Do you really need to read a book?

Do you really need to read a book?
When the game first originated,did people read a book to play?
After the first book was published that people based their games on was there a need for more?Or are you just reading the same bokk by a different author?

Does every book say the same thing or are books just based on each persons way they think you should play poker?
If they are then whats the difference if you read one or not?
Arent experence and your own way of thinking the way you should play poker?
You take such and such from each book and adapt them to your game,wouldnt the natural progression of your game do the same?

If you read the same books as everyone else,does that mean you are equal?

If 2 people read the same 10 books,one ends up going pro,one ends up going broke.Is it the book or the player that makes the difference?

__________________

You could go and try to figure out everything for yourself, or make a small investment to learn from someone experienced and successful.

If you have a complicated finical situation, you could try reading the tax code to be sure you get everything right and file your own; OR you could just make a small investment to have someone do it for you and have confidence it was "more correct" (right is a little subjective in poker and taxes).

I like to stick to one author per game, but I have read a few conflicts in advice from one writer to another.

Reading the same book does not make you equal. You have access to the same advice, but it does not mean you have equal ability to grasp and implement the concepts. This applies to both of your last 2 questions.

In short: needed? No. Good idea? Yes.

__________________
See this space for details:

Most people didn't realise the depth they had to analyse to in order to be a good player. That refers to both individual hands and long term. So the books served one purpose, they showed how much more there was to the game than most supposed.

They also fulfill a second purpose, except for the true on-line junkie, most people don't play enough to get that wealth of experience.

Even those who do play a lot are not always willing to spend the time on the analysis, or maybe don't have the ability, or are just plain too busy, so books, as in all other walks of life can be a short cut to knowledge.

And please don't knock taking short cuts via books. It is the whole basis of how our society has advanced. The fact that we don't have to re-learn everything from scratch gives us the time to advance.

What made them successful,they didnt have their own book to read,would following it to the root be a better idea?
I think I can answe that one,sometimes the student out does the teacher.

Going to someone for tax help is different.One has boundaries the other doesnt.
I thought for a while on the comparison and there a lot of similarities.

__________________

to me the two best reasons for reading books for the player who has already a decent understanding of the game are

a) to get better reads on your opponents
b) to thing about your own game

say you read what someone says about raising on AK preflop in certain situation and have a good reason for doing otherwise thats fine but it can sometimes make you think about why you are doing some bets and if you dont have a good reason then reconsider your actions.

There is some useful information in the books but to be honest much of what is learned will be minutae. To me there are two main reasons for this a) there is little advanced strategy in the poker books that are out there and people will know 80% plus of what is in most books if they are strong and experienced b) once we have developed our poker game many of us are very resistant to change so even if we are presented with good advice that could improve our game and we have established our own game we will often resist it.

So basically,you can learn from a forum what you can from a book?(minus the tells)

__________________

Interestingly, a lot of them today DID have a book to read, written by some of the best minds.

Daniel Negreanu for example has talked about Sklansky books (like Theory of Poker), so has Greg Raymer. Also if you read some of DN's articles he has written, he has talked a lot about what he learned from watching other people's successes.

You can blaze your own trail and be successful, there is no doubt. But in the contents of a good book, you have a wealth of information from some of the most successful people in the world about what they have done, and still do. The time investment of reading such a book will actually give you a head start in skill over someone trying to do everything them self.

In my personal experience, I basically learned everything I know about stud hi/lo from reading Todd Brunson's section of supersystem 2. Then when I started playing those tournaments (on a small site, fields would be 30-50 players) out of 18 tournaments I won 4, and cashed in 11. I became a winning player 90% due to a book (5% from play money table, 5% watching Perry Freidmen on Full Tilt).

So it comes down to how long you want to be loosing (or not winning money you should be) while trying to figure everything out yourself.

__________________
See this space for details:

I know this thread is old, but I just wanted to add my 2 cents.

One of the reasons I read poker books, is because other players do. If I have the same information they have read, that gives me more knowledge on my opponent, that I may have not had before hand on a opponent. On the site I play on they have an option to write down your fav book, and when I see what other players fav books are I can usually get a general understanding of their game play.

If someone has read Mr X's book and you haven't he'll have more and different info/skills than you which COULD give him an edge in a game. There will come a time where you will have to subscribe to things like the Poker X Factor just to make sure nobody has an edge over you.

__________________

The views of Mattastic do not necessarily reflect the views of THF