Book Review: Play Like the Pros

[DanielNegreanu 141]

I truly believe that if you read this book and follow the principals closely it could help you advance in tournament poker. However, try these same principals and you basically have no chance for success in cash games. The book stresses brute aggression and isolation tactics that are simply ineffective in most cash games. (I'll add more later)

[MSR 0]

This was the first poker book I read. It has some very basic stuff in it (Charts for the best starting hands in each game), but it does go a little bit more in depth. There isn't much new material for an advanced player (Phil hardly mentions pot odds and things like that), but for a beginner and possibly an intermediate player it can provide a good foundation. I agree with Daniel, sticking exactly to the book is not the way to win, but taking certain things and adding them to your game can definately win you some more pots.

[doublesuited 0]

i actually thought the PLO and Razz chapters were quite good. I think his advice is not that applicable to beginners and would be a recipe for disaster in lower limit games (like 3-betting a pair of 6s preflop).

[Mojolang 0]

I think Daniel means that if you try these in a cash game, you will get slaughtered....

[tekn0wledg 0]

It's a good thing I haven't yet brought myself around to reading it.... I've had it for some time but other readings have taken priority.

[masterock 0]

This is the first book i read, and i continue to read it. his limit hold'em methods are kind of agressive. His method of reraising pocket 7,8,9's preflop as if to represent aces got me in a bit of trouble(cause bottome line they aint much after a bad flop).He says to use the raise button to know where you stand after the flop. However this is money we dealing with and if i have pocket 7's and the board comes out 6 j q and a guy bets i dont think i want to raise him to "find out where i am" Someone with a Q aint folding and I am almost sure i am beat depending on the player. His no limit section is very basic and beginnerish but in your home game and not agianst pros it should help. In general though the read was fun, the information is good, and the other sections that did not include hold'em made me more interested in trying out other games.

[VirginiaGent 0]

I'm very glad that Daniel was cautious in his praise for Phil's book...I think his aggressive style is overdone. Phil's success is based strongly on his ability to read/guess about his opponents holdings and knowledge about the type of player that they are. At least he stresses this and does his attempts at teaching with the player types in full focus.One post already commented on how "raising on the flop to find out where you are" has gotten him into trouble. If you read TJ Cloutier's and Tom McEvoy's "Championship No Limit and Pot Limit Hold'Em", TJ says exactly how stupid that is...raising to find out where you are...you can do that with a check...Honestly, I read the limit and no-limit hold'em sections and put it down. I felt my infant learning was digressing.

[NUTTYMATT 0]

this book is for a beginer. i thought the whole book was a waste of time and money. his limit stratagy was way to tight, and the no limit section was a joke. i thought the best parts of the book were on the other poker games. if u r a beginer and only want to learn about holdem i wouldnt waste my money, their are many better holdem books out there. if u want a book that explains how to play not only holdem but omaha and stud this book might not be that bad to get.

[tmiesen359 0]

read this book a while ago while i was just starting, and it has some good concepts, but seems just to be the start of the Phil Helmuth poker conglomerate/cash-in on the craze. some of the concepts are good, but it is too rooted in the "top 10 only" theory and i dont think that is possible. also, the animal thing is a good analogy, but is really only for beginners

[banker2005 0]

I haven't read this one yet but from what i've seen it hasn't been praised as highly as I expected one of Helmueths books to be. I might read this one though because i've studied Phil playing and his style seems effective. I might not read it though because I've heard it's more for newer players with simple concepts that I don't need to reread agin.

[DiverDown4 0]

This book in my opinion is EXCELLENT FOR THE BEIGNNER! no better book out there. it teachers tight play,agressiveness and rational thought. Many newbies have struggles iwth those exact to virtues, this book is great for beginners.......

[Guest]

:twisted: Everyone needs to wake up and tighten up ther play now and again. Phills book is packed with usefull plays. Internet poker would be alot harder if everyone playing had read it. The section orefurring to pot odds is weak but it isn,t that hard to count outs and divide. Also the raising to find out were your at on the flop is a strong way to play internet cash games when you consider few other options for making reads are avaible online.

[Marcstar 0]

I got some useful info out of this book however I would never tell someone who is just learning the game to read this book first. Most people start off by playing limit and his best hands have more of a NL tournament feel than a limit cash game feel.I get a lot out of ready various people and try to pull things from each.

[psmossa 0]

How would you suggest you change up your play in cash games according to what Phil talks about in the book? and are you talking about limit cash games or no-limit cash games or both? I do have to admit I have a technique similiar to Phil's and I do very well I tournaments but I have a hard time doing well in no-limit cash games what di I need to do different? I would apprecite your feedback or any books you suggest for no-limit cash games.ThanksPaul

[Suited_Up 2]

I've said it before... and I still think it's true... the book is a good READ for beginners, meaning it's an easy read, and you understand all the concepts fairly easy, but if you play like that as a beginner you'll lose badly. You can't bet and raise just to see where you are all the time. Read it, but only take away a few ideas from it.

[remi983 0]

It was also the first book I ever read, and the super super tight advice is just plain wrong. You cant win any pots to compensate for the times that one of his "top ten hands" are beaten. I mean - 3 betting pocket nines preflop is just plain wrong. Even if you do win a few pots with the top 10, the other players will never give you any action (unless they can beat you) for the times when you do actually pick up a hand.Also, I think that amarillo slim's blurb about it being the best strategy book ever written is utterly misleading.

[Dick Danger 0]

Today I tried playing nothing but his top ten hands, I played three hands in five hours at the table. I lost all three. :doh:

[richhillkc 0]

I've had surprisingly good results after reading just the beginner section. I was playing a lot more hands positionally when I was first learning and was breaking even or losing every time I went to the poker room. After tightening up to just the top 10 hands (okay, I'm also playing Ax suited as well), I'm not playing nearly as many hands, but I'm playing them so aggressively that I'm taking much larger pots than I was as a limper. When I'm not in a hand, I'm getting to observe the other players a lot closer, and I'm learning to read them better than I would if I was under the stress of being in the hand. After only a few sessions playing this way, I've erased my early losses and I'm up (yes, I keep a log). I've also managed to go a lot farther in online tournaments. In NL S&G's, I'm cashing almost every time I play and I'm making the top 10 percent in 2000+ player NL tournaments. In my online cash games, I've almost completely made up my early losses.This isn't a great way to play your entire career, but, as a beginner, it does a lot for your confidence to take down those big pots. Also, it's a lot easier to get the wife to let me go play when she knows that I'll probably be bringing some extra cash home. I'm sure I could be making more if I knew more, but that will come with time and I learn a lot from observing.I'm going to move on and read the intermediate section now. I'll let you know how that goes.Rich

[remi983 0]

Thanks for you honest reply Rich. His strategy probably is the best bet for a newbie...Please let us know how the intermediate section works out for you.

[Phil Henke 0]

I thought that it was pretty solid, but the LHE section uses a system of play that I don't think works. I liked that it has more then one game covered (albeit not in great depth) since most books on poker these days are strictly hold em or cover only one game. I gave it to a friend for Xmas and he has improved his overall game play a great deal. We play a mixed game of Limit Omaha, Stud, Holdem, NLHE and Crazy Pineapple and he has a much better grasp of all games now. I really don't like the stories he has though as I don't think they add much to the book and look more like bragging then poker theory. I also don't think that he understand the way that Daniel N. plays and incorrectly classifies him into a certain "breed" of player, he does this for a few other players as well. But that is a different subject.

[DeNuts1 0]

The main problem with this book is that he has no idea about what goes on in a low-limit game. His plays may work in the higher levels....but agression runs nobody out in the lower levels.

[bourbenz 0]

The main problem with this book is that he has no idea about what goes on in a low-limit game.  His plays may work in the higher levels....but agression runs nobody out in the lower levels.

that s my take exactly he has one style of play that (may) work in a higher limit game, but would never fly low limit.if i fold everything but aces and kings I'll get my my stake money chewed up by force bets.a rock is the easiest thing in the world to beat easier than a sucker, at least a sucker playing k4 os has some mystery to the game.This book just seems to be an extension of phils ego, and maybe a little elemetary poker lesson thats all.

[bettor 0]

My mother caught me skimming through it and proceeded to berate the book so much she needed to sit down afterwards. Lol. I picked up Lee Jones' Low Limit Hold'Em...now she loves me again.

[UglyJimStudly 0]

The main problem with this book is that he has no idea about what goes on in a low-limit game. His plays may work in the higher levels....but agression runs nobody out in the lower levels.

True, but OTOH you don't really care if most of them fold or not at lower levels - you just want them to pay a lot of money to chase their two-outer when you've got a decent hand. His hand selection seems somewhat shaky to me, but the basic idea is just what many beginning players need to hear: play tight, and play aggressive. Most beginning players seem to be too loose and too passive.His suggestions for higher limits are a lot harder to implement, because they rely very much on reads without a lot of guidance on how to get good at them. I think this is a problem that a lot of read-oriented pros have when they're writing their books - it might be easy for them to figure out quickly whether somebody's bluffing or has the goods, but it's hard to teach J. Random Pokerplayer how to do that.

[uahphysics 0]

Maybe someone can give me an intelligible answer to this question. Everyone is dissing Phil's book, especially the limit hold 'em section, because they propose that Phil calls for super-tight play. My question is: What's wrong with tight play?? In limit hold 'em, especially at a lower leverl, you are not going to force someone to fold, so why not just wait till you have have the best of it. I mean, in No limit, play whatever you like, you can always push someone off their hand, but in limit, I think that tight-aggressive play is the best strategy. After all, what's worse, Being up only a few big bets after playing a few big pots with good hands and folding the rest of the time, or being down for the night because you couldn't stand "not playing a pot"