Phil Gordon's Little Green Book

[b33nz]

I was wondering what you guys think about this book. I found it in my local B&N store, but barely had time to look through it. Did anyone start/finish reading it? Is it good for NL cash games? Thanks in advance...

I ordered it Sept. 26 and received it Sept. 29 from Amazon ($18.27). I'm 51/286 pages into it and already I like it VERY much. His discussion of small blind and big blind play has been very helpful to me because play in the blinds is my greatest weakness.

It's useful for both cash games and tournaments. It doesn't offer sample hand analysis like Harrington's books or cover topics in chapter format. Instead, it's patterned after the Little Red Book by golf teacher Harvey Penick in that it covers a topic in four paragraphs or so.

He has starting hand charts in the back of the book for full and shorthanded tables.

Overall, I think it's excellent and well worth the price.

[npc]

[ QUOTE ]
I was wondering what you guys think about this book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's quite good. A full review of it by me will be forthcoming in some publication in the next few weeks.

[ QUOTE ]

Is it good for NL cash games?

[/ QUOTE ]

It focuses on tournaments, but a majority of the advice can be applied toward cash games as well.

[benkahuna]

I got it today taking back a second copy of HoH that was hiding in my dining area.

I've read the first 58 pages or so and a few sections in the back.

I think it's excellent. There are some original insights about how to play opponents in particular situations (basically Phil telling how he does it) and overall it's very good.

The simplicity of the design and instruction in the book is striking. I'm quite impressed Phil was able to be so succinct.


There is advice relevant to cash games even though Phil's focus is tournaments (though tournaments are not a focus of the book at all as far as I've read).

[Aceshigh7]

Is this book geared toward limit, no-limit, or both?

[npc]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this book geared toward limit, no-limit, or both?

[/ QUOTE ]

no-limit

[benkahuna]

exclusively no limit. Phil drives a Cadillac babeee!

[AEKDBet]

This is damn fine book. I'm very impressed from what I've read so far.

[ QUOTE ]
This is damn fine book. I'm very impressed from what I've read so far.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you guys please elaborate more on what makes the book so impressive? I'm very interested in picking this book up but would like to have some more information on what makes it so good. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[cwsiggy]

I flipped through it in the bookstore yesterday. It is a collection of poker ideas/thoughts/lessons - one per page or so. Set up in the same way as Harvey Penick's lessons on golf.
What makes it good is it gets you thinking about specific poker ideas on an individual basis. You can probably read them in any order. I will be buying it.

How does it compare to harrington on hold'em? Is phil's book good for players who play cash as well as tourny's? i think that question was answered b4 but w/e. Ive Just read GSHE, should i read phil's book or HOH?

[npc]

[ QUOTE ]
How does it compare to harrington on hold'em?

[/ QUOTE ]

They are different but both good.

[ QUOTE ]
Is phil's book good for players who play cash as well as tourny's? i think that question was answered b4 but w/e.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this question has been answered.

[ QUOTE ]
Ive Just read GSHE, should i read phil's book or HOH?

[/ QUOTE ]

My recommendation is both. I don't have a strong recommendation as to which to read first.

thanx npc

[benkahuna]

I concur.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is damn fine book. I'm very impressed from what I've read so far.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you guys please elaborate more on what makes the book so impressive? I'm very interested in picking this book up but would like to have some more information on what makes it so good. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I already gave my take explaining why I thought it was good and describing it a bit so it's a little annoying that you're acting like I didn't.

Here's an idea. Ask for something specific about the book, VERY specific and then perhaps it would be more easier to give you what you want, which is obviously VERY specific. I promise to tell you what want to know if you can explain what that is.

i wasn't the original asker of question...

but are the charts in the back for no-limit only (i.e. have to watch position even more closely)???

wanted to ask if the book is only no-limit... i know you guys said it was focussed on no-limit, but i wonder if it's worthwhile for someone who only plays limit (i know the games have alot of similarities no matter how you look at it).

sounds like an excellent book... and a guy i know who claims to have 100 books (he has alot of books i've barely or never heard of) hadn't heard of this book, so it might be an overlooked gem.

Your friend may not have heard of this book because it just came out. The official release date isn't until tommorow, however, some stores apparently got it last week.

[ QUOTE ]
I got it today taking back a second copy of HoH that was hiding in my dining area.

I've read the first 58 pages or so and a few sections in the back.

I think it's excellent. There are some original insights about how to play opponents in particular situations (basically Phil telling how he does it) and overall it's very good.

The simplicity of the design and instruction in the book is striking. I'm quite impressed Phil was able to be so succinct.


There is advice relevant to cash games even though Phil's focus is tournaments (though tournaments are not a focus of the book at all as far as I've read).

