5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Still very much worth reading, October 9, 2006
This review is from: Poker Essays (Paperback)
This is the first collection of Malmuth's essays, most of which were originally written for Card Player Magazine beginning in the eighties, and rewritten or at least touched up for this book which originally came out in 1996. For the professional poker player they are something close to a must read because of the range of Malmuth's interests and because of his thoroughly professional approach.
Malmuth does not pretend to be a world class player and most of his experience comes from middle level cash games prior to the rise of the tournament phenomenon. But make no mistake about it, Malmuth knows poker. Not only is he the author of perhaps a dozen books on the subject, but he is well known and respected among professionals. Typically he played $20-$40 Hold'em and Seven Card Stud games in Las Vegas for many years and perhaps still does. I must have played with him some time before that in the Gardena clubs, but I don't recall meeting him. I have talked to regulars who have played with him, and they allow that he is a good, if unspectacular player who will definitely be a drain on your win rate.
The essays here concern some topics that are no longer of anything but historical interest, such as lowball and draw poker, spread limits, the old jackpot games in the Los Angeles area, and in general the atmosphere and conditions that prevailed in California and Las Vegas ten to twenty years ago. However, most of the book is still surprisingly relevant and even topical. Malmuth spends some serious ink on delineating the differences between seven card stud and hold'em, which skills are better applied to which game, and which game is juicier and why. He also enters the debate about which game--limit hold'em or no limit hold'em-requires more skill to play well. He supports the minority opinion that it is limit hold'em and he makes some very good arguments for that somewhat surprising opinion. Personally I think it's clear the limit hold'em requires more technical skill and knowledge, but no limit requires more hand- and player-reading skills, and more "gut."
What sets Malmuth apart from almost all other poker writers is his willingness to write about the nuts and bolts of the poker world. He opines on cardroom management, on which games should be spread and why, on tipping the dealer, on cardroom behavior, and he loves to dispel and refute poker myths and misinformation. He likes to quote (anonymously of course) from would-be poker authorities and tell you why he thinks they're wrong. But, like David Sklansky, Malmuth especially likes to write about poker strategy.
Some of the best essays in the book include:
"Common Seven Card Stud Errors." He gives 23, and I have to say I agree with all of them, although a few are fairly trivial like "Checking blind on the end when you have an obvious flush draw"--few good players would do that except as a play.
"Differences between Stud and Hold'em." He gives eleven differences including #6, "It is often correct to chase in stud."
"The Effect of a Maniac," which gives some nice ideas on how having a wild player in your game might effect it, e.g., maniacs in the game make the game harder to play, although they should increase your expectation (and your variance!).
"What You Can Make Playing Poker." Of course this is dated and does not apply to either tournaments or the Internet, and is clearly approximate. Still it is good for comparisons, such as the fact that Malmuth thinks that the good $10/$20 stud player, for example, can expect to make about the same as the good $10/$20 hold'em player.
"Bankroll requirements." There are actually several essays on this subject. I think Malmuth effectively nails it and probably gives the average reader more information and rationale than desired, but for the professional, this is probably the definitive word.
Also good are the essays on short-handed play and whether to play tight or loose and when.
There are some curiosities. The essay, "Are Poker Tournaments Dying?" did not predict the tournament boom fueled by television "lipstick" cameras and the Internet; and of course Malmuth is hardly to be criticized for not predicting something so surprising.
As in his (and Sklanky's) other books there are quizzes pertaining to good and bad play. The four here are selected from hands Malmuth actually played. As usual with such quizzes, opinions can differ. In particular, concerning the first hand, I think his opponent could have had, according to the way the hand developed, A7o or 85s or even pocket nines (to name three hands that would make Malmuth's conclusion that he should raise the river bet with his three sevens faulty). In fact, this hand is the sort that defies an entirely correct analysis. The fact that (apparently) his opponent did have A9 and was beaten, is only a sampling of one in the universe of possible situations fitting the facts as Malmuth relates them. I would have just called since the combined probability that the wild man was bluffing or had a better hand was greater than his having a hand that I could beat that he would actually call my raise with.
Malmuth is one of the intellectuals of poker, the kind of guy who would also fit in perfectly as an officer in a Poker Player's Association (note his essay, "Suggestions for Professional Players": don't slow-roll, don't lecture opponents, don't throw your cards at the dealer, etc.). He is intelligent, rational, and very much the middle level professional.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
You have to be kidding, November 14, 2007
This review is from: Poker Essays (Paperback)
This is a book that reflects the power of self-promotion.
As the author will (and repeatedly does) tell you, he is considered an expert on poker. For all I know, he may be one. Unfortunately, that expertise is not presented in this book, which constitutes a somewhat disjointed collection of essays that rarely reveal anything that a reasonably thoughtful player would not already have figured out.
The author's apparently-favorite words: "obviously" and "clearly" [often as the lead-in to a statement with superficial validity but having some subtle theoretical weakness]. Favorite phrase: "It seems like..." (or "it doesn't seem...") Favorite sentence: some variation on "As I wrote in my book [fill in name of other book by same author]."
The self promotion quickly wears thin, as his 41 (I hope I didn't miss any) references in the text to other books include 36 to those he, or sometime coauthors David Sklansky and Ray Zee, wrote. The list of recommended books in the appendix constitutes nine books, of which seven are by himself or those coauthors; more can be found in the supplemental list.
But this weakness would be tolerable if the book offered insights that would improve a typical reader's game. Unfortunately, it doesn't. His strategic recommendations are unsupported and often at odds with good high-level strategy; his opinions on win rate and bankroll may be correct but are unsupported by data or mathematical proof; his opinions on good and bad games and on player types are probably correct but not novel to anyone who has thought beyond the shallowest level about the game. He devotes considerable space to an argument that limit hold-em is a more complicated game than no limit, but the argument is based on an extremely superficial look at the intricacies of the latter game -- for all I know his conclusion is correct (though I disagree), but as with most of his opinions it is essentially unsupported herein.
Don't fall for the hype; don't buy this book just because you've heard of the author.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
