No comments about Texas Holdem Poker.

4 comments about Poker: A Guaranteed Income for Life by Using the Advanced Concepts.

1. This "how to win" book focuses on the host of home games. It sets out to explain how to exploit personal relationships and pretend friendship in order to win from less experienced players. There is little or no advice as to the play of the cards. Examples are based around some remarkably dumb cardboard characters. So much so that it is hard to relate the advice to real situations. Most of its advice is of the "get them drunk" nature, and has very little to do with poker as such. Even if you are as unpleasant a person as the book's protaganist, it would be hard to find the mugs to exploit. Basically the book's implicit moral position is highly questionable. Its redeeming feature is that you can read it as a cautionary tale, just to make sure that you are not slipping into some of the traps described.



2. This book has deep meanings and concepts that may not be understood by beginners but lots of these concepts will not be lost and will work for inexperienced as well. If you are moderate then this book is a must.



3. Kind of fun to read (and not without one or two moments of genuine value), this book lays out a plan to win money at home poker games on a regular basis. The theme of this plan: Surround yourself with losers -- the bigger the losers they are, the more time you should spend playing with them. Wallace's "moral" is that it's a good thing to deceive and manipulate people who are of weak constitution, because they can be controlled and you can get in their wallets. This is rather pathetic, but it's the thrust of all Wallace's work: If you find yourself losing, bully the winners out of the game and fleece the losers yourself. You may win a few bucks, but your poker will suffer. And if you adopt a general "Wallacian" mindset, expect your non-poker life to suffer the same deterioration from avioding anything challenging.



4. Many years ago, this book had a major impact on me as a poker player. While certainly not a "how to" book like (as in what do you do when dealt a pair of Aces) it revealed to me for the first time how much of a skill game poker is. Its written around story lines about a fictional character who is pretty ruthless. Critics who call the book "How to hustle your friends" aren't completely wrong. But it offers much more than that. It offers so many unique insights into the game of poker that you will never get from other traditional books that I must recommended it. The section on tracking your earnings and losses was worth the price of the book.

1 comments about Poker - Omaha.

1. for the money i expected far more hands and theories

1 comments about The Man Behind the Shades: The Rise and Fall of Stuey 'The Kid' Ungar, Poker's Greatest Player.

1. Anyone reading this review will already know about the legendary Stu Ungar, the only person to ever win 3 WSOP Main Events in the no limit hold em format. After reading this, you'll know why he didn't win it a fourth or fifth time (which he could have done).
   
   I'm very thankful that Stu agreed to do this book before he passed away. He began speaking with the author only a few months before he died, and this book took several more years before it was completed. It was put together extremely well.
   
   He led a very unusual life. If you told me this was a fictional book, then I'd tell you they went overboard with the story, as much of it is just unbelievable. As it is, all of it is true and therefore mind-boggling.
   
   Stu should know that allowing his life to be laid out in this book is very helpful. It leaves us with a better of understanding of his accomplishments and his downfalls. It also allows us to get to know him, in the only way possible, through this book. Drugs robbed him, his family, and all of us enthusiasts of the greatest mind to ever play poker or gin.
   
   His story will speak to those who aren't into cards as well. We all want a story that turns out rosie in the end, but here all that is left is what was. Long Live Stuey "the Kid" Ungar, may you finally have the fulfillment that you sought time and time again in this life.

No comments about High Stakes Poker: The Sky's the Limit.

No comments about Starting Out in Poker.

3 comments about Poker Night: All You Need to Bet, Bluff, and Win.

1. teaches you all you need to know to lose $20 to your best friends.



2. The chips are cheap plastic and the cards don't hold up to continual shuffling. The booklet is extremely basic and contains errors e.g. on page 12 of the "How to Play Poker" section states that "After 6-4-3-2-A the next 'best' worst is hand is 7-4-3-2-A." In reality the next 'best' worst hand is 6-5-3-2-A! I would love to play poker with the author - it would give me a great chance to win back what I paid for this. It will be the only way I could get my money back. My recommendation is to save yours and spend it elsewhere.



3. The chips are a bit flimsy, but this is perfect for people who want to learn the basics. The book is really helpful and has lots of tips on how to play. We had our first poker night last week using this, and everybody loved it.
   
   Serious poker players will not be satisfied. But honestly, I've read many of the "serious" poker books and they are really confusing for beginning players. Try Poker night instead.