[/ QUOTE ]
Does Phil's book cover anything that wasn't covered in the Harrington on Hold'em series? Can you possibly give a list of topics he discusses that you thought were very insightful and why? I already purchased a copy of Phil's first book, Poker: The Real Deal, a while back and was very dissapointed, thus my hesitation to go out and purchase this book before reading some more reviews. Thank you benkahuna. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I got it today taking back a second copy of HoH that was hiding in my dining area.

I've read the first 58 pages or so and a few sections in the back.

I think it's excellent. There are some original insights about how to play opponents in particular situations (basically Phil telling how he does it) and overall it's very good.

The simplicity of the design and instruction in the book is striking. I'm quite impressed Phil was able to be so succinct.


There is advice relevant to cash games even though Phil's focus is tournaments (though tournaments are not a focus of the book at all as far as I've read).

[/ QUOTE ]
Does Phil's book cover anything that wasn't covered in the Harrington on Hold'em series? Can you possibly give a list of topics he discusses that you thought were very insightful and why? I already purchased a copy of Phil's first book, Poker: The Real Deal, a while back and was very dissapointed, thus my hesitation to go out and purchase this book before reading some more reviews. Thank you benkahuna. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm about 75% through the new book (didn't read his first one) and it is pretty good. I may write a review when I am done. It is all about NLHE, mainly tournaments but some ring game stuff too. Basically he describes his system and thought process on NL, and it seems pretty solid.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I got it today taking back a second copy of HoH that was hiding in my dining area.

I've read the first 58 pages or so and a few sections in the back.

I think it's excellent. There are some original insights about how to play opponents in particular situations (basically Phil telling how he does it) and overall it's very good.

The simplicity of the design and instruction in the book is striking. I'm quite impressed Phil was able to be so succinct.


There is advice relevant to cash games even though Phil's focus is tournaments (though tournaments are not a focus of the book at all as far as I've read).

[/ QUOTE ]
Does Phil's book cover anything that wasn't covered in the Harrington on Hold'em series? Can you possibly give a list of topics he discusses that you thought were very insightful and why? I already purchased a copy of Phil's first book, Poker: The Real Deal, a while back and was very dissapointed, thus my hesitation to go out and purchase this book before reading some more reviews. Thank you benkahuna. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I think P:TRD was written more from a push by Bravo than Phil himself. It's obviously more of an all-around poker primer, I assume the intended audience was the Celebrity Poker Showdown viewers.

[cwsiggy]

Just got it and was flipping throught the player profiles. Interesting he says Prahlad plays essentially a perfect unbeatable no limit cash game employing game theory. Only downside is the high variance. He names him "Biggest Online Winner" but a few sentences later say he saps the very spirit of the rocks in the game.

[Vincent Lepore]

Phil Gordon said somewhere that he sizes continuation bets in NLH tournaments in accordance with the strength of his hand. He bets .5 pot when he has a strong hand and wants action, .75 pot when he has a mediocre hand and doesn't mind action and he bets the pot when his hand is weak and he wants to bet and get his opponents to fold.

Hmmm...interesting but not very smart.

Vince

[Brad22]

He was ESPN's "Cold Pizza" yesterday morning talking about the book. He says its exactly how he plays nl hold'em in most situations. He was pretty humble, but made the book sound impressive.

"I'm certainly not the best nl hold'em players in the world, but i've made 6 wsop final tables, 2 wpt final tables, and i've won nearly $1.2 Million playing. There are definitely players out there who are better than me, but I have done pretty well for myself."

For now, it looks like this book and Hoh are the best for nl tourneys.

[ QUOTE ]
Phil Gordon said somewhere that he sizes continuation bets in NLH tournaments in accordance with the strength of his hand. He bets .5 pot when he has a strong hand and wants action, .75 pot when he has a mediocre hand and doesn't mind action and he bets the pot when his hand is weak and he wants to bet and get his opponents to fold.

Hmmm...interesting but not very smart.

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read this book, but this type of play is far from exclusive to Phil Gordon. This is the way plenty of good players bet, but it is quite easy to read if you play this way all the time and make it obvious youre on a steal by betting the pot...
Otherwise it makes sense so long as you vary your play

Do you guys think the way Phil has these ideas presented that it is easy to remember and integrate his style into your own game? Do you guys tend to prefer specific hand analysis over general concepts?

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
he saps the very spirit of the rocks in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw that as well, and felt very proud that I was cool enough to understand the secret clue.

[Vincent Lepore]

I prefer general concepts to specific hand analysis. General concepts allow for a player to develop his own style.

Vince

[MCS]

Hands are often used to illustrate certain concepts. They're not just in a vacuum. But I know what you mean.

I like them both. I remember concepts much better with examples/explanation.

[Vincent Lepore]

One problem with hand analyses is that they are boringly repetitive. Another is that all hands can be played in different ways, ie. Sklansky's statement that you "can't misplay Aces before the flop".(folding is an absurdity except is some specific tournament situations and even then... so we won't mention folding). The point is that yes examples are valuable but when presenting a general concept usually a simple example will get the point accross. Plus Tommy Angelo is the only one besides Mason and David that always gets the right answer. Maybe Rick Nebiolo...

