I Don’t Like “The Theory of Poker”

The Theory of Poker

The Theory of Poker

I’m re-reading The Theory of Poker by David Sklansky, and remembering all the reasons why I didn’t like it the first time around. It finally hit me that I just might not be the target audience for the book. It feels like it was written for people who play multiple forms of poker, but aren’t grounded in the reasons and conditions for using various plays. I, on the other hand, play one game of poker, Hold’em, and am looking for concrete applications of poker theory to that game. It’s not that using razz and seven-stud examples don’t work, but they do fall flat.

Small Stakes Hold’em: Winning Big With Expert Play

Small Stakes Hold \'em: Winning Big With Expert Play

On the other hand, Small Stakes Hold’em contains virtually all the discussions on theory. Notably missing is game-theory, but it’s not too suprising as most of the application of game-theory is heads-up against good readers. Oh hell, I have no idea how to use game theory, and that’s another reason why I don’t like The Theory of Poker. I’m a smart guy, and the application to the actual game I’m playing eludes me.

I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t think there’s much valuable content in The Theory of Poker that can’t be found better explained and grounded in Small Stakes Hold’em.

Other Views on The Theory of Poker

Leave a Reply