Cards by Maxwell isn't very good

[chessforlife]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the subject matter of the book went totally over your head. The book is only about a pro because the player "thinks" he's a pro. His plays are only good because the player "thinks" his plays are good. This is not a book on how to play correctly. It is a book about kid in his late 20s, full of cockyness, thinking he knows it all, and willing to put everything on the line. Maybe this is why he borrows money? Maybe this is why he is always broke?

If you wanted a book on how to play poker correctly, this isn't it. If you wanted a book about a professional making millions of dollars because he "plays correctly," this isn't it. If you wanted a book about a TRUE professional poker player, this isn't it.

New (and old) players to the game will relate to the player in this book in almost every way. Maybe we you used to think or play like him at some point, or perhaps you still do. Either way, there is truth to the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. the point. It's a novel. I'm somewhat stunned how many people are missing this most basic point. This is a story of a card player that is both unique, yet at the same time is totally typical. He's a player with strong and weak points. **Spoilers* If you remember, he states "I think my technical play sucks... my big talent is reading people."

So what are you so suprised about?

But I'd say that he plays many good plays as well. Did you get to the part when he folds bottom set with the rag-rag- jack no flush board?

I feel like quoting different passages from the book, but I'm too lazy.

The point is that I find this book to be quite brave and, maybe, brilliant. I'd need to get a hold of an interview of the author.

But, the fact is that the kid starts, and ends broke. (HINT HINT.)

And I'd postulate that this is a coming of age book about a young adult healing from a missed girlfriend, a family and society that doesn't accept him, and his learning to accept himself with all his flaws... all subtlely behind a poker framework

Thye more I think about it, the higher this book creeps up my list.

Are any of you feeling this way... that you like the book more as days go by after you've read it?

[wyrd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the subject matter of the book went totally over your head. The book is only about a pro because the player "thinks" he's a pro. His plays are only good because the player "thinks" his plays are good. This is not a book on how to play correctly. It is a book about kid in his late 20s, full of cockyness, thinking he knows it all, and willing to put everything on the line. Maybe this is why he borrows money? Maybe this is why he is always broke?

If you wanted a book on how to play poker correctly, this isn't it. If you wanted a book about a professional making millions of dollars because he "plays correctly," this isn't it. If you wanted a book about a TRUE professional poker player, this isn't it.

New (and old) players to the game will relate to the player in this book in almost every way. Maybe we you used to think or play like him at some point, or perhaps you still do. Either way, there is truth to the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. the point. It's a novel. I'm somewhat stunned how many people are missing this most basic point. This is a story of a card player that is both unique, yet at the same time is totally typical. He's a player with strong and weak points. **Spoilers* If you remember, he states "I think my technical play sucks... my big talent is reading people."

So what are you so suprised about?

But I'd say that he plays many good plays as well. Did you get to the part when he folds bottom set with the rag-rag- jack no flush board?

I feel like quoting different passages from the book, but I'm too lazy.

The point is that I find this book to be quite brave and, maybe, brilliant. I'd need to get a hold of an interview of the author.

But, the fact is that the kid starts, and ends broke. (HINT HINT.)

And I'd postulate that this is a coming of age book about a young adult healing from a missed girlfriend, a family and society that doesn't accept him, and his learning to accept himself with all his flaws... all subtlely behind a poker framework

Thye more I think about it, the higher this book creeps up my list.

Are any of you feeling this way... that you like the book more as days go by after you've read it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just as I said there is truth to the book. The way he plays NL cash games (aggressive, pot sized bets) is typical of Doyle brunson style. It borders on wrecklessness, but works so well because it forces your opponent to make all-in or fold decisions. Also, the advice on THE most important part of being a poker professional is dead on. It's not the cards, it's not the skill, it's the bankroll management.

In any case, I believe the strength and brilliance of the book is the lessons that the kid goes through. Did he learn from him mistakes? Well, I'll people read the book and find out.

[wyrd]

I will admit that they could have done a bit better proof reading the book. But then again I'm used to typos after reading some other poker books (HOH2 has a lot, for example), so it didn't really bother me.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the advice on THE most important part of being a poker professional is dead on. It's not the cards, it's not the skill, it's the bankroll management.