Vince

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil Gordon said somewhere that he sizes continuation bets in NLH tournaments in accordance with the strength of his hand. He bets .5 pot when he has a strong hand and wants action, .75 pot when he has a mediocre hand and doesn't mind action and he bets the pot when his hand is weak and he wants to bet and get his opponents to fold.

Hmmm...interesting but not very smart.

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the latest full tilt lessons was an extract from his book about this very subject. There is more to it than just the above consideration.

[GMan42]

On a completely unrelated but humorous note...While promoting his book on Opie & Anthony's show on XM the other day, Phil mentioned he makes money on the side betting on rock-paper-scissors (and in fact beat Anthony in a best-of-7 for $100). He must have read that thread in "Other Gambling" or wherever it was a few months back.

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
...Phil mentioned he makes money on the side betting on rock-paper-scissors (and in fact beat Anthony in a best-of-7 for $100). He must have read that thread in "Other Gambling" or wherever it was a few months back.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's been playing for years.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
There is more to it than just the above consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, what?

Vince

[JohnG]

http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/proLessons.php?lesson=29

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I got it today taking back a second copy of HoH that was hiding in my dining area.

I've read the first 58 pages or so and a few sections in the back.

I think it's excellent. There are some original insights about how to play opponents in particular situations (basically Phil telling how he does it) and overall it's very good.

The simplicity of the design and instruction in the book is striking. I'm quite impressed Phil was able to be so succinct.


There is advice relevant to cash games even though Phil's focus is tournaments (though tournaments are not a focus of the book at all as far as I've read).

[/ QUOTE ]
Does Phil's book cover anything that wasn't covered in the Harrington on Hold'em series? Can you possibly give a list of topics he discusses that you thought were very insightful and why? I already purchased a copy of Phil's first book, Poker: The Real Deal, a while back and was very dissapointed, thus my hesitation to go out and purchase this book before reading some more reviews. Thank you benkahuna. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, finished the book a few days ago.

I wouldn't say Phil covered any concepts not seen in the HoH series. However, I think he covered a few concepts with greater depth. His discussion about bet sizing post flop was very good IMO. Some posters talk about it being exclusively related to his own hand's current value/drawing potential. Not so. It also incorporates his take on the other person's hand. His discussion on playing the blinds was also very useful and more extensive than HoH. Someone mentioned his obvious reference to Prahlad (I also felt kind of cool for getting that one--not cool, dorky poker obsession) and it was interesting, but unlikely to be useful for most people. There are more examples of this sort, but I'm going to say it's not only tedious to really analyze the two books, it's more than I'm willing to do to do in response to a post.

I'm not trying to sell you the book. However, I did find the book to be very solid in most respects and much better than The Real Deal (which I liked, but found a bit fluffy and more useful as a general presentation about poker). I believe it lives up to its claims on the jacket of the book. Phil presents NL in a very straightforward, yet accurate manner here. There's nothing revolutionary in his advice, but his advice is easy to follow, has internal consistency, and just makes a lot of sense.

It sounds like you're looking for something to give you groundbreaking new material and theory to help you in a cash NL game. I don't think you'll find that in this book. However, I do think you'll find new presentation about many concepts and greater depth in discussion about familiar concepts that will, if you're a discerning, critical reader improve your NL cash game despite the book starting out more generally about NL and then focusing more specifically on tournament NL holdem. If you've read a lot of poker theory and HoH (and thought about the theory, played and lot and understood what was in the books well--including TOP), then you might not need this book. But, I think there are a few topics that are not covered elsewhere that are gems or easter eggs that make book worth getting.

I should warn you though, I tend to find value in most things and am not quickly dismissive of books on poker that can give me something original.

If you're still in doubt how to deal with the publication of this work after reading my post, I strongly recommend just checking out the book in a book store if possible. If you can't and can afford the book, it's probably worth getting. If it's tough to afford the book based on your poker play, you'll probably get enough from the book that it will pay for itself.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

I've read about 40 percent of this book and here's my preliminary opinion. It's reasonbly good, but not great, and is targeted towards a beginner or intermediate player.

It does have one major problem. It is horribly written. It seems like every fifth or sixth word is "I," and probably 20 percent of the words could be eliminated. I find it amazing that these major publishers don't do basic editing, and Phil Gordon, who I believe is a good guy, should be very upset about this.

So my preliminary rating would be a 6. If it was written better, because the information is there, it would get at least a 7 and perhaps an 8.

Of course, my opinion might change as I read more.

best wishes,

Mason

[AEKDBet]

[ QUOTE ]

It does have one major problem. It is horribly written.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't disagree more. Are there a ton of personal pronouns? Yes, but I didn't notice until you said something. The book reads like dialog from Phil - all grammar aside, the way it was written makes it flow quite smoothly.

