[jojobinks]

phil hellmuth / fbi guy book on tells.

it's interesting, and there's even some new stuff.

but the really good news is that 2+2 has an awesome thread/pissing match on it. read it here and laugh your cares away, dude.

[Devilboy]

Do you recommend it?

[Wylecoyo]

I picked up a copy about a month ago and haven't had an opportunity to read any of it yet so please let me know what I am missing.

[SpeakEasy]

Wow, they're really going at it on that thread. When I see that people have spent so much time dissecting each others statements, I just think -- "Shut up and go play poker."

[luckychick]

Sweet jesus. I read the 2+2 thread thinking there was going to be some insight into the book. Instead there are a bunch of arguments over the aesthetics of cover design and paper weight.

How's the book?

[jamby]

I'm in the same boat. I'm currently wading through "Weighing the Odds in Hold 'em Poker" by King Yao. Read 'em and Weep is next on the agenda.

Originally Posted by Wylecoyo

I picked up a copy about a month ago and haven't had an opportunity to read any of it yet so please let me know what I am missing.

[texred1]

Originally Posted by luckychick

Sweet jesus. I read the 2+2 thread thinking there was going to be some insight into the book. Instead there are a bunch of arguments over the aesthetics of cover design and paper weight.

I read that entire thread, and I must say that I learned a lot. None of it relevent...

~dustin

[Poboy]

Finished yet? Was it any good?

[xtwalker]

I really enjoyed and learned a lot from the 75% of the book I have read so far. I can honestly say it has helped me escape a few huge hands (at least I think I escaped and wasn't bluffed) and helped me make a few huge calls for rather large pots.

More than anything it helped me watch for baseline behaviors, and common actions by a player.

I consider myself to have a good poker knowledge base, and a good base for the mathematical side, but I suck at the psychology side of it. I read Caro's book first, then Navaro's to help my game, and I must say that I learned more, and got more usable information from the latter.

Probably one of the deals where for most people on this forum it would be filling small holes in an established knowledge base, and reinforcing ideas already in place. For me Navaro filled more holes.

Sorry if I rambled, it's 230 and I have played a lot of poker today (yesterday?)... time for bed.

[SpeakEasy]

I am reading this now. I've started focusing much more on my reads in live play. Not 'tells', exactly, but reading hand strength. Just relaxing and getting the vibe of a player's strength based purely on your read. For me, this is why live poker is infinitely more fun than on-line.

Here's a way to challenge yourself. Observe your table for a while. Pick out a player or two against whom you have developed a strong read. When one of these players raises PF, isolate with a re-raise. Don't look at your hole cards (I never do until its my turn, making this part easier -- opponents will assume that you've already looked).

Play the hand based purely on your read of the player. Don't look at the board cards. Don't stare at your opponent, but watch as closely as needed to get a solid read. See if the hand develops to the point where you can bet him off his hand. If not, try again later.

The big reward is taking a quick peek at what you had after you win the pot, before you toss them to the dealer. As soon as you can win a pot based just on your read, without looking at your cards, notice what happens to your reads later...

I've done this once successfully. It was against a solid player, who became easy to read in certain situations.