Which books should I get by Tom McEvoy and Ken Warren, if any?

[KSOT]

I notice they've written a lot about the game, which I can only assume means their books are successful sellers. I've read almost every poker book 2+2 has published and am ready to move on to other perspectives.

Can people who have read their work recommend their better books? It doesn't matter what aspect of poker they're about, as long as they're not introductory.

Thanks.

[thirddan]

haven't read mcevoy, but instead of reading warren read a maxim or something...his holdem advice is shady...

[froggy527]

zero!!!!!!!!!

[KSOT]

After reading some other threads I see that Ken Warren is a joke to all of you. I guess I'll take his books off my massive wishlist.

But I've seen a few people speak highly of Tom McEvoy's books. There's really no value in any of them?

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
I notice they've written a lot about the game, which I can only assume means their books are successful sellers. I've read almost every poker book 2+2 has published and am ready to move on to other perspectives.

Can people who have read their work recommend their better books? It doesn't matter what aspect of poker they're about, as long as they're not introductory.

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ken Warren is confused. I read his stuff before 2+2 and he cost me money. Stay away.

McEvoy is generally weak tight, and his books have too much filler. His best hold'em titles are:

New Players Guide to NLHE
Championship PL & NLHE
Championship Satellite Strategy
Championship Tournament Practice Hands

If you want perspective outside of 2+2, I would recommend Ciaffone's books and the "How Good is Your" series + Cooke, Yao, Greenstein, Hilger, etc.

[2+2 wannabe]

[ QUOTE ]

Ken Warren is rich

[/ QUOTE ]

[greatwhite]

I only like the Championship books. However, I don't like Chamionship Hold'em or Championship Tournament Poker. Championship Tournament Practice Hands, Championship No Limit and Pot Limit Hold'em, and Championship Omaha are all pretty good books. I've heard good things about his satellite book and tournament practice hands book. Basically everything away from the Championship Series McEvoy does is bad from what I hear.

[mike4bmp]

Although I generally don't like Tom McEvoy's books I was flipping through his new book "How to Win NL Holdem Tournaments" and found some of the information in it to be useful....on a surface level at least...it seemed more like a how to book on getting through the rubrics of a tournament rather than a strategy book...so I don't think it necessarily rivals HOH I or HOH
II. May someone else could give a review on this book since I am not much of a tournament player....
Ken Warren books are good for filling gaps in your book shelf...and giving them as gifts to your advesaries...lol
I've read one of Warren book...it was my first book on O8...I posted here to get a review and got some unsavory replies by some of the other 2+2ers...then I read Zee's book and Baldwin's section on O8 in Super System 2 and realized how much money I would be losing if I used Warren's strategy.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want perspective outside of 2+2, I would recommend Ciaffone's books and the "How Good is Your" series + Cooke, Yao, Greenstein, Hilger, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

[gildwulf]

Ken Warren's Omaha book is good if you are a total n00b (like me).

[DyessMan89]

Ken Warren is a good to poker like my dog is to my left testicle.

Real good.

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
Ken Warren is to ... poker like my dog is to my left testicle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your dog sucks your left testicle?

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
I notice they've written a lot about the game, which I can only assume means their books are successful sellers. I've read almost every poker book 2