The point here, and the point of the book as he states in the intro is..
[ QUOTE ]
In short, the following pages are, to the best of my ability, how I play No Limit Texas Hold'em. I'm not the best player in the world. But I'm a winning player, and I win playing exactly the style that is described here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hard to do without all the "I's", but are they that bothersome anyway?

[eboller]

I'd have to disagree too. I didn't notice the overuse of "I". I don't recall if Harvey Penick's Little Red Book writing style was like that, but it's obvious that Phil's intention was to impart lessons from himself. The use of "I" just makes it more personal and fitting with the style of the book. Nothing wrong with that imo. Personally, I think it's a great book that fills in a few things that I think were missing from the awesome Harrington books or at least not covered in depth.

Eric

[pipes]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

I've read about 40 percent of this book and here's my preliminary opinion. It's reasonbly good, but not great, and is targeted towards a beginner or intermediate player.

It does have one major problem. It is horribly written. It seems like every fifth or sixth word is "I," and probably 20 percent of the words could be eliminated. I find it amazing that these major publishers don't do basic editing, and Phil Gordon, who I believe is a good guy, should be very upset about this.

So my preliminary rating would be a 6. If it was written better, because the information is there, it would get at least a 7 and perhaps an 8.

Of course, my opinion might change as I read more.

best wishes,

Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

He did not write the book to get an A from his English teacher. From all of the money this book will make us, we can buy all the books from Hemingway that we want.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I've read about 40 percent of this book and here's my preliminary opinion. It's reasonbly good, but not great, and is targeted towards a beginner or intermediate player.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hi Mason,

Ignoring any concerns about the writing style, how do you think Gordon's book compares (content-wise) to the Ciaffone/Ruben book or to Doyle's NLHE chapter in SyperSystem? I consider those books to be the best NLHE materials outside of HOHI and HOHII, so I'd be interested in your opinion about how Gordon's book stacks up to them.

(No fair comparing it to any bits of the Sklansky/Miller manuscript you've seen since their book isn't available yet.)

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi maurile:

It's been so long since I read the Ciaffone/Ruben book that it would be unfair for me to make a comparison even though I gave that book a very high rating. It's also my opinion that you cannot win in a hold 'em no limit cash game with deep stacks using the no limit chapter in either Super System since Doyle has you putting all your chips in far too often, and this is the game these chapters were targeted for. Gordon't book is mainly targeted for no limit tournaments.

Best wishes,
Mason

By complete coincidence, i just went to Vegas to play a concentrated amount of no limit with both the Gordon book and Ciaffone and Reuben. I think the two complement each other very well. Newer players will get a lot more ABC stuff from the Gordon book, while Ciaffone and Reuben has a lot more depth to it when you start thinking about the concepts they present. It depends on your experience and how much you want to be spoonfed, but for people that are relative no limit noobs like me starting with gordon and moving on seems like a good bet.

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like every fifth or sixth word is "I," and probably 20 percent of the words could be eliminated.

[/ QUOTE ]

He said the book is about how he plays, therefore "I" would be expected. He also states that he doesn't expect everyone to agree with everything he says. He in fact hopes that we find some things to disagree with because that means we are thinking.

[ QUOTE ]
I find it amazing that these major publishers don't do basic editing

[/ QUOTE ]

cough>Harrington<cough

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi tek:

There's a major difference between a complete lack of editing and proof reading failures. While we are not at all happy with the type-o's that appeared in the first printings of the Harrington books, I assure you that the editing was a major effort. Also, we were fortunate in that the manuscripts submitted to us were wonderfully written.

By the wat, if Phil Gordon is interested, we at Two Plus Two will help him solve these problems for the next edition, and we gain nothing by doing so.

Best wishes,
Mason

I think the book is great. I agree with the poster about the use of "I". I assumed he wrote this because he wrote in the beginning of the book that the info he presents works for him but perhaps not for everyone.

I put this book up there with HOH. It one of the best out there. I'm hoping that the Sklansky book will be as good as The Little Green Book and HOH. Can't wait.

[gergery]

I read thru in the bookstore the other day and thought it was awesome. I was very impressed.

It goes in the category of "simple, easy advice, fast read", and will significantly help beginners and intermediates with NL tourney play.

Harrington's books are more comprehensive and deeper, but this was far beyond my expectations.

-g

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

I'm now almost done with Phil Gordon's Little Green Book and while my comments of the targeted audience still apply, my evaluation of the book has gone up. It's definitely worth an 8 or a 9.

Also, the writing problems that I mentioned don't seem to be anywhere near as severe in the second half. But they still exist and hopefully Phil will rewrtie much of the text before the next printing.

Eventually I will publish a more formal review.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Jimmy James]

I absolutely loved Phil's book. While it's not as in-depth as the Harrington series, I do feel as though a learned a few things from it. As far as no limit holdem books go, I'd give it a 9, would be a 10 if there was more content, as it's a pretty quick read.

