Matt Matros's book

[Macedon]

I haven't seen this book----"The Making of a Poker Player"----mentioned anywhere in this thread.

Am I the only one who thought this was a great book?

[sethypooh21]

I liked it a lot. Very 'well-written' from an aesthetic standpoint. An easy read, and you just might learn a little bit of poker on accident.

[nate1729]

I started a thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2406168&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1) that had some action a while back. See below.

--Nate

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2406168&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1

[Bluff Daddy]

i liked it, got it for 5 bucks and there was a thread about it b/c I read it and decided to check it out

[Macedon]

Nate, I stand corrected. Well written review; interesting thread.

[avatar77]

Yes..I read the book too and I really enjoyed it as well.

Interesting that he recommends Ken Warren's book for Hold'em..very interesting indeed.

[Jordan Olsommer]

Another vote in favor; excellent book. A modern version of Yardley's "Education of a Poker Player", except maybe minus half a point because Matros doesn't have any "player having a heart attack at the table" stories to share /images/graemlins/smile.gif. Definitely pick it up, though.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes..I read the book too and I really enjoyed it as well.

Interesting that he recommends Ken Warren's book for Hold'em..very interesting indeed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes - Matros is a RGP guy who apparently feels some sort of rivalry with 2+2 I guess. He makes some snide comments about 2+2 ("groupthink"), and makes some weird recommendations (Warren book).

Overall, however, the book is entertaining.

[AceHigh]

I didn't care for it. One of the problems with the book I felt is it can't decide if it's an instructional book or "story". For some reason I never like the poker "story" books, ( not Alvarez, not Holden, not McManus) so maybe it's just me.

Also, I thought he is a little close minded, he spouts he standard RGP stuff, -ARG is great, yada, yada (and where's Abdul in all this RGP talk? wasn't he the god of RGP in those days? I certainly thought so) and slams 2+2 about group think, etc. But there are thousands of posters on 2+2 and I think this is just an urban myth started because RGP has lost out/it's way. If you want to improve your poker nowadays, you come to 2+2 not RGP and it's not close. (He's not shy about putting a blurb from 2+2'er Greg Raymer on the cover, guess that kind of group think he can get behind)

[Randy Burgess]

Just shows how tastes differ. To me, it was poorly written, boring, and unenlightening. I thought it likely that it only got published because poker is such a hot topic at the moment.

To compare it to the Yardley book is an act of sacrilege! Yardley is dated, and he wasn't a professional writer, but he was a very smart man who'd done a lot of interesting things in his life. Nothing against Matros, but by comparison he's done very little.

[King Yao]

I liked it. Here was my review:

The Making of a Poker Player is basically a series of well thought-out, informative, interesting, and easy to read poker trip reports with a twinkle of poker theory thrown in. Through the different chapters, Matros writes about his poker experiences in his life, it could be called a poker-autobiography. As he tells his story, he adds in the rules and basic strategies of some games, such as Limit Texas Hold'em, No Limit Hold'em, Seven Card Stud, Omaha and Tournament poker. He also discusses some interesting ideas and theories (psychological, mathematical and game theory) in most of these chapters as it pertains to the different games. While it is impossible to do an in-depth study in any of these games through short chapters (each one would fill a lengthy book by themselves), that was clearly not Matros' goal in this book. It seems to me, that his goal was to entertain the reader (beginner or experienced player), throw out some poker ideas and make the book a good read. If you want a book on strategy for a particular game, this is not it. But if you want an entertaining, easy to read book that gives good insight into different poker games, then this a good one. I enjoyed it.

[Macedon]

You hit it perfectly King. Matt Matros isn't trying to write Supersystems, and he certainly isn't trying to "enlighten" anyone about poker theory or complex hold em strategy. He is merely telling a great story about his evolution as a poker player. I took it for what it was; that is, an enjoyable tale.

As for Acehigh's comments, I think he has read too deeply into Matt's love for RGP and sees a rivalry (with 2+2) where none exists. To me, Matt's RGP fascination is just an example of his own poker love/obsession and really no different than what you see on this site. IMO, it's mostly harmless and often hysterical.

[Gabe DV]

I genuinely liked this book. I found it a quick, enjoyable read, well-written, and offers good insight to a relatively new player (I've been playing for about 18 months) I dont think the fact that he was a big-time RPG guy means that he has a vendetta against 2+2, or something silly like that.

I will say this, though. I threw out my Ken Warren book. I don't get that one, Matt

Gabe

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he has read too deeply into Matt's love for RGP and sees a rivalry (with 2+2) where none exists. To me, Matt's RGP fascination is just an example of his own poker love/obsession and really no different than what you see on this site. IMO, it's mostly harmless and often hysterical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your right it's totally harmless. I just got tired of it, seemed repetitive to me.

