Just finished reading Cards by Maxwell.

[acekingoffsuit]

[ QUOTE ]

In one hand, he's 3 betting garbage because he's "Playing his rush"..., A huge percent of the book is just narrating hands, so its very hard to ignore how stupidly he analyzes hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

you've never played a bad hand because you were rushing?

and i think there's a lot of excellent analysis, more than bad analysis. but i admit there is some bad analysis... and that was my point on my long post. I think Maxwell really knew what he was doing with the book. I think it's dramatic irony (if i may pull a highschool English term out). And the charachter admits at moments that he's playing badly. At one point in France he says that he's embarrased at his play a couple days ago.

See what i'm getting at? The book is deeper than it first seems. its not a how-to book, it's an account of how the burnout poker life ACTUALLY IS.

[chessforlife]

[ QUOTE ]
i found King of a Small World to be valuable enough to share with the readers of this thread, and I would bet decent money that most people would find more value in it that Cards

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when does one need to seek "value" in a novel? I look forward to reading "King of a small World" but i'm not going to need to insult "Cards" to like it. I can semi understand critically comparing instructional books, but besides for amusement, isn't battling one story against another illogical, and missing the point?

I don't know what this talk is about the "Cards" charachter analysing poorly. I think it's clear that he's a strong player when he wants / needs to be. And I'd honestly say I learned some good things from his play. His inconsistency is the driving force of the book. I was continually excited to see if he'd play right or screw things up. Time and again he admits he misplayed hands, and time and again he makes great plays. Gee, this guy is like...myself and everybody i know. What a coincidence. Would you rather have the main charachter a vanilla Matt Damon character? I liked Rounders. I'm just making a point.

While I agree with AKo about the book being deep, my question is: isn't it obvious that the author chose to make his charachter flawed? And doesn't it prove to be the best decision? Are people just not getting this point? The main reason the book is so cool is because of the flawed charachter. The guy is so frustrated with his poker life, and he's so emotional, he can't see straight. That's his problem. That's the charachter. Is Goodfellas a bad movie because Joe Peshi's charachter makes a donkish decision to kill a made man, which leads to his own killing? Of course not. It's the plot.

What some of you find as shortcomings, I think are the best aspects of the book, and what will make it a classic.

I thought these points were obvious though.

[acekingoffsuit]

OK guys, it seems that this book is sparking a lot of confusion and controversy. Specifically the debate is stemming from the quality of the charachter's play.

I'll put my neck on the line and state that I think, WHEN THE CHARACHTER ISN'T ACTING EMOTIONALLY, he's a talented poker player.

So let's delve into examples.

Now, I'm going to start a thread about this at POKER THEORY, so come join me, and let's get to the bottom of it. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[ewile]

I've read about the first 50 pages. I'm enjoying it, but this guy is a train wreck. It's painful to read. The Coke fueled night with Saul...splashing the pot...taunting the dealers and the other players and leaving with $12.
Sad.

[Peter McDermott]

I thought I'd posted to this thread a couple of weeks ago. It seems I must have forgotten to hit the send button.

I enjoyed it, but that's because I'll read any poker book obsessively. I found the character infuriating. He goes on about being a great player, but claims he's never read a poker book -- well, I guess that explains some of the hands that he plays. In reality, I think that's true of the character but not of the author because some of his anecdotes were almost certainly derived from other poker books, but that's a nitpick.

The thing that frustrated me most though, was the lack of a decent proofreader. A stick of french bread is a baguette, not a bagget. The amount of money you bet is a stake, not a steak. And there were dozens of such clangers.

As poker novels go, I didn't think it was as well written as either Jesse May's Shut Up and Deal, or Rick Moody's King of a Small World. However, that said, I'd recommend it to anyone extremely interested in poker. He's at his best when he's writing about the poker mileux, or about his own obsessive nature, but there's actually too much about the hands he plays and folds for anyone who isn't an obsessive poker player to get much from it.

[SNOWBALL]

Anyone in the LA area want to buy my copy for $1?
This book sucks.

[chessforlife]

I emailed silentlyricproductions.com inquiring about the typos. Check out the reply.

"Thank you for your query.

Regarding Cards, we sustained an unfortunate incident with our proofreader. After proofing the manuscript, he accidentally sent back not his corrected version, but the original version containing about 30 errors. Naturally he is no longer with us.

Because this product was not yet proven, we declined to spend additional resources on a second printing until it established a successful track record. On a positive note, sales are accelerating faster than anticipated, so a second printing may occur as early as this summer.

If this book continues its success, then these first un-proofed books could be collector’s items, as they do manifest the author’s raw draft.

Sincerely,

Chris Ensington
Silent Lyric Productions, Inc.”

Here endith the mystery. i figured there must have been an explanation. I bet Jonathan Maxwell was pissed when he came across the typos in the finished book, but I think if I wrote a book and was sending it to agents and publishers, I would have had a friend or someone proofread it for me anyway. It is interesting to see the errors, like you’re in his head.

[chessforlife]

"This was the best poker novel I've read, and I have close to 80 books on poker."

"This book sucks. Does someone want to buy my book for $1?"

Isn't there a quote that a book is genius when there are both extreme positive and negative feelings about it?

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
WHEN THE CHARACHTER ISN'T ACTING EMOTIONALLY, he's a talented poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]


The key to being a good poker player is to not get emotional so frequently.

Your statement is almost akin to saying, "he's a winning player when he's getting good cards."


While only having read this thread it sounds like the content might be slightly reminiscnet of that classic 'Shut up and Deal' by Jesse May...which wasn't the greatest pice of literature I ever stumbled upon but somehow I actually DID find it to be an enjoyable read.


I don't think I'm going to be rushing to the store to pick up this one though.
It sounds kind of stupid (paying 'the rush', playing badly while in France and knowing it).

The enthusiastic reviews in this thread seem a bit forced to me as well.

[acekingoffsuit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WHEN THE CHARACHTER ISN'T ACTING EMOTIONALLY, he's a talented poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

The key to being a good poker player is to not get emotional so frequently.

Your statement is almost akin to saying, "he's a winning player when he's getting good cards."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a logical comparison, because every single player can win with good cards, but only a minority of poker players have poker talent. The charachter in this book (I think) analyses well most of the time. And does roll up his bankroll to $30,000

Although I do agree with you that not getting emotional is key to poker success.

I would like to debate his analysis with you guys, but it seems everybody is too lazy.

I suppose I'm one of the biggest fans of this book. I think it's because it hits home with me. I have many of this guy's problems, I'm just not arrogant about it.
But I have left this book by my computer, and while my computer is loading, crashing, etc, or when the TV is on a commercial, I keep opening the book to any page, and find myself continuing to get a rush from it. I must have read it twice already because of this.