[larrondo]

I do find the writing style to be somewhat irritating and it is possible to write in first person without using 'I' in every sentence. However, I think the content is pretty good. A nice suppliment to Harrington. I don't like it quite as much as Improve Your Poker by Ciaffone, but it's well worth the money.

[paulish]

[ QUOTE ]
2. How likely is my hand to improve?

If my hand is unlikely to improve, I tend to bet more than 2/3 of the pot. I want to take this pot now.

If my hand is somewhat likely to improve, say about 15% to 20% of the time, I am more apt to bet 2/3 of the pot.

If my hand is very likely to improve (about 34% of the time or more), I am more apt to bet 1/2 of the pot.


[/ QUOTE ] excerpt from Gordon's book on Full Tilt (http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/proLessons.php?lesson=29)

isn't this way to general? What about position? What if you put in a continuation bet on the flop, in position... and you get re-raised?

[ QUOTE ]
Completely missing the flop is a good indicator for a continuation bet, since it costs you nothing extra to walk away from your hand when your move fails. If, however you have a draw to a big hand then a continuation bet could be a big mistake, giving your opponent another chance to chase you out of the pot

[/ QUOTE ]
-HoHII (p.9-10)

[AEKDBet]

They are almost saying the same thing

[ QUOTE ]
If my hand is somewhat likely to improve, say about 15% to 20% of the time, I am more apt to bet 2/3 of the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

This can be "the big mistake". Phil is saying when he chooses not to check-> bets ~2/3,

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I do find the writing style to be somewhat irritating and it is possible to write in first person without using 'I' in every sentence. However, I think the content is pretty good. A nice suppliment to Harrington. I don't like it quite as much as Improve Your Poker by Ciaffone, but it's well worth the money.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do as you say, not as you do? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I want to learn more about NL. Just starting in poker. Is this a good first book to buy on NL?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I want to learn more about NL. Just starting in poker. Is this a good first book to buy on NL?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's a great first book on NL hold 'em.

Follow it up with the Harrington/Robertie books.

[The Absurdist]

"It is horribly written. It seems like every fifth or sixth word is "I," and probably 20 percent of the words could be eliminated. I find it amazing that these major publishers don't do basic editing, and Phil Gordon, who I believe is a good guy, should be very upset about this."

--Not to pile on, but this observation is quite absurd. As others have mentioned, this is Phil's attempt to have a conversation with the reader about how he plays. His book is subtitled _Lessons and Teachings in No Limit Texas Hold'em_, meaning the style will be informal and conversational, an attempt to simulate a personal lesson. Whether or not this trope is successful, is up for debate, but his method is in keeping with his stated intention. If a famous chef were to write a cookbook attempting to take you into his kitchen for a personal lesson on how he prepares meals for his family, wouldn't you expect him to use "I, me and my" far more often than a scientist writing in a scholarly journal? I actually like the direct, informal approach. Instead of saying "the application of game theory, hand reading and the science of interpreting physical mannerisms were insufficient to yield any well founded conclusions about my opponent's possible holding," Phil says "I couldn't figure out what the guy had," more clear and less pretentious.

As for the absence of professional editing, in his acknowledgements Phil thanks Howard's father Richard Lederer for spending so much time reviewing the manuscript. I doubt he was working on the strategy sections. By my count, Richard Lederer has published 17 books on English usage and grammar, and is as close a thing America has to a Dean of modern American Usage. I am certain he approved of the manuscript. We should all be so lucky as to have his help with our writing.

[ QUOTE ]
"It is horribly written. It seems like every fifth or sixth word is "I," and probably 20 percent of the words could be eliminated. I find it amazing that these major publishers don't do basic editing, and Phil Gordon, who I believe is a good guy, should be very upset about this."

--Not to pile on, but this observation is quite absurd. As others have mentioned, this is Phil's attempt to have a conversation with the reader about how he plays. His book is subtitled _Lessons and Teachings in No Limit Texas Hold'em_, meaning the style will be informal and conversational, an attempt to simulate a personal lesson. Whether or not this trope is successful, is up for debate, but his method is in keeping with his stated intention. If a famous chef were to write a cookbook attempting to take you into his kitchen for a personal lesson on how he prepares meals for his family, wouldn't you expect him to use "I, me and my" far more often than a scientist writing in a scholarly journal? I actually like the direct, informal approach. Instead of saying "the application of game theory, hand reading and the science of interpreting physical mannerisms were insufficient to yield any well founded conclusions about my opponent's possible holding," Phil says "I couldn't figure out what the guy had," more clear and less pretentious.

As for the absence of professional editing, in his acknowledgements Phil thanks Howard's father Richard Lederer for spending so much time reviewing the manuscript. I doubt he was working on the strategy sections. By my count, Richard Lederer has published 17 books on English usage and grammar, and is as close a thing America has to a Dean of modern American Usage. I am certain he approved of the manuscript. We should all be so lucky as to have his help with our writing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hi Phil Gordon. Welcome to 2+2.