Also, I agree with Randy, I don't know if it was the writing style or what.

[Felix_Nietsche]

It was entertaining and gave you some poker insight that books like SuperSystem don't give.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

This real-life poker bildungsroman by Matt Matros has easily slipped onto my list of Top 3 favorite poker books. i would absolutely love for someone to write a similar book teaching how they processed lessons learning seven card stud high, a game I really don't play that often.

I think that the chapter on running bad should be required reading for anyone who actually is running bad. Actually, I found it so helpful that I almost hesitate to recommend it, hoping instead that people continue to run bad and then tilt off even more money to me, but I also like Matros, have interacted with him a bit on-line, and don't mind sending money his way if my recommendation gets you to buy his book.

[Macedon]

I would also say that it falls in my top 5 poker books.

On another note, after finishing Matt's book, I started to read INSIDE THE POKER MIND, by John Feeny. After 180 pages I have to say I'm really disappointed.

This book would be better off as an appendix to "Psychology of Poker". IMO it is much too weak to stand alone, and/or be worth the $25. The chapters titled "One Way Not to Fold" and "How I Learned Poker" seem to have been created with the intention of making the reader fall asleep. Thankfully my train conductor pulls me out of my coma when he anounces "Next Stop, Penn Station!"
Is there one kernal of knowledge in this book? Am I missing something?

With 88 pages to go, please tell me I have something to look forward to.

[Randy Burgess]

Hey, I liked Feeney's book! He doesn't write exciting, action-laden prose. And he doesn't play no-limit. He has no big stories to tell about how he went to this tournament or that. But his ideas on tilt are original, provocative, and have helped a lot of his readers - me included.

[Uppercut]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen this book----"The Making of a Poker Player"----mentioned anywhere in this thread.

Am I the only one who thought this was a great book?

[/ QUOTE ]

I read it a few weeks ago and really enjoyed it. I especially liked how he detailed his progression from donk to WPT finalist.

[dogsballs]

My annoyance is that he got historical fact wrong. I hope that's not what he studied at Yale. Henry Ford did not invent the automobile.

The automobile was not a "theoretical abstraction" when HF worked on it at the turn of the century. Ford did develop efficient mass production of cars, but some german guy called Benz built the first gas powered automobile in 1885. Plus, there was already a car manufacturing co. in the US, never mind elsewhere (try Germany), before HF started his.

Matros should have got mason to review his books; I'm sure MM wouldn't have allowed a historical goof like that.

Edit: I did enjoy his writing style a lot. Much better than most poker authors. Said he's writing a novel; migh tbe worth checking out...only if there's poker involved somewhere of course...

[FrankStallone]

Did he really throw steaming hot tea/ hot chocolate on his father when he lost a hand to him? what a psycho.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Did he really throw steaming hot tea/ hot chocolate on his father when he lost a hand to him? what a psycho.

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't Matros - that was the guy who wrote the introduction to Matros's book.

[jacksup]

I didn't say Henry Ford invented the automobile. And obviously what Ford was working on wasn't a theoretical abstraction, that's sort of the point. I guess I should've put quotes around "theoretical abstraction." Anyway, the whole thing was just an analogy, and either you buy it or you don't. It was never meant to be an in-depth look at the progression of the automobile from idea to everyday object.

Matt

Matt, I really enjoyed your book. It was entertaining, educational and a quick, easy read.

I really enjoyed the section about Hellmuth. I wouldn't be surprised if Phil put webcams all over his house so we could see how the "best player in the world" spends his day. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[dogsballs]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say Henry Ford invented the automobile. And obviously what Ford was working on wasn't a theoretical abstraction, that's sort of the point. I guess I should've put quotes around "theoretical abstraction." Anyway, the whole thing was just an analogy, and either you buy it or you don't. It was never meant to be an in-depth look at the progression of the automobile from idea to everyday object.

Matt

[/ QUOTE ]


I know what you meant with the analogy; that's fine. There's just the very direct implication that there was no such thing as an automobile until Henry Ford came along.

Just a nit. No biggy.

I've even seen supposedly educational websites stating that Henry Ford invented the automobile.

So...what's the novel about ..? Any poker related content?

[Brad22]

"RGP" means ???

[jacksup]

Oh man, I haven't worked on the novel since I finished grad school 18 months ago. I've been playing poker and working on the Erick Lindgren book, which should be out any day now. And also any day now, I want to get back to the fiction writing. The novel, in its most recent form, does not have any poker content. But you never know.

Matt

[DrPhysic]

I have the poker books on my shelf sorted by category. ie: limit books, NL books, theory books, tourny books, etc.

Matros' book is in the same category with Helmuth and a couple of others... it is:

"How to sell Poker Books by..."

Doc

edit: ps: That doesn't make it a bad read. It is a good read. Just not very useful.