No comments about Poker Expertise Through Probability.

No comments about California Stud.

3 comments about Science of Poker.

1. This book is a perfect example of how a mathematician with little experience or understanding of poker typically approaches the game. The result, in this case at least, is a complete train wreck.
   
   I'm a professional poker player, a recent college grad, and the owner of about 50 poker books. I was excited but wary when I found this title recently; I've always thought there was a gap in the poker literature on this topic, approaching the game from a more rigorously analytical perspective. Many have tried, but just about all have failed miserably, and this is no exception.
   
   The author, Mahmood N Mahmood, is originally Iraqi, and his incomprehensible writing makes it obvious that he is not a native English speaker. The book is filled with poor grammar, misused words, and awkward, unclear phrasing (at one point he calls a player's hand his 'attainment'). The back cover claims that he retired early in 1992 and became a semi-professional player, but I highly doubt that.
   
   On the first page of the introduction, Mahmood reveals that most of his data comes from popular poker simulation software, and the rest from other poker books. I expected something original. The first title he credits as a source for statistics in this book is "'Super Systems' by Doyle Brunson". The book is 'Super System,' commonly referred to in poker circles as 'the Bible.' Tip: If you're going to try to pretend you know what you're talking about and write a book about poker, don't butcher this name. The second book he cites is "'Formula Won' by Michael J Barry". I spent some time looking but could not find any mention of this book anywhere. It does not appear to exist.
   
   He ambitiously attempts to cover hold'em, omaha, and stud, each in pot-limit and limit forms. Apparently, Mahmood does not realize that pot-limit stud is almost never played, and no-limit hold'em is much more popular than pot-limit.
   
   He refers to Omaha hands such as "A-K-J-T(s)" and "A-J-T-9(o)". It's common convention to describe hold'em hands as "A-Ks" or "T-9o" for suited and offsuit cards, respectively. This convention makes no sense for the four card Omaha hands.
   
   On strategy, he states that A-K-J-T plays best against three opponents, and that A-J-T-9 is better and wants a lot of opponents. He doesn't explain why, although it's fairly obvious that he's basing it off showdown simulation results, which are meaningless for this purpose.
   
   For hold'em, a good example of the terrible advice in this book is a discussion of "Q-7(s)", queen-seven suited. He is assuming you are in late position and that a player you somehow know has A-Ks has raised in front of you. He reasons that the hand becomes profitable and should be played if you can get at least four opponents, because it will win 21% of the time against AKs and three other random hands. This might apply if there was no more betting after the flop and the cards were just turned up, but that's not how poker is played. He also assumes that the other three players have average, random hands even though they've called a strong raise - totally unreasonable.
   
   All of his strategies are based solely on the concept of pot odds - memorizing percentages, and comparing the size of the pot to the percentage chance of your hand winning. If it were that simple, poker would have died off from lack of interest long ago.
   
   I just had an epiphany after writing that last paragraph. When I was first starting out in poker, I heard more experienced players calling Q-7 the "computer hand." When I asked why, they explained that there was an old book claiming the hand was profitable based on computer simulation results, when even relatively new players know that's not true - hence the mocking nickname. This must be that book. The original publishing date is 1988, apparently reprinted in 2003.
   
   For excellent coverage of the general principles behind strong poker play, see "The Theory of Poker," by David Sklansky.



2. I had high hopes for this book - a highly educated author, who turned to poker about 10 years ago. The kind verdict is that it is hard to understand; the unkind verdict is that it is hopelessly and seriously wrong (in places).
   
   I turned eagerly to the section on Hold'em. At the start of ch8 "Starting Hands", it says that "the return on investments of all the high pairs (TT or better) does not improve when more than 4 opponents are contesting the pot. High pairs, therefore, should be played against not more than 4 contestants." What on earth does he mean? You should fold AA just because 5 other guys reach the flop? Reading on does not do much to clarify. I think he means that with AA you should keep raising before the flop. But it is certainly hard to understand, particularly when two pages further on he explains that "Small pairs play best against more than 5 opponents".
   
   I have a maths degree, so I can easily cope with odds calculations, but some of his are at best obscurely presented and sometimes seem wrong.



3. This book is somewhat difficult to read, and adds nothing to what the better poker books teach. I don't think this book will turn you into a losing player, but your money is better spent elsewhere. I sold my copy soon after buying it.