[npc]

[ QUOTE ]
"It is horribly written. It seems like every fifth or sixth word is "I," and probably 20 percent of the words could be eliminated. I find it amazing that these major publishers don't do basic editing, and Phil Gordon, who I believe is a good guy, should be very upset about this."

--Not to pile on, but this observation is quite absurd. As others have mentioned, this is Phil's attempt to have a conversation with the reader about how he plays. His book is subtitled _Lessons and Teachings in No Limit Texas Hold'em_, meaning the style will be informal and conversational, an attempt to simulate a personal lesson.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've hesitated to jump in on this issue so far, but I really can't resist any more. You can count me among those who like the book (a little more than Mason's first impressions, a little less than Mason's second impressions :-), but in my review I also indicated that I found some of the wording to be below my standards.

Note, I have no objection to Phil's almost gratuitous use of the word "I". I think that's just fine. I have other objections. So, I'm deleting the part of the post to which I'm responding that deals with the "I" issues.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the absence of professional editing, in his acknowledgements Phil thanks Howard's father Richard Lederer for spending so much time reviewing the manuscript. I doubt he was working on the strategy sections. By my count, Richard Lederer has published 17 books on English usage and grammar, and is as close a thing America has to a Dean of modern American Usage. I am certain he approved of the manuscript. We should all be so lucky as to have his help with our writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know to what extent Richard Lederer was involved in the editing of this book. I agree that his qualifications on English usage are top notch. However, no copy editor that I've ever worked with would have approved this manuscript. I didn't mark them, and it would take more time than it is worth for me to go back through the book, but I recall at least a half dozen occasions when I was reading through the book thinking "the wording here is just wrong."

Let me relate just one example that I'll have to paraphraise 'cuz I don't remember exactly where it was in the text. There was a sentence of the form, "If I bet into an opponent and they raise me... ." In this fragment "opponent" is singular and "they" is plural. They don't match. I'm sensative to this, because I used to do this. (I'm guessing Phil was doing it for the same reason I used to, it's an easy technique that keeps writing gender neutral. The problem is it's improper.) In fact, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find that older reviews I wrote contain this flaw, so I'm really not trying to throw stones. However, a mistake of this sort should not appear in a professionally copy edited manuscript. To reiterate, this isn't a quote from the book, but I distinctly recall a mismatch of this form.

The bottom line is that parts of the text use wrong or poor English. This is something I don't expect most readers to notice, but I did, and it annoyed me a little. However, none of these errors detract from the meaning of the text, and I found the content of the book to be quite good. The language problems are a minor distraction from an otherwise fine book. Still, though, I found the quality of language in this book to be below par.

[The Absurdist]

Please cite a specific example of substandard English and I will be happy to discuss it.

[npc]

[ QUOTE ]
Please cite a specific example of substandard English and I will be happy to discuss it.

[/ QUOTE ]

P. 35, 3rd paragraph, 3rd and 4th sentences:

"But with 8-6 suited, it is very unlikely that my opponent will have one of those. Unless they have a pocket pair... ."

One: Most copy editors would, uh, flag a sentence that begins with "But".

Two: "My opponent" in the first sentence refers to the same person as "they" in the second sentence. I would categorize this as "substandard English". This is exactly the situation I was talking about in my previous post.

Every copy editor I know would tear me a new one if I wrote these two sentences, and they'd be right. I know this because I've written such sentences. Also, it's not like these two sentences couldn't be easily cleaned up.

I know I can find other examples, but I really don't feel like spending the time going over the book that way. Nonetheless, you asked for an example; I've provided one.

My main point is that this is a minor distraction in an otherwise fine book.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Absurdist:

I guarantee there was no editing done in the first half of this book.

From page 101, first bullet:

[ QUOTE ]
If I played passively after the flop (that is, I checked or just called) and I've improved my hand, I'm likely to play aggressively after improving my hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll let others elaborate, but this is one of hundreds of examples I could cite (and the bold was added by me.)

By the way, I do like this book, and I only mention this problem so that Phil will realize it is there and hopefully address it for the next printing.

I've also met Richard Lederer and agree with your comments on his abilities concerning the English language. And I also read the paragraph where he thanks those who
[ QUOTE ]
took an extra-ordinary amount of time to help edit this book.

[/ QUOTE ]

best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Nick:

When I first began to write, this stuff was a hobby and my words needed much improvement. But back around 1990 Lynne Loomis, who is a top notch professional editor, joined the team. I had a rude awakening.

Anyway, as the years went by improving my writing became a major effort. Furthermore, now as a publisher in a field that receives much attention, it's imperative that the books we produce be top notch in every respect and I've become very aware of the editing when it's time to read other books.

