Positively Fifth Street: Confessions of a fish

[AaronBrown]

I loved this book. I didn't read it for poker-playing advice.

Number one, McManus is a great writer. Open the book to any page, and pick a sentence. You'll find words put together in ways that make you think. It's not a book to skim, you should read it slowly and savor the unusual turns of phrase and order of narration.

Number two, McManus was a human poker player. He wasn't a cheat or a mindreader or a juvenile fantasy or a mythic wonder. He ate, slept, lied to his wife, loved his daughter, wanted a lap dance but was ashamed of it, and played poker. He had contempt for liars and murderers, and respect for liars and gamblers. Poker wasn't a casual recreation for him, but a real passion. There aren't many books about human poker players, by writers good enough to communicate both humanity and poker.

De gustibus non est disputandum as we used to say in Rome. If you didn't like the book, you didn't like it. But do you like any good literature? That's not supposed to be a put-down, some people like literature, some people don't. If you don't, it's not fair to single out McManus. And are you interested in real poker players? Again, if you're not, you're not, but it's not McManus' fault.

If you like literature and are interested in human poker players, then I'm surprised you didn't like this book.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
I loved this book. I didn't read it for poker-playing advice.

Number one, McManus is a great writer. Open the book to any page, and pick a sentence. You'll find words put together in ways that make you think. It's not a book to skim, you should read it slowly and savor the unusual turns of phrase and order of narration.

Number two, McManus was a human poker player. He wasn't a cheat or a mindreader or a juvenile fantasy or a mythic wonder. He ate, slept, lied to his wife, loved his daughter, wanted a lap dance but was ashamed of it, and played poker. He had contempt for liars and murderers, and respect for liars and gamblers. Poker wasn't a casual recreation for him, but a real passion. There aren't many books about human poker players, by writers good enough to communicate both humanity and poker.

De gustibus non est disputandum as we used to say in Rome. If you didn't like the book, you didn't like it. But do you like any good literature? That's not supposed to be a put-down, some people like literature, some people don't. If you don't, it's not fair to single out McManus. And are you interested in real poker players? Again, if you're not, you're not, but it's not McManus' fault.

If you like literature and are interested in human poker players, then I'm surprised you didn't like this book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I enjoyed the book too. However, it became apparent that McManus was a huge fish at poker by some of the plays described by OP.

At one point in a satellite, he gets it all in and says his foe has 12 outs twice when he clearly has 16 outs twice.

Hand reading mistakes like these combined with poor play yielding a final table at the WSOP goes to prove one thing:

"Donkaments."

[mshalen]

Am I the only one who found the reporting of the murder trial interesting? I enjoyed the book and am puzzled at the reactions people are having. The book is not a "How to play poker" book so who cares if he played poorly or got lucky at the WSOP.

[AaronBrown]

I'm sorry, but you young kids have no idea. Let gramps tell you a story from the stone age. This is the final hand of the 1973 WSOP championship, between Pug Pearson ($85,000) and Johnny Moss ($45,000). Blinds are $500/$1,000 but the dealer posted the small blind in those days.

Pug is dealer and gets A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. Moss bets $1,000 and Pug calls. He says later that he would have raised with A7o to force Moss out of the pot, but with the suited hand he wanted to play. Modern players know there is only a 2% advantage heads up with A7s versus A7o (59% versus 57% against a random hand) but this was 1973. Pug calls.

The flop comes 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. Pug says he wants Moss to bet or raise, so he can reraise. He says he can't check, because if Moss has a great hand, he'll check. But this is crazy. If Moss has a great hand, Pug doesn't want to raise him. Anyway, Pug bets $1,500, Moss raises, Pug goes all-in and Moss calls.

At this stage, Pug's hopes are an Ace and a four-flush. Moss has bet or raised at every opportunity, and called an all-in raise. So you or I would wish we had played this hand differently. But not Pug. He says, "The only way Johnny can have the best of it is to have two pair or trips." Uh, Pug, you don't have a pair. He doesn't need two pair or trips to beat you. Anyway, he could easily have two pair or trips. He could have started with QJ or QQ or JJ or 33. Those all seem likely hands for his betting.

David Spanier asked Pug, doesn't Moss have the edge if he's got a Queen? "No! He's got the worst hand with one pair," Pug replies. He tells David there are 45 cards left in the deck, with 9 spades and 3 aces. That's 12 cards and with two left to deal, that's 24 chances out of 45, so he's about 6 to 5 to win.

Okay, let's take this apart. First of all, there are 47 cards Pug hasn't seen, he can't assume Moss has no Aces or spades. While a spade is almost certainly an out, an Ace may not be. Moss could have an Ace with a higher kicker, or he might get another pair or a set.

