Re: Back to the books - which order to read?
A. Theory of Poker
This is a classic that deserves study. Not a bad place to start because it has some important theoretical fundamentals. Will probably merit rereading later.
C. Winning Low Limit Hold 'Em
D. Small Stakes Hold 'Em
These are all books on LIMIT hold'em. Does this "new" player want to learn about limit or no-limit? (C) is easy and fast read -- solid advice but not much theoretical justification. (D) and (F) are typical 2+2 books -- lots of different topics covered in too few pages. Some repetition of ideas you will have encountered already in Theory of Poker.
G. HOH 1-3
I think these are well written. Don't know if it's Harrington or Robertie that is the good writer. These are about tournament no-limit play, so they are very different from the limit books. Sometimes assumes more experience than the beginner will have, but very well explained. The 3rd book allows you to test yourself by answering questions as you go. It's very hard. This would be good for someone interested in sit-n-goes and larger tournaments.
E. NLHE TAP -- Sklansky/Miller
I just read this last night and was blown away by the number of concepts that are presented. Will take a long time to digest but is very clearly an advanced book that will merit study and experimentation. Has good elaboration of why certain plays that work in limit should be avoided in no limit and vice versa.
B. Psychology of Poker
Could be read at any time, but fun to read after some experience at the table. Not too demanding. Schoonmaker also has "Your Own Worst Poker Enemy" out now too. I like books that look at the game from a different perspective. Is not about a particular game format.
Phil Gordon's "Little" book series,
Mike Caro's "Book of Tells",
Gary Carson's "Complete Book...",
King Yao's "Weighing the Odds" -- a definite recommendation for math topics in an approachable format (though limit only)
Phil Hellmuth's "Play Like the Whiny Pros",
Chen's "Mathematics of Poker" [too game theoretic for practical use -- too many typos to follow even if you wanted to]