Thanks for your comments.

best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Absurdist:

I already gave an example in another post. But if you want another one, look at the paragraph on the bottom of page 84. For starter's the word "I" appears 14 times.

Also, several of the sentences are horribly written. For example, Phil writes (in the middle of the paragraph): "When I check-raise, if they then re-raise me, I can be fairly certain that I'm beat." Now here's my rewrite: "When I check-raise, if reraised, I'm probably beat." Notice that my version eliminates 8 of the 16 words (including one "I".)

I'll let others address additional problems in this paragraph.

best wishes,
Mason

[maurile]

Hey Nick, I'm an avid reader of your reviews and appreciate the effort you put into them.

That said, your criticism of Gordon's usage is misplaced (at least in the examples you provided).

[ QUOTE ]
P. 35, 3rd paragraph, 3rd and 4th sentences:

"But with 8-6 suited, it is very unlikely that my opponent will have one of those. Unless they have a pocket pair... ."

One: Most copy editors would, uh, flag a sentence that begins with "But".

[/ QUOTE ]
No, most copy editors wouldn't.

Garner's usage tip of the day. (http://www.us.oup.com/us/apps/totd/usage/archive/display.jsp;jsessionid=4BCA2CA9F98FBF1084D94F96F15 324F4?name=usage&id=168)

<font color="blue">It is a gross canard that beginning a sentence with "but" is stylistically slipshod. In fact, doing so is highly desirable in any number of contexts, as many stylebooks have said (many correctly pointing out that "but" is more effective than "however" at the beginning of a sentence) -- e.g.:

o "Objection is sometimes taken to employment of 'but' or 'and' at the beginning of a sentence; but for this there is much good usage." Adams Sherman Hill, The Principles of Rhetoric 88 (rev. ed. 1896).

o "Of the many myths concerning 'correct' English, one of the most persistent is the belief that it is somehow improper to begin a sentence with ['and,' 'but,' 'for,' 'or,' or 'nor']. The construction is, of course, widely used today and has been widely used for generations, for the very good reason that it is an effective means of achieving coherence between sentences and between larger units of discourse, such as paragraphs." R.W. Pence &amp; D.W. Emery, A Grammar of Present-Day English 106 n.15 (2d ed. 1963).

o "The widespread public belief that 'but' should not be used at the beginning of a sentence has no foundation but is seemingly unshakeable." Robert W. Burchfield, Points of View 119 (1992).

o "If you want to begin a sentence by contradicting the last, use 'but' instead of 'however.'" Christopher Lasch, Plain Style 101 (Stewart Weaver ed., 2002).

Good writers often begin sentences with "but" and have always done so -- e.g.:

o "But reading his speeches in cold blood offers a curious experience." H.L. Mencken, "The Archangel Woodrow" (1921), in The Vintage Mencken 116, 119 (1955).

o "But such simplicity of instinct is scarcely possible for human beings." Bertrand Russell, Education and the Good Life 192 (1926).

o "But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments." Albert Einstein, "Science and Religion" (1939), in Ideas and Opinions 41, 42 (1954).

o "But Joyce manages to do something even more subtle than that." Vladimir Nabokov, "Ulysses" (ca. 1955), in Lectures on Literature 285, 346 (Fredson Bowers ed., 1980).

o "But it is a careful, angry, honest film, and nothing it says is less apposite now than it would have been ten years ago, or twenty." James Agee, Agee on Film 206 (1958).

o "But perhaps the more valuable achievement to come out of France for the novel has been a whole body of criticism inspired by the new novelists." Susan Sontag, Against Interpretation 104 (1966).

o "But the virtues of the film are many and considerable." John Simon, Movies into Film 78 (1971).

o "But the modesty is usually false." William Safire, What's the Good Word? 44 (1982).

o "But he had got used to that and it did not disquiet him." Ursula K. Le Guin, The Other Wind 143 (2001).

These are not good writers on bad days. No: they were having good days. And the list could be expanded a thousandfold.</font>

[ QUOTE ]
Two: "My opponent" in the first sentence refers to the same person as "they" in the second sentence. I would categorize this as "substandard English". This is exactly the situation I was talking about in my previous post.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't care for the singular they myself, but it is incorrect to call it incorrect.

<font color="blue">"Though the masculine singular pronoun may survive awhile longer as a generic term, it will probably be displaced ultimately by they, which is coming to be used alternatively as singular or plural" (Bryan A. Garner, Garner's Modern American Usage [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003], 718).

[maurile]

By the way, if you open Time or Newsweek or The Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal or any other respected journal and start reading articles at random, you will notice that about 8% of all sentences start with coordinating conjunctions ('and,' 'but,' 'for,' 'or,' 'nor').

[npc]

I wanted to quote from the previous message, but cutting and pasting from the (tiny) Post window is a real PITA using firefox on MacOS. I'm not a big fan of the forum software being used here, but that's a discussion for another day.

