Are these \"Card Player\" articles getting more elmentary?
 

Or am I getting more knowledgable.
From the latest issue:

McEvoy article

Sexton article

Re: Are these \"Card Player\" articles getting more elmentary?
 

McEvoy article was ridiculous. QJs is an insta-raise there for me. Sexton piece was fine fluff.

Re: Are these \"Card Player\" articles getting more elmentary?
 

[ QUOTE ]
McEvoy article was ridiculous. QJs is an insta-raise there for me. Sexton piece was fine fluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misread something.
McEvoy writes it's a raise, but he should've raised a bit more, maybe.

Imo both of the articles a pretty standard and beginner orientated.

Re: Are these \"Card Player\" articles getting more elmentary?
 

Cardplayer has really adapted to the environment well. People who know a lot will get less from the magazine these days as they have to "dummy" up to reach the broader audience they now attract. Obviously the magazine is no longer just geared to those guys who used to pick up a copy at the casino on the weekends.

Re: Are these \"Card Player\" articles getting more elmentary?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Cardplayer has really adapted to the environment well. People who know a lot will get less from the magazine these days as they have to "dummy" up to reach the broader audience they now attract. Obviously the magazine is no longer just geared to those guys who used to pick up a copy at the casino on the weekends.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does seem like they have dumbed it down. Maybe for the fish who read it in the casino. Some of the other magazines are even more beginner oriented.

Re: Are these \"Card Player\" articles getting more elmentary?
 

I have this issue...(McEvoy)

Eh, basically it's a whole page describing a completely non-intertesting hand, followed by... if you would've raised to 4x or 5x instead of 3x, you might have gotten him to fold the blind, but probably not... err the dude could've gotten that advice from posting a HH in the beginners forum of 2+2...

don't we want McEvoy to give us some expert analysis on interesting hands?

I don't know why i keep buying them, I have some kind of magazine addiction...

Re: Are these \"Card Player\" articles getting more elmentary?
 

Sexton's articles are worthless. I can't even remember the last good one he wrote. McEvoy's columns aren't that great either("someone's raised, i folded")I've need understood the "humor" column. Complete waste of paper. Varkoni and Keller usually write really dumbed down fluff.

In general i would agree that they have dumbed it down a bit recently. I also think alot of the hand histories talked about recently haven't been very interesting either.

However:

- Tannebaum's writes good stuff
- Matros's recent columns have been interesting (he talks about alot of stuff not covered elsewhere)
- I kinda enjoy Sebok's columns.(He's basically writing about the big games from a newcommer's perspective. He is very honest about all of the mistakes makes.
- I like that they've added book reviews.

Re: Are these \"Card Player\" articles getting more elmentary?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why i keep buying them, I have some kind of magazine addiction...

[/ QUOTE ]

I keep buying ALLIn and I keep wondering why myself...lol. I guess I'm addicted to magazines as well.

Re: Are these \"Card Player\" articles getting more elmentary?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why i keep buying them, I have some kind of magazine addiction...

[/ QUOTE ]

I keep buying ALLIn and I keep wondering why myself...lol. I guess I'm addicted to magazines as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Card Player" is not the worst. I read some of these in the poker rooms and a lot of the articles are so elementary. I guess they have to appeal to all the new fish.

"Card Player" seems to except crap from names like Sexton and Varkonyi, as did the NYTimes until recently from McManus.

Re: Are these \"Card Player\" articles getting more elmentary?
 

Cardplayer advertised a lot on NBC today in the championship of the PSI. They are really pushing themselves as the 'oldest and best poker magazine in America' (or something like that).
Advertising to a national audience like that just indicates that they will likely want to get more and more beginner-ish.



I read one of the Ask Fishman things.
The reader was confused as to whether his odds of hitting his flush-draw were changed because there is no burn-card online.
He said, "there are 10 players at the table and 3 community cards left, so 29 cards left. Now, do you have 9 of 29 cards that could help you or 9 of 28 cards because of a burn card. I guess what I'm asking is, do you count a burn-card like you would in a live game?"


Yes yes yes. It's a beginner's type column. But it's still embarassingly stupid in a supposedly high quality poker magazine.
It's not much better in the other mags though.

From a Q & A column with Freddy Deeb in Poker Players Magazine:

Q: Do you think dxrinking while playing is bad?
A: Very bad. Drinking is very bad when you are playing.

Q: Is the probability of getting pokcet 2's the same as getting pocket aces?
A: Yes, it's the same thing. A pair is a pair - the odds are the same. (thank god we had an expert like Deeb around to answer this complicated question for us).

Re: Are these \"Card Player\" articles getting more elmentary?
 

On my ship, Card Player magazines float around. I follow the magazine loosely. I think the magazine is becoming worse. I haven't given it too much thought, but I'd say the magazine is losing direction. It used to be a straightforward poker magazine, but in the past year or so it seems that the writers and publishers are trying too hard to please the audience, instead of just continuing to write solid articles. It seems to have lost focus.

Re: Are these \"Card Player\" articles getting more elmentary?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It used to be a straightforward poker magazine, but in the past year or so it seems that the writers and publishers are trying too hard to please the audience, instead of just continuing to write solid articles. It seems to have lost focus.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I no longer even look forward to getting my issue in the mail, and I'm considering not even renewing. Of course, I paid a LOT more for my subscription 2 1/2 years ago, but at least it had quality content. And what's with the photo gallery? Waste of trees if you ask me. I want quality, not quantity.

Anyway, like one other poster mentioned, there are still a few quality articles, but the rest just seems to fill space. I'll be reading the mag online for free from now on.

Re: Are these \"Card Player\" articles getting more elmentary?
 

Sklansky and Malmuth used to write for CardPlayer.

Now they don't.

That should tell you all you need to know about whether the articles actually were better a few years ago or not.

Re: Are these \"Card Player\" articles getting more elmentary?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Cardplayer has adapted to the environment well. People who know a lot will get less from the magazine these days as they have to "dummy" up to reach the broader audience they now attract.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Are these \"Card Player\" articles getting more elmentary?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Q: Is the probability of getting pokcet 2's the same as getting pocket aces?
A: Yes, it's the same thing. A pair is a pair - the odds are the same. (thank god we had an expert like Deeb around to answer this complicated question for us).


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, my friends and I have had heated debates about this. Now that Deeb has finally settled the age-old question, I feel like I can move on to even deeper poker subjects. Next topic to tackle, are you more likely to hit a flush if you are chasing hearts or spades. I'm pretty sure its hearts, but I would like a pro to confirm this.

Re: Are these \"Card Player\" articles getting more elmentary?
 

I'm not a top pro or anything...but I can confirm that the answer is, "It depends."

Do you see why?