Feeney's Inside the Poker Mind.

[chicagoY]

Just posted what's below on amazon. I can't believe how much I enjoyed this book. I heard about it here on 2+2, but I was smart enough not to mention the name of this forum in the review. I don't need the players fishier than me to learn anything. Thanks for the heads up fellows, and thanks to you Dr. Feeney if you see this.

I heard about Inside the Poker Mind from a few players who post at a forum I frequent, and I finally got around to purchasing it. Frankly, I have difficulty believing anybody gave this one less than 5 stars because it is a rare and excellent work. I will admit that it is not a book for beginners or even those who have yet to read Ed Miller’s Small Stakes Hold ‘Em, but it offers extensive benefits for the intermediate player on up. Inside… is basically a collection of essays concerning topics seldom discussed, or not addressed in detail, within the typical “how to” manual. Feeney, despite having a PhD and being an accomplished high stakes player, is not broadcasting to readers from Phil Ivey-ian heights. Feeney ground out poker at the lowest levels before becoming the player he is today. His experiences in the small limits ring true for those of us dwelling in them today. My favorite essay in here, “How am I doing? Who Cares?”, warns readers not to be results oriented in regards to sessions. Variance is sometimes mind-boggling, but what we must do is concentrate on playing correctly despite our aces being snapped or getting cold-decked. Really, the entire Part IV section on poker and emotion is sensational. His definition of tilt is much more subtle than the ones generally offered, and, I believe, it is much more accurate. Overall, with brilliant analysis and clear style, Inside… is far better than most of its competitors. It’s for the thinking man which is what everyone should aspire to be if they want to make any money out of the game.

[mosquito]

I've recently been re-reading it after several years (got it when it first came out). It is just as good now as when I first read it. It's something serious players should read at some point. The only drawback is that it was written before the internet poker boom, everything is written from a B+M perspective.

[John Feeney]

Hey Chicago -- Thanks for the nice review. I spotted it on Amazon, and was glad to see it as someone had posted a bad review just days before. It was one of those bad reviews that seems to come out of left field, complaining about things like the title of the book being "misleading." (I believe I spent a paragraph or so in the introduction explaining the title. Even if I hadn't, it's clearly general enough that it could be taken several ways. Still, occasionally someone complains that the book doesn't give them what they expected from the title. And they all seem to expect something different. Hmmm...) The reviewer also complains that I'm "vehemently anti-no limit and pot limit," a topic on which I spend about two sentences (because those forms of poker were almost nonexistent when I wrote the book), neither of which is vehement. Oh well... Thanks again for the review. I'm glad you've found the book helpful! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[TheNoocH]

John,
Are you going to be doing another edition or update to this book with conditions as they are today (ie Online Poker, SNG, No-limit, etc). I have heard alot of good things about this book and have it on my xmas list but was just curious if any updates are in consideration.
Thanks.

[jrz1972]

Nice review. This is probably my single favorite all-around poker book, which is saying a lot since my bookshelf is jammed with other 2+2 titles.

[Easy E]

[ QUOTE ]
complaining about things like the title of the book being "misleading." (I believe I spent a paragraph or so in the introduction explaining the title. Even if I hadn't, it's clearly general enough that it could be taken several ways. Still, occasionally someone complains that the book doesn't give them what they expected from the title. And they all seem to expect something different. Hmmm...)

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm, indeed. What could they be expecting from "Inside the Poker Mind" that they are not getting from your book?

Personally, I think ITPM is the worse poker book ever written





and if anyone tries to take my copy, I'm shooting them! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[adsman]

I picked it up last week and it blew me away. Easily the most valuable collection to my vast poker book collection. What I'm especially thankful for is that I didn't read it early on in my poker career, as I'm sure that most of the material would have been beyond me.

[JudoGirl]

It is indeed a good book that I've read and re-read. It has really helped me maintain better focus and outlook on the game. The only thing I don't agree with in the book is the author's ideas about tournament poker. But he presents his arguments on this subject well and it gives one something to ponder. I should go post a review on the book too...

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you going to be doing another edition or update to this book with conditions as they are today (ie Online Poker, SNG, No-limit, etc). I have heard alot of good things about this book and have it on my xmas list but was just curious if any updates are in consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

No updates planned, I'm afraid. I'm not really involved in poker these days, so a sequal or what have you isn't on the agenda. I kind of retired from poker (not necessarily permanently, but...) to pursue other things which poker prevented me from doing. So I'm kind of in another world now. (Fortunately it has connections with your world's "Internet," allowing me to continue to communicate with earth. /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

But I thank everyone, including the legendary Easy E (!), for the very nice comments about the book!

[I am fish]

I don't agree with Feeney's views about tournament poker either, but I definetely don't understand why someone would attack his opinion (not you JudoGirl, but others). His opinion is reasonable enough and he give his reasons for it. I find it interesting however how he argued that tournament poker takes money out of circulation for ring games when it turns out that tournament poker is responsible for the huge poker explosion that has in fact ended up bringing in more money than ever to ring games.

Well, that's hindsight for ya.

[MikeMcQ1]

Here is a bump coming from out of nowhere...

Tiny review below but here's what I'm looking for: My copy is missing pages 117 to 148. Was this something that 2+2 is aware of or is just my copy? I bought it at an airport bookstore so I can't take it back there. Any suggestions?

I just picked this one up while looking for a quick book for the airplane and it's got to be the most underated 2+2 book out there. Great essays on several topics. It's not really a strategy book, although it touches a little here and there.