I said that most copy editors would flag sentences beginning with "But". You disagreed. Our experiences working with copy editors differ. Note that I don't say that one should never do this. For every style usage that is considered improper in the language someone can find an occurance where the "wrong" way is the best way. Decent books on writing are replete with examples of this. That doesn't mean that we should throw out all the rules of language style. I would claim that Gordon's usage in this instance isn't necessary, and therefore isn't appropriate. I believe copy editors I've worked with would agree with me.

As for the singular "they", Garner may be right that this will become common usage someday, I don't know. It certainly does solve the gender usage problem. When I've written conference papers and my book and had them copy edited, instances where I've done this were corrected, I believe rightly so. At some point this might be considered to be correct usage, and this point of view does seem to be gaining some sympathy, but I believe it is far from accepted practice at the present time.

Moreover, I hope it doesn't become commonly used. It's already hard enough in English to determine context from our overloaded pronouns. There has to be a better way to handle gender issues in print than making the word "they" even more vague than it already is.

Here's the deal. I said I thought many places in Gordon's book were poorly worded. I was asked to provide an example. I opened the book and quoted the first location I found that met my criteria. There are many other places where the wording is awkward at best, and Mason has provided another good example. I really don't plan to go through the book again looking for more or better examples because it takes me a lot of time to read that carefully, and I don't think it's that important.

Gordon's book communicates its good ideas adequately enough to make it well worth reading, but as I said in my review, in many places the writing made me cringe. I stand by that statement. I would expect that a copy editor would have worn out a red pencil going over this manuscript. I'm surprised a major publishing house released it in this form. Maybe that's just me.

[larrondo]

You got it, pal.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, I hope [the singular they] doesn't become commonly used. It's already hard enough in English to determine context from our overloaded pronouns. There has to be a better way to handle gender issues in print than making the word "they" even more vague than it already is.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm with you on that. I never use the singular they and I cringe when other people do. But it is widespread enough now that I don't think it can justly be called an error.

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't plan to go through the book again looking for more or better examples because it takes me a lot of time to read that carefully, and I don't think it's that important.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with you there as well: it's not that important. It's just that "don't begin a sentence with 'but'" is one of the canards (Fowler called it a superstition) I hate seeing repeated. You will not find a single style manual or usage dictionary that condemns starting a sentence with 'but' -- they are unanimously in favor of the practice.

Other superstitions I hate seeing repeated:

- Never end a sentence with a preposition.
- Never split an infinitive.

Good list here (with references) (http://essayinfo.com/sguides/myths.php).

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, if you open Time or Newsweek or The Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal or any other respected journal and start reading articles at random, you will notice that about 8% of all sentences start with coordinating conjunctions ('and,' 'but,' 'for,' 'or,' 'nor').

[/ QUOTE ]
Also by the way, I once had an online discussion about this with someone who claimed to have been a copyeditor for Rolling Stone Magazine. I pointed out a research paper in an academic journal that found that, over the course of a particular year (maybe 1997 or so), 8% of the sentences contained in articles on the front page of the New York Times began with coordinating conjunctions. (I've spent the last 20 minutes trying to come up with a citation to the article, but without success. I think it was 8%, but it may have been even higher -- possibly 12%.)

His response was that a rag like the NYT may go in for such a plebian sentence structure, but top-notch periodicals like Rolling Stone Magazine never would.

So I went to Rolling Stone's website, picked five articles at random, and showed him that every single article contained at least one sentence that began with "and" or "but"; and the overall number of sentences beginning with coordinating conjunctions was slightly higher than the one reported for the NYT front-page stories.

He then responded (I believe incorrectly, but I didn't look into it further) that the online articles are entirely different from the print articles. The print articles in Rolling Stone, he maintained, would never allow an author to begin a sentence with "and" or "but."

I gave up at that point, but another participant (this was in an old Yahoo! Groups discussion) went to the library and got a print version of the magazine. Sure enough, the same ratio of sentences began with "and" or "but" in the print version as in the online version. (Different issue, so different articles.)

Dude was http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/jaa.gif

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]

"But with 8-6 suited, it is very unlikely that my opponent will have one of those. Unless they have a pocket pair... ."

One: Most copy editors would, uh, flag a sentence that begins with "But".


[/ QUOTE ]

If they flag every sentence that starts with "But", they'd be wrong - not to mention anal. It is perfectly acceptable to start the occasional sentence with "and" or "but". And that is certainly true in a book written in a conversational tone.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, several of the sentences are horribly written. For example, Phil writes (in the middle of the paragraph): "When I check-raise, if they then re-raise me, I can be fairly certain that I'm beat." Now here's my rewrite: "When I check-raise, if reraised, I'm probably beat." Notice that my version eliminates 8 of the 16 words (including one "I".)
st wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

If you thought about it, you would probably choose to re-write it differently.

"If my foe re-raises after I check-raise, I'm probably beat."