like "suppose you know he will bluff 40% of the time in this completely random scenario", etc. I guess it's good to know what to think about, but I have a hard time thinking most of the audience will get a lot out of this book. It seems like a good book for a vary small audience.

Any other high stakes boys read it yet?

[ArturiusX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
mediocre book

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

keep posting those hands brah itll serve you well

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm about 1/2 way through the book maybe (just read it while I go to the bathroom). Most everything is pretty basic so far. And all the examples are really contrived and somewhat hard to see how to apply them. They would be better off giving some hand examples instead of just making up percentages like "suppose you know he will bluff 40% of the time in this completely random scenario", etc. I guess it's good to know what to think about, but I have a hard time thinking most of the audience will get a lot out of this book. It seems like a good book for a vary small audience.

Any other high stakes boys read it yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah.

I feel like the 60-quick-concepts section at the end is a smorgasbord of goodies. It's easily worth the $30 for that alone. There's going to be something back there that you haven't thought about very much.

Still working on my critique of the rest.

I gotta say, I pretty much automatically buddylist anyone who minraises preflop or limps first-in on the button, both strategies that the book advocates. I'm weighing the arguments they propose.