Secrets of Short-handed No Limit Hold'em Review Thread

[Gelford]

Originally Posted by Al Mirpuri

You also set up a dichotomy: publish or don't publish. What about publish with good editing?

Since we know of one publisher that rejected editing this book (due to several reason) and we know of another that decided to not to but in the entire amount of editing it needed by your standards before publishing, I feel fairly confident in my dichotomy.

you assume that everyone who purchases it will be a big bucks NLHE 6max player. I assure you that will not be the case.

If 25NL is big bucks NLHE then yes, I do make that assumption.

[runway model]

Originally Posted by Gelford

Nonsense ... since it is obvlous that the alternative is that it would never have been published.

You don't want it, then don't buy it ...

this.

i'm happy i bought it because it's waaaay better than most poker books. in places it is genuinely thought provoking. for instance his take on c-betting is definitely a bit different to many good aggro players.

that said, i also do agree with this from phydaux

Originally Posted by phydaux

Danny offers none of that. His assesment is "I can out play him after the flop, so I call with this trash..."

Really, Danny? What, exactly, makes you believe you can out play him?

[atakdog]

Originally Posted by cocktails

i dont think some of you understand the book of danny. it is totally different book then fees. i.e. there is no hand chart in it. he just tells you HOW TO THINK about every street, every move you can make. Fees did a great job, but he is thinking FOR YOU, danny shows you how you think on your own. danny's book needs more of your own effort. maybe thats a problem with some peeps, i know it is mine.

No, he doesn't. He doesn't tell you how to think -- he alludes, vaguely and sometimes semi-coherently, to how he thinks -- and based on how he has presented it, his thought process seems usually to be very simple, along the lines of "My opponent is bad, so I will outplay him."

We've gotten derailed in several ways here (not just the post I've quoted -- the whole thread).

• It's not about the grammar or the typos. The typos are not as numerous as might be gathered from this thread; the grammar is not atrocious. The punctuation is not what we were taught in English class, but it's not so bad as to render the book unreadable.
• It is not about whether the author is a skilled poker player. This is irrelevant to whether one should purchase the book; what matters is whether it will help readers improve. My answer to this is no. Some here seem to disagree.
• It is not about whether other poker books are worse, more expensive, or both. Some are -- many, in fact -- but this is not relevant to whether purchasing this one is a good decision.
• It is not entirely about the skill level of the reader. It is clear to me that someone who has not studied the game a fair amount will get little or nothing out of the book; I contend that even those who have done so will not benefit from it.
• It is not about the cost of the book relative to the stakes of the game. Yes, the book costs only a fraction of a buy-in -- but even if it were true that the EV of buying the book is positive relative to buying nothing (which I doubt is really true for anyone contemplating its purchase), that does not make buying it a good decision if there are other books that will be worth more, and whose benefits overlap completely those of this book. I believe that to be the case.
• It is not about the effort the reader is willing to put in -- it is about the reward for that effort. With this book, it sometimes takes several rereadings to determine the author's point, but that is not necessarily inappropriate for a book that is intended to teach. The problem is not that (though it could in many cases have been avoided), the problem is that, after having put in the work and figured out what the author was trying to say, the astute reader realizes that he wasn't trying to say much of anything that is helpful.
• It is not that the book was badly targeted, though it was. It is somewhere around half six-max, half heads up, true, but that issue pales into insignificance next to the fact that the book will do nothing to improve the qualified reader's ability to beat either game.

The book obviously has its supporters -- or the author does, I can't tell. It has its detractors. Potential purchasers who are on the fence will judge in part based on their assessments of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimony. My hope in posting in this thread has been to make clear to those who are trying to decide whether to purchase it that I, at least, consider it not only a disorganized, sometimes semi-coherent stream of conscious ramble disguised as a book, but more importantly, a waste of money regardless how much effort the reader is willing to invest.

[phydaux]

I think I've said a hundred times that 2+2 Books & Pubs is not kind to poker authors. Not even to our very own patron, Saint Sklansky. I know I've been guilty of it, re: a few comments I've made over the years regarding Cardoza (Publishing, not Avery per say).

But.... damn....

[theBruiser500]

lol sweet thread

[craiggerz]

This book is great and would recommend to anyone who is looking to move beyond the basics and get an insight of how to think.

[bobboufl11]

I'm less than halfway through but the grammar/punctuation doesn't seem to be nearly as bad as some are saying. The writing style sort of reminds me of Super System in that it's pretty blunt and unintellectual in writing style but the information is good.

So far it seems that if any book is worth buying this one is, though it certainly isn't for beginners

[craiggerz]

Originally Posted by bobboufl11

the grammar/punctuation doesn't seem to be nearly as bad as some are saying.

+1

[Nezh]

+1 on Grammar/style not being so bad. It´s hardly a point in fact.

I am not -like atakdog- going to spend a few hours of my life on writing about this book, but I will say that for ME, a very well read, decently succesful player (mostly HU) this book is among the very best I have read.

Let me put it this way: if Harrington on Hold´em (esp. Vol. 2) gives you all the basic tools of a potentially good player, Danny Ashman´s book gives insight into alternative uses of those very same tools, shows situations where players overuse some of the tools and how combining tools you could fabricate some weaponry of your own, best suited to your style, oppt. etc.

Will people disagree about the quality of the book? Obviously, just as with for example Elements of Poker, another modern classic that some posters burnt down to the ground. Bottom line for me is both of these books aim at an audience of a higher skillset than the 2+2 books, which (for me) are mostly about teaching you the basic technique, the middle ground, the somewhat obvious stuff you don´t need anymore (but do need to get there) once you become a good player.

[fzpoker]

I received mine yesterday and i'm now in the middle. FIY this is one of the best book in NLHE i've read so far. It helps me understand the right kind of thinking you must use at the table. And this will be my last purchased book unless another successful high stakes player will write and sell a cheap book.


Thank you

[-C-P-]

I think this was a good but incomplete poker book.

There are times where the grammar/lack of editing is distracting, however, there are a couple great sections of the book that make up for it. Despite this, I think this book will be helpful for medium strength poker players specifically (but ultimately limited to that group).

[mucked4u]

Originally Posted by phydaux

And the best way to do that is by example. Again, I bring up Real Poker II. Roy would start by talking about his past history with the players at the table and give his assesment of theit play style and current emotional state. Then he's go street by street through and talk about everything he considered, everything that went into him making the decition he did.

Danny offers none of that. His assesment is "I can out play him after the flop, so I call with this trash..."

Really, Danny? What, exactly, makes you believe you can out play him? What mistakes have you seen this guy make? How do you play to exploit these mistakes in the future? What kinds of flops will help you exploit his mistakes? What kind of flops will actually benifit him?

None of that information is anywhere in Danny's book. No where does Danny give us a glimpse into his actual thought process.

Anyone who doesnt have a Roy Cook text in thier library is missing a vital amount of info in regards to "THINKING LIKE A PRO."