Next, you can't just double your outs because that double counts the times when you get spades or Aces on both the turn and the river. The real chance of getting at least one spade or Ace is 45%, not 24/45 = 53%. Finally, 24 to 21 is not 6 to 5.

As it happened, Moss was holding K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and didn't fill his straight. Why would he go all-in with 8 outs and a flush possibility for Pug even if he gets the straight? As far as I know, no one asked him that.

I'm sure all you guys would read this and tell me these were the worst players you ever saw, and you could win easily at that table. I tell you it's not true. I played with both of them, and they were very, very good. Put them in a modern cardroom or on-line site and they'd take a little while to catch on to the improvements in the game, but they'd be solid pros. Maybe not champions anymore, but very, very good.

The lessons? First, you can't compare across eras. Everything was different, even as recently as when McManus got to the final WSOP table. Winners are winners. The level of play gets better, but winners can keep up.

Second, knowing the odds and recommended plays is only part of poker. The talents that got Pug and Moss to the final hand, and the things that get you to final tables today, aren't taught in math class.

Third, it's almost impossible to write about poker in a way that communicates what really happened in the hand. I tell people you can't analyze a hand from a report, you had to be there. You had to see the last dozen hands, feel the mood, know the situation.

Finally, a lot of the guys who write authoritative accounts of hands, with the odds figured exactly and every possibility analyzed; can't play that way. If you judged poker players by how confidently they write, you would be surprised by who walks away with the money at the end of the session. McManus' book is honest, not confident. He'll never seem as good as a cardboard hero with no doubts.

I've never played McManus, but he has a respectable tournament record even without the WSOP final table. I suspect he's pretty good, but he might not be. His book doesn't prove anything one way or the other about that.

I did care about the murder trial, and his personal trials and everything else in the book. But the poker was good too. Maybe the hands won't make the poker analysts hall of fame, but I felt I was looking over his shoulder during the tournament (and other times as well). That's what I love about the book.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but you young kids have no idea. Let gramps tell you a story from the stone age. This is the final hand of the 1973 WSOP championship, between Pug Pearson ($85,000) and Johnny Moss ($45,000). Blinds are $500/$1,000 but the dealer posted the small blind in those days.

Pug is dealer and gets A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. Moss bets $1,000 and Pug calls. He says later that he would have raised with A7o to force Moss out of the pot, but with the suited hand he wanted to play. Modern players know there is only a 2% advantage heads up with A7s versus A7o (59% versus 57% against a random hand) but this was 1973. Pug calls.

The flop comes 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. Pug says he wants Moss to bet or raise, so he can reraise. He says he can't check, because if Moss has a great hand, he'll check. But this is crazy. If Moss has a great hand, Pug doesn't want to raise him. Anyway, Pug bets $1,500, Moss raises, Pug goes all-in and Moss calls.

At this stage, Pug's hopes are an Ace and a four-flush. Moss has bet or raised at every opportunity, and called an all-in raise. So you or I would wish we had played this hand differently. But not Pug. He says, "The only way Johnny can have the best of it is to have two pair or trips." Uh, Pug, you don't have a pair. He doesn't need two pair or trips to beat you. Anyway, he could easily have two pair or trips. He could have started with QJ or QQ or JJ or 33. Those all seem likely hands for his betting.

David Spanier asked Pug, doesn't Moss have the edge if he's got a Queen? "No! He's got the worst hand with one pair," Pug replies. He tells David there are 45 cards left in the deck, with 9 spades and 3 aces. That's 12 cards and with two left to deal, that's 24 chances out of 45, so he's about 6 to 5 to win.

Okay, let's take this apart. First of all, there are 47 cards Pug hasn't seen, he can't assume Moss has no Aces or spades. While a spade is almost certainly an out, an Ace may not be. Moss could have an Ace with a higher kicker, or he might get another pair or a set.

Next, you can't just double your outs because that double counts the times when you get spades or Aces on both the turn and the river. The real chance of getting at least one spade or Ace is 45%, not 24/45 = 53%. Finally, 24 to 21 is not 6 to 5.

As it happened, Moss was holding K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and didn't fill his straight. Why would he go all-in with 8 outs and a flush possibility for Pug even if he gets the straight? As far as I know, no one asked him that.

I'm sure all you guys would read this and tell me these were the worst players you ever saw, and you could win easily at that table. I tell you it's not true. I played with both of them, and they were very, very good. Put them in a modern cardroom or on-line site and they'd take a little while to catch on to the improvements in the game, but they'd be solid pros. Maybe not champions anymore, but very, very good.

