Positively Fifth Street: Confessions of a fish

[good2cu]

[ QUOTE ]
Read it a couple times, enjoy it. I mostly skip all the binions murder stuff, even the first time.

No doubt he got very lucky to get that far, but who doesn't. I don't think he played terrible, he just got lucky a few times like everyone who goes that far. Atleast he was pretty humble in a weird way. He was absolutely the first person to point it out when he made a donkey play. I dont' think it was false humility, I think he knew he lacked discipline at the least and was constantly getting onto himself.

His treatment of Annie Duke rubbed me the wrong way, even if there is some truth to what he had to say (and there is), still don't think it was too professional.

Overall, he probably played about the same as a lot of us and probably thought a lot of the same things we would have, he just put those ugly thoughts onto paper instead of pushing them to the side and comnig up with something more respectable to say outloud.

[/ QUOTE ]

your wrong. you sir must also suck at poker. he misplays every hand in the book. most terribly. he makes a -10k in EV call on the bubble.

[gurgeh]

I wasn't a fan of the book's content, nor of the style. The "Bad Jim" chapter can just rot. The poker analysis is terrible (he even gets it wrong in one place), and I think he too often tries for a literary flourish where a more straightforward style would benefit the narrative.

But I often read people talk about an author, especially this one, being "condescending." I don't know what anyone means when they use this word, and it's so overused in obviously wrong places as to be almost totally useless. "This author uses big words I don't understand" and "This author writes long sentences" and "This author is boring" do not constitute "condescending."

[captain2man]

[ QUOTE ]
Very funny post. You should find a way to send it directly to him, though. Or to call him at night just to read it with a Darth Vador voice.
Anyway, McManus is a good writer, and I guess not that bad a player, considering his results : his (admitedly) lucky 5th place in 2000 accounts for only a third of his total tournament winnings. And last WSOP he was in the money 4 times...
http://www.pokerpages.com/players/pr...im-mcmanus.htm

Still, good post.

[/ QUOTE ]


I enjoyed the review as well - however - after looking at the link & checking out his record...ummm....does anyone participating in this thread have a record that even compares remotely to his?

He must be doing something right - this can't all be attributed to sheer luck, can it?

[BigBuffet]

I have enjoyed PFS, as well as Big Deal, Biggest Game in Town, Poker Nation and Take Me To The River. Haven't read The Banker, the Professor and the Suicide King yet, but I'll probably pick it up for a couple of $ on ebay.

PFS isn't worth your time and keen analysis. There's a lot of strategy books out there to criticize more than this novel. Go get em tiger [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[7n7]

If you're going to read it, check it out from your local library.

I saw one poster has read it a couple of times but I doubt most others won't.

[adsman]

It's one thing to buy a Cloutier/McEvoy book.
It's another thing to read it and not have your brain leek out your ears.
It's another thing to like it.
It's another thing to base your play on their advice.
It's another thing to travel to the WSOP with their book as your own personal companion.
But it's another thing entirely to then write your own book and in it admit to all of the above.

I think that the review was too restrained.

[Off Duty]

If you're reading this book for poker content, you're reading it for the wrong reasons.

In a nutshell:

JM goes to Vegas to cover the Binion murder trial and winds up playing way over his roll in typical BBV style. He is a weak tight nit but luckboxes his way to fifth anyway. While he's there he gets to eat dinner with Jesus and winds up actually getting some work done.

Standard BBV and a fun read if you can get over JM.

Incidentally, he's recently written a book about the fast forward medical care that they offer at the Mayo clinic for executives and other people who are willing to pay for it. When I heard him interviewed on the local NPR affiliate it was all I could do to keep from calling in and asking him about calling Elix with jack high.

[bbbushu]

[ QUOTE ]
It's one thing to buy a Cloutier/McEvoy book.
It's another thing to read it and not have your brain leek out your ears.
It's another thing to like it.
It's another thing to base your play on their advice.
It's another thing to travel to the WSOP with their book as your own personal companion.
But it's another thing entirely to then write your own book and in it admit to all of the above.

I think that the review was too restrained.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MicroBob]

I understand that it's not a strategy book and wasn't written as such.
we are supposed to be in his mind through his play of the hands, mistakes and all.


So I'm really not sure what to make of it.
It's just very distracting for me to be reading stuff about how awesome and smart he thinks he is because he's not going to play TT UTG and then patting himself on the back when 2 or 3 other players get aggressive pre-flop and he would have missed the flop anyway.

All I can think is, "really? are you this super weak-tight?"

His hand-reading on who he thinks HAS to have a flush and stuff like that is distractingly bad too.
Kind of like Dick Van Patten's broadcast of the WSOP where he believes that one of the players might have quads or something.

Perhaps it's his general attitude. I'll have to read more to see.

I also think it has to do with the approach to the games by many players then that I'm simply not familiar with.
It does seem the game has changed somewhat. Possibly thanks to hole-card cams and so many people being able to see how aggressive the tourney-pros sometimes play their hands (hey Dick Van Patten, you don't have to have the absolute nuts to raise).

So I think the poker 'generational-gap' (pre-Moneymaker/WPT boom players vs. post-Moneymaker/WPT boom) is significant.


I do think I can still enjoy content even when I disagree with the strategy much of the time. Rounders is one example.
But sometimes Jim's analysis of his hands just gets to me and I'm really not sure if that's my fault or his.

[smbruin22]

i agree about getting this book from the library.... got mine on sale at 50% off, but i'd have preferred the library. will never look at it again. that banker, professor book too (which i did get from the library)