Customer Reviews

Mastering Hold'em and Omaha Poker

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book is misrepresented. It is not written by Mike Cappelletti and Mike Caro. It is written by Mike Cappelletti, with Caro sanitizing only the first half on Texas Hold'em. In the introduction Caro says he didn't touch the Omaha section, relieving it of his discipline and mathematical validation. This is a great disappointment for his insights into Omaha play would be invaluable, should he ever deign to share them. It's a major reason I bought the book, only to be let down.

Second, this book was twelve years old when it was published, even by the authors' admission. It is on limit Hold'em and Omaha, not no-limit / pot-limit. Twelve years ago - even five - limit was the most popular form of Texas Hold'em, and all books were only on how to play it. Today, no-limit has far surpassed limit, and it's hard to find a limit Omaha game. Even Omaha high-low is mostly played pot limit. (But if you want to see something funny, such as all 10 players in all the way to the river, sit in on a limit Omaha game. If you can find one.)

If you are interested in limit Hold'em and Omaha, this is possibly the best book I've seen. The instructions are clear, smart, and well founded. You will get a much better idea of what you're looking for, what you can expect, and what you're trying to accomplish for both games than poker books.

But whether in Europe or the US, Omaha has always been by far mostly played pot limit. It's even rather silly to play it otherwise. And despite the author's assertions that much of limit strategy can be transferred to no limit, there are significant differences.

This book is a disappointment for not giving accurate authorship nor admitted its limit limitation. The latter didn't matter 12 years ago, but matters a lot today.

But one little inset box on page 69 may make this book worth the price for many players: an operative definition of aggressive play.

All poker authors do the same thing: describe a tight entry strategy, then say, "But play aggressively." That's like saying, "Be happy," or, "Don't be mad." How do you "be" anything? Most of us can barely control what we do. If I could control my being I'd be a saint, or possibly a god.

In Super System 1, Doyle Brunson is at least a little more helpful. He adds, "But don't be foolish."

But in Mastering Hold'em and Omaha Poker, on page 69, Mike Caro tosses in a description to give the reader some idea of what is meant by these references to aggressive play. It's well worth reading.

this book seems to have really been written by mike cappelletti, and the impression otherwise is misleading, if not disingenuous. (though presumably there is some publishing rule which was followed to accomplish this? likewise, if, inconsistently with the text itself, caro and cappelletti actually did co-write the main text, that also should have been clarified.) what was written by caro are little "tidbits" in blocked greyed type. (caro's notes, while sparse relative to the text, appear to be worthwhile and are a bit more straightforward than the more enigmatic approach of the text's apparent true author.)

at the same time, caro's page sized charts of hand play seemed like a big waste of space. does one really need over half a page taken up solely by the blank side of every player's playing cards? also, figuring out the play of the hand on these over sized charts (explained as well in the appendix, but I urge you not to "cheat" and consult therein) could be looked at one of at least two ways. a bonus exercise in problem solving, or a pain in the buttockia. what makes it amusing is that it seems that the point of using a whole page to convey a hand lay out that could be easily conveyed in a fraction of the space, would be for the sake of simplicity and clarity, not the opposite.

the Hold em section is not reviewed here, since there are so many books on hold em, and so few on Omaha. that said, so far the Hold em section seems like a worthwhile read.

while the Omaha sections contain their share of stating the obvious type filler sentences, cappelletti also includes a large amount of the opposite; that is, advanced or thoughtful concepts expressed far more succinctly than perhaps many readers may like. however, the side result of this is that the book also, indirectly, gets one to think about the game a bit more as one tries to figure out what he may mean. (also, note that the book covers both Omaha, and Omaha hi low, which one would not necessarily get from the title.) while this may seem like a drawback, it may not be, particularly as the book is not written for beginner or neophyte Omaha play, and sometimes thinking about conclusions rather than just inadvertently trying to memorize or "learn" them, can be as, if not more productive.

thus, the author also presumes a lot of knowledge, including on hand selection. this last would seem to be reasonable, given that hand selection (and how to play those hands pre flop) is a fairly elementary concept, not a "master" concept. but on the other hand, many players do not seem to understand it in Omaha. (although that again may be semi purposeful or self reinforcing on their part, as many players, online at least, play hands that are so atrocious (which can be okay), and then over play them post flop to incorrect odds (which is not), that one wonders how they do not manage to bankrupt their roll. some in the so called tin foil hat club may more reasonably suspect that it is possible that this is because some online play may not in fact be truly random -- whether done purposefully or more likely by unacknowledged imperfections in the idea of computer generated randomness at certain levels of play (and/or whatever is being used as input data), a question that given the popularity of poker has seen surprisingly little erudite and COMPREHENSIVE, rather than incomplete and overly presumptive, analysis).

so if one can follow what cappelletti means, or, perhaps even better, at least figure something out which the reader thinks he may mean, there is a good bit of helpful and even advanced analysis in the book.

Another thing which cappelletti does which is somewhat unusual, and very helpful, is that he helps the reader think more about the overall situation and impressions, and how that might play into overall strategy as well as the play of individual hands. as a result, his analysis is not overly formulaic, but helps the reader not only to potentially absorb some interesting ideas, but learn to think about the game itself more broadly.

in sum, while this book, which by virtue of its double bifurcated subject approach only devotes about a quarter each to Omaha hi and Omaha hi low, may leave different readers with vastly different impressions, overall, it seems to be a worthwhile read for the non neophyte Omaha player.

one non poker point, which may seem picayune. but do poker authors sometimes not believe in editors? maybe certain types of grammatical or editing mistakes may lend a little salty coolness to poker books. but confusing "than" and "then" is not among them. while these terms get botched on occasion (or inadvertently when in a hurry, but "then," if one is in a hurry this may be more productive "than," as with many grammatical errors, taking the time to edit), to make this mistake in a published book is petty sloppy. while cappelletti's book seems to be worthwhile and add to the overall quality of information and thought on this game, there are a lot of crap books out there on almost every subject, written by seemingly anybody and everybody with an opinion. not that this is necessarily bad, as what is "good" is ultimately subjective, and it should be this way at least when it comes to opportunity (although a lot of trash, particularly in other subject areas, most notably politics, tends to cover up far better AND MORE ACCURATE material). but what is not subjective is editing for basic mistakes. and this book makes a pretty bad one.