The lessons? First, you can't compare across eras. Everything was different, even as recently as when McManus got to the final WSOP table. Winners are winners. The level of play gets better, but winners can keep up.

Second, knowing the odds and recommended plays is only part of poker. The talents that got Pug and Moss to the final hand, and the things that get you to final tables today, aren't taught in math class.

Third, it's almost impossible to write about poker in a way that communicates what really happened in the hand. I tell people you can't analyze a hand from a report, you had to be there. You had to see the last dozen hands, feel the mood, know the situation.

Finally, a lot of the guys who write authoritative accounts of hands, with the odds figured exactly and every possibility analyzed; can't play that way. If you judged poker players by how confidently they write, you would be surprised by who walks away with the money at the end of the session. McManus' book is honest, not confident. He'll never seem as good as a cardboard hero with no doubts.

I've never played McManus, but he has a respectable tournament record even without the WSOP final table. I suspect he's pretty good, but he might not be. His book doesn't prove anything one way or the other about that.

I did care about the murder trial, and his personal trials and everything else in the book. But the poker was good too. Maybe the hands won't make the poker analysts hall of fame, but I felt I was looking over his shoulder during the tournament (and other times as well). That's what I love about the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. If you have 12 true outs twice after the cards are turned over, you are 47% to hit one of them by the river - not 45%. Agreed re: faultiness of "double the outs" method.

2. A7s is 61% against random. A7o is a shade less than 59% vs. random.

3. The play of the hand you describe happens frequently heads up in Sit and Gos and MT Tournaments. It's not some far out way to play.

As for Moss' call, he likely read Pug for a nut flush draw and knew that an A was not an out for Pug. Moss had any nonspade K, T, A or 9 to win the hand. That's 10 outs twice or 40% equity. Even if he read Pug for TPTK and no flush draw, he has any A, K, or 9 for 10 outs twice. After he raised on the flop and Pug went all in, Moss was priced in to call.

I am sure neither Pug nor Moss EVER folded pocket tens UTG in a tourney, or unnecessarily called more than half their stack on the bubble with 98s.

[bookish]

[ QUOTE ]
Number two, McManus was a human poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. This book explains better than any other I've read, *why* we all play poker. It captures perfectly the rush and is as close as I'll come to experiencing the WSOP.

Not only have I read this book several times, but I bought my poker playing brother a copy for Christmas.

Its not a poker strategy book and doesn't pretend to be, but it tells two interesting stories really well.

[Off Duty]

[ QUOTE ]
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?"



[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I do.

The way he describes his play is part and parcel out of Cloutier and McEvoy. JM tells TJ the same thing (in so many words!) when he gets moved to TJ's table. Hell, even Cloutier makes the same observation when he responds to JM's play with AQo by commenting "I didn't teach you do do that!".

But that's not the point.

I think McManus is a great writer with wonderful style. I came across his book because I read Michael Konik's books and he mentioned McManus (jealously, if I recall) and I decided to check it out because I too enjoy reading Harpers and the New Yorker, strictly because I find it to be well written. On the other hand, I find Micheal Craig's writing style to be, um, uninteresting. In fairness, I enjoyed the content of Craig's book, just not its delivery.

FWIW, I'm the only human being on the planet who started watching Monday Night Football because Dennis Miller would drop a Sylvia Plath comment from time to time and I knew I was the only one it the bar who understood it. I blame it all on Business School. Plus, I’m fairly snarky myself.

[SNOWBALL]

The 89s hand was shockingly bad.

[LordBaldrick]

I finished reading PFS a couple of weeks ago just after reading The Biggest Game in Town. I enjoyed the story if not his writing style. As for his technical poker ability, who cares, it was a story not a how-to-play-guide!

One more thing, to those of you who thought the OP's review was good - seek professional help!

[GiantBuddha]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I'm the only human being on the planet who started watching Monday Night Football because Dennis Miller would drop a Sylvia Plath comment from time to time and I knew I was the only one it the bar who understood it.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The instant replay rule in football makes the infield fly rule in baseball look like Hemingway." Miller was the best.

Thank you AaronBrown for laying the smackdown on this "review". The poker analysis in the book was weak, for sure, but it was refreshingly first person, as opposed to the omniscient view many put forth.

To the OP, if you get your you'res mixed up, don't write book reviews. Positively Fifth Street is a well written novel about a murder and a poker tournament. Do you get this outraged every time someone lays a bad beat on you? That's poker, man. And McManus's self deprecating sense of humor regarding his own play clearly escaped you.