[/ QUOTE ]

Proper order of importance:

1. the cards
2. The skill
3. bankroll management

not the other way around. I'd rather be lucky than good.

[mattw]

[ QUOTE ]
Proper order of importance:

1. the cards
2. The skill
3. bankroll management

not the other way around. I'd rather be lucky than good.

[/ QUOTE ]

the order is correct on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the most important. without bankroll, the first two are immaterial. luck runs out, stupidity doesnt.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Proper order of importance:

1. the cards
2. The skill
3. bankroll management

not the other way around. I'd rather be lucky than good.


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



the order is correct on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the most important. without bankroll, the first two are immaterial. luck runs out, stupidity doesnt.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong.

If I am very skillful, but extremely unlucky, I am in huge trouble, whereas if I am extremely lucky but minimally skillful, I could probably do very well. Anyone can get lucky and win a huge tournament with first price $$$ amount higher than they could lose back in a lifetime of buy-ins.

to see why bankroll management is less important than skill or luck, ask yourself this:

who would be most likely to go broke, a skilled player with 10 tournament buy-ins, an extremely lucky player with 10 tournament buy ins, or a very bad player with 100 tournament buy ins?

The very skilled player would probably go broke with 10 tournament buy ins. large MTTs have huge variance and coming in out of the money is the norm.
The extremely lucky player would suck out enough times to make some final tables and take down a first place finish or two. They could easily continue to play on that money for the rest of their lives even with a modestly negative ROI like 10%.

As for the bad player with plently of money, he is a sure thing to go broke unless he learns how to play well or gets extremely lucky.

[ewile]

Got my copy today...I'll report back in a couple of weeks or so with my thoughts. Looking forward to reading it though.

[fyodor]

Just finished this last night. wyrd nicely sums up most of what I’m about to type so skip back up to his first post in this thread for Cliff notes.

First to address SNOWBALL138’s opening post, unless I’m misreading it, you seem to be complaining about the strategy in a work of fiction. This guy Mike (Blue) is far from the best player in the world. Many of his comments and plays are out of frustration. To dismiss the book because the hero plays/thinks suboptimally, brings to mind deacsoft's thread. As others have noted, the book is filled with typos. In this way only is it a lot like a 2+2 book.

I do have a problem with a couple chapters and the Afterword. On the plane ride back from France, Mike tells us in romantic tones about the exploits of Puggy, Amarillo, Doyle, etc. Stuff we have already read, too many times. It just detracts from the character study that is the bulk of the book. The Afterword too is just so much slobbering on how the game has changed. If ‘change’ is such a bad word buddy, please substitute ‘evolved’.

Ryan’s speech on bankroll management in the final chapter comes off as hitting the reader over the head with something that has been obvious since Chapter 1. Through the entire book I am not wondering if Mike will go broke; I’m wondering when he will go broke. In AC before he even gets to Paris? Whenever his entire roll resides in his front pocket? Every time he sits down at a table the end is oh so close.

It’s this on the edge, disaster could come on the next street scenario that kept me turning pages. I was never hoping for him to win at life. He is too much of an egotistical [censored] to be likeable. He looks down on pretty much everyone who sits at the same table as him. He believes he’s god’s gift to poker, yet he often plays like [censored]. Sometimes he knows and acknowledges it, and sometimes he is oblivious.

Poker is this guy’s life. He isn’t living; he simply exists, barely surviving. He rarely (never?) feels alive away from the table. The skeleton of the book is nothing more than a list of hands he gets dealt:

“Next hand 6-8.
J-6.
7-9 spades...”

The flesh is the ones he gets involved in.

He plays his rushes and his downswings the same way. Till the end. Is there a lesson to glean from all this? Maybe for Kurosh.

If ‘Cards’, as chessforlife postulates, is a coming of age book, I believe it is wholly unintentional. I read it as the narrative of a one-dimensional life.

Obviously this book is no Crime and Punishment. It’s closer to a high schooler’s attempt at C&P. But it’s still a fun and easy read despite all the faults.