[uDevil]

I don't know what their general policy is, but in the past, Mason Malmuth has offered to replace defective books. His email address (from the feedback link on left panel): MasonMalmuth@twoplustwo.com

Feeney's book is very good. Get yourself a good copy.

[smbruin22]

i will definitely be getting this book with my next amazon.ca order....

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Milke:

If you have a bad book, you can return it to us for replacement. Send it to:

Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
32 Commerce Center Drive
Suite H-89
Henderson, NV 89014

Best wishes,
Mason

[MikeMcQ1]

I paid full cover price *gasp* and now have to pay to ship it and be out my book for however long...
My expected value for this purchase is dropping...still positive, but dropping. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

How 'bout a copy of SSHE to ease my pain /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[King Yao]

John Feeney's book is one of my favorite poker books. It helped me tremendously back in 2000/2001. That was when I started playing a lot and I remember a lot of ideas clicking for me as I read his book. Thanks John!

[GreywolfNYC]

ITPM is one of my favorites too. It should be required reading for any serious poker player.

[Mustafa]

Can someone please compare and contrast this book to Psychology of Poker?

[jfk]

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone please compare and contrast this book to Psychology of Poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

POP is primarily introspective. Dr. Schoonmaker has you look at yourself first, your motivations for playing and has you identify your playing style (LAG, TAG, LAP, TAP). He then reviews the pros and cons of that style and the strategic adjustments you'll need to make when playing against those who have given profiles.

One of the great strengths of the POP is Schoonmaker's overview of the traits needed to become a winning card player. I found it handy to hand it the the wife and have her make a judgement as to whether she felt I had the qualities Schoonmaker described. I would suggest any reader have a close friend give use that section for an external assesment. It is as useful a section as can be found in any poker book.

Schoonmaker's basic thesis is that a TAG is a winning player and he provides an avenue to emulate that style. That not everyone will agree with this conclusion does not really detract from the overall value.


Disclaimer: I have not given Feeney's book as thorough a reading as Schoonmaker's.

Feeney's book is more a collection of essays geared towards how and what you want to consider as you develop as a player. He has a very good section on making the transition to the middle limits. He also covers issues like game preservation, something which I've don't recall seeing in modern poker literature (but which was a staple of the older style of lit).

Feeney has a very good section discussing the play of AQ and other "trobule" hands. There's a whole other wealth of information which escapes my memory at the present.

While both books give table specific type recomendations, Feeney's advice is the more immediate while Schoonmaker's is a bit more macro in theme. I would assume that Feeney would have the more immediate appeal and can be read in a more piecemeal way. Schoonmaker you really need to go front to back.

Feeney gives you the sense that he's a poker player with an academic bent whereas Schoonmaker fully admits that he prefers the human aspects of the game to playing more serious cards.

Both are very good reads and fit in very well with the pantheon of 2+2 lit. Think of each of these as being part of what you could imagine to be an unabridged version of Hold 'Em for Advanced Players. There's no reason to chose one over the other. Both offer value independantly.

[ILOVEPOKER929]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a bump coming from out of nowhere...

Tiny review below but here's what I'm looking for: My copy is missing pages 117 to 148. Was this something that 2+2 is aware of or is just my copy? I bought it at an airport bookstore so I can't take it back there. Any suggestions?

I just picked this one up while looking for a quick book for the airplane and it's got to be the most underated 2+2 book out there. Great essays on several topics. It's not really a strategy book, although it touches a little here and there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats funny, the same thing happened to me when I bought this book, but I was able to just return it to the bookstore and they replaced it with a new one.

[Mustafa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can someone please compare and contrast this book to Psychology of Poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

POP is primarily introspective. Dr. Schoonmaker has you look at yourself first, your motivations for playing and has you identify your playing style (LAG, TAG, LAP, TAP). He then reviews the pros and cons of that style and the strategic adjustments you'll need to make when playing against those who have given profiles.

One of the great strengths of the POP is Schoonmaker's overview of the traits needed to become a winning card player. I found it handy to hand it the the wife and have her make a judgement as to whether she felt I had the qualities Schoonmaker described. I would suggest any reader have a close friend give use that section for an external assesment. It is as useful a section as can be found in any poker book.

Schoonmaker's basic thesis is that a TAG is a winning player and he provides an avenue to emulate that style. That not everyone will agree with this conclusion does not really detract from the overall value.


Disclaimer: I have not given Feeney's book as thorough a reading as Schoonmaker's.

Feeney's book is more a collection of essays geared towards how and what you want to consider as you develop as a player. He has a very good section on making the transition to the middle limits. He also covers issues like game preservation, something which I've don't recall seeing in modern poker literature (but which was a staple of the older style of lit).

Feeney has a very good section discussing the play of AQ and other "trobule" hands. There's a whole other wealth of information which escapes my memory at the present.

While both books give table specific type recomendations, Feeney's advice is the more immediate while Schoonmaker's is a bit more macro in theme. I would assume that Feeney would have the more immediate appeal and can be read in a more piecemeal way. Schoonmaker you really need to go front to back.

Feeney gives you the sense that he's a poker player with an academic bent whereas Schoonmaker fully admits that he prefers the human aspects of the game to playing more serious cards.

Both are very good reads and fit in very well with the pantheon of 2+2 lit. Think of each of these as being part of what you could imagine to be an unabridged version of Hold 'Em for Advanced Players. There's no reason to chose one over the other. Both offer value independantly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the detailed response. I have already read one of these books and didn't come away as impressed as I had expected. I wanted to ensure that if I bought the other one, I wasn't getting the same type of read that I didn't enjoy the first time.