I read a lot of poker books and for the past few months I have been writing little "mini reviews" on them. Hopefully these will give you a broad idea of what each book has to offer and can help you choose which book to buy.
I have also created a little ratings system to simplify things as between this site and others I have many many mini reviews floating around.

The level is the level of player I believe will get the most out of the book. The Reading Difficulty suggests wether a particular writing style was an easy read for me or if I felt that I was constantly reading thing 2 or more times to fully grasp the concept. Organization has to do with how the book is organized, mainly will the book be easy to reference or will you have to re-read it to find what you are looking for. Usefullness is pretty obvious but there are a few factors. Mainly: is the information right and can it be applied at the table or in simulation and make an impact on your game.
--------------------
Level: Beginner
Reading Difficulty: 1
Organization: 3
Usefullness: 2 (consider this a rulebook with a few tips for the complete omaha newbie)

--------------------



This is the second book I have read by Ken Warren and although the information in the book wasn't bad it was a little weak. Is this book about Omaha High? Omaha high/low? Who knows. Ken seemes to kind of mix the two games together as one big game when infact they are two completly seperate monsters. As far as hard strategy there really is none.

The book starts out by describing the differences between Omaha and Hold em. Interesting because after about 20 differences I felt like I was reading filler that anyone who has spent a few hours playing both games could come up with. There is a chapter with over 25 points on hand reading for Omaha hi and then another for Omaha Hi/lo. Talk about filler. There is also a section on Omaha tournaments which is more like a weak beginners crash course on Hold em tourneys than any kind of new information related to Omaha tourneys. I think the great big new piece of tourney strategy I learned from this book was "tournament seat and table selection." Yeah, that is not a typo, he covers this in the book.

I would discuss the strategy advice Ken gives but his book is more of a jumbled mess of random points about how Omaha is different from Hold em and how to read an Omaha hand than anything. If there was a section on how to play a hand after the flop I missed it. While his advice is not wrong it is very redundant and extremley simplistic, not really covering any single area of the game completly other than the rules and how to read a hand.

I don't really reccomend this book unless you need to learn the rules of Omaha high or Omaha Hi/Lo as this book to me resembles a long drawn out rulebook. For the complete total beginner this book might cover a few small tips about Omaha but other than to the complete novice this book is only going to burn a hole in your pocket. I really felt that while I read the book Ken Warren was sitting somewhere counting his money saying "wow, they will publish anything!" I rarely give a bad review but I just can't really speak to fondly of this book. Don't waste your time or money on this book.

<-----------Hates Ken Warren

__________________
Kickboyswoop

<-------Hates David Sklansky too

__________________
Kickboyswoop

At least Sklansky can write a book. The more I think about it the more I think Ken Warrens Stud book was a bunch of "filler" as well. Honestly it is like he just writes the books for the money, regaurdless of wether the information is decent or not. Sklansky has broken more ground than any other poker author on the planet.

<-------still hates Sklansky

My issue with him is i believe he is a good author but is horrible player. No gamble means no win ever in today's big fields. He sucks bad I think the whole thing with Hawthorne was mostly his fault. He is just a dirty old man as my fiance describes him.

But no his books have information very difficult to understand for the average player.

Sorry just do not like him. Worse part is i Bought like 3 of his books before i realized there are so many better authors out there.

__________________
Kickboyswoop

meh...

I think his book "Theory of Poker" is one of the best poker books written. I think for general poker knowledge and strategy it is the best and most relevant poker book ever published. Sure Harrington has the best no limit hold em tourney books and Super System is "the poker players bible" but if you want cold hard poker strategy, the math behind poker and basic poker theory then you cannot replace "Theory of Poker."

He might be a dirty old man but the man knows his stuff.

I've got to side with Powda on this one. When I was starting out I tried to read his "Theory of Poker" and it was way over my head. I vowed to come back to it when I had worked on the fundamentals of my game. I think Sklansky has managed to create a complex yet digestible system of fundamentally sound poker that is, above all, teachable. Take Doyle Brunson as a contrasting example. Obviously one of the kings of all forms of poker, but most people agree that his chapter on NLHE in SS2 is mediocre at best. Doyle just KNOWS how to play poker, but he's not necessarily able to articulate what he knows in a way that can educate the everyday player. Sklansky, on the other hand, is both a great poker theoretician and a great teacher, hence the success of the 2+2 empire.

Get those two guys heads up and I bet Brunson would whip the shit out of Sklansky, but if you gave them each 50 guys of reasonable intelligence and told them they had to train them to be winning poker players in 30 days, I bet the Sklansky team would be much better earners at the tables at the end.

Good post clar. I agree on the "teachable" idea. Theory of Poker is simply a must read for anybody who wants to play poker with any level of seriousness.