Sklansky geinus or just plain overated

[lostyourchips2me 0]

I read this guys books,let me tell you if your a begining poker player,or apro,well lets just say it just dosent matter his books are just plain garbagejust try using his advice in a game higher then 5 10 and you r liable to lose your whole bank roll in one night.

[VirginiaGent 0]

I think his in depth thinking is easy to put into a book, but to keep all of these things in mind when you have to make a decision is tricky. At least it is all here to be looked at.Sklansky won the author's challenge event to be televised sometime in March 2005!

[Smasharoo 0]

Sklansky's books are horrible if you don't understand them.Not everyone does.

[MossFactor 0]

I agree Sklansky's advice it terrible. I suggest that nobody buys or reads any of his books ever again. Furthermore, anyone who already has read his books should burn them and unlearn everything the books have taught them.Oh, and by the way... where and when do you play poker?

[Erik67 0]

He's so bad that a hack like Brunson had him write chapters in SS and SS2. Here's more proof of his idiocy.http://www.fullcontactpoker.com./poker-for...e1591641e564a41

[rkard 0]

Yup, I read his book called Hero Of poker or something and it had lots of stuff about Fungimentals n stuff. who cares about mushrooms im trying to LEARN POKER HERE.

[ddudley 0]

I read this guys books,let me tell you if your a begining poker player,or apro,well lets just say it just  dosent matter his books are just plain garbagejust try using his advice in a game higher then 5 10 and you r liable to lose your whole bank roll in one night.

Wow, I think you are the first person I've ever seen who said Sklansky is bad. Where do you play poker? Why specifically, do think he is bad? Who do think is good?

[pepper1 0]

I agree with loseyourchips2me, i find skalanskys books are terreble therefull of usles information.At least most of the stuff he says.

[banker2005 0]

Sorry to disagree with most of you boys but slanskys in depth strategic approach is a great way to up your game. I read my first Slansky book 2 years ago, it was a small stakes book and it really helped me get to the next level, from breaking even in $1-$2 games to a substantial winner, although I disagree with him on some things I believe his books are great and he is a great poker player.

[Awful 0]

Is it just me, or is there the possibility that the Sklansky doubters are of dubious literacy (or ALL trolls)? Frequent misspellings, grammar that would make every teacher I've had since the dawn of time vomit, etc.Except for Rkard; he's just funny. FUNGIMENTALS! Good work, sir.Theory of Poker, which I've just begun to crack, is so far the most useful resource I've found in general.

[mk 11]

nice posts by rkard (as always) and erik.if you think sklansky's books are terrible, i say congrats. you must have discovered a system that will soon overturn the entire world of gambling, much like Einstein's (pun) theories of special and general relativity overturned the world of physics.i look forward to reading your book and taking your money in the meantime.

[Marcstar 0]

I've gotten a ton out of his books. I'm a little surprised so many are negitive on him.

[Smasharoo 0]

I used to think Skalnsky's books weren't that great untill every time I though I'd figured out some key new insight about playing, I'd re-read one of his books and see that he'd written about it in about 5 sentances I'd overlooked.I will say this, though, the guy needs an editor. His wrting is horrible.

[tekn0wledg 0]

I don't think his writing is that horrible. He does have an editor, he mentions him in most of the books I believe.He's not a journalist, he's a poker player. I'd rather have sub-par writing and great information if that's what it means to get a good book.

[naugie 0]

Its funny. People post questions on this site as well as rec.gambling.poker and other forums, about how to play, and the strategies and tactics suggested by the subsequent replies are usually traceable back to Sklansky's writing and theories. Now people who cannot understand the writing are saying the guy doesn't know what he is talking about. I challenge them to go to Vegas and play him personally so we don't have to hear about it. They will be too busy taking his money to write about how he sucks.

[Wilderness 0]

He's not easy to understand, especially if you are trying to learn/comprehend most or all of what he's saying, but it just takes a lot of playing time and many re-readings to really get it all and use it on a consistent basis. I'm nowhere near that yet.

[Towery 0]

I've never read any of his books, but now I think I'm going to have to. Any suggestions on which to start with?

[Awful 0]

Theory 0f Poker, or small stakes holdem if that alone is your game.Not some sort of dense mathematical tome or anything as the name would suggest. Covers situations and plays common to all games, is essentially a manual on proper thought and how to outplay opponents.

[TylerMayes 0]

Skalansky's outlines poker theory in his books very well. The problem I think you will find is that until small stakes hold em the examples were all out dated for the limits the "doubters" play in. Most of his examples assume an average of 3 people seeing the flop. If you are averaging 4+ players seeing a the table is loose. Here is a perfect example. Skalansky advises that raises in late position have added equity as they may pick up the blinds un contested. how many games have you seen a player enter with a raise in late position and pick up the blinds? I still raise in Late position for value as many over defend their blinds. You cannot take this information and apply it like a math formula. You must take the theories and think about them. Apply them to new situations. If you are not willing to do that you will never be a winning player..Cheers,Tyler

[naugie 0]

I don't know what copies of Advanced holdem everyone has, but there is a section in the millenium edition dealing with a generally loose game. The things in there have helped me plenty in the small stakes, and I know for sure that some of the things that are in small stakes holdem are in this section, though I don't know how many.

[mystery trips 0]

Sklansky's writing style is at best, OK. The information is good from a statistical standpoint. I haven't got much out of his books though, because I don't play limit hold em. He writes mostly about limit hold em.

[cwsiggy 0]

Lederer said that Sklansky kills the 300-600 game at Bellagio almost every night, so yeah - I guess he's not that good.

[Spidurman 0]

Lederer said that Sklansky kills the 300-600 game at Bellagio almost every night, so yeah - I guess he's not that good.  

wouldn't surprise me to see lower limit players doing the 'Chan/Rounders' routine with Sklansky. Everyone wants to say they played with him, and he thanks them for their money.

[cwsiggy 0]

Most likely. Though I can't imagine there are that many "tourist" who can afford to do that.

[mk 11]

Like many others have been saying here, I think many of Sklansky's 'doubters' try applying all of his teachings to no-limit, which is obviously wrong.He seldom writes about NL theory (there is a small section in Tournament Poker for Advanced Players). And if you take Hold 'Em for Advanced Players as NL advice, I can see how you might think he's not worth the read. (As a small example, he lists JTs as a group 3 hand--the best hand in group 3 at that--and we all know that suited connectors go way, way down in value in a tough NL game.)Try applying his teachings to limit, and you'll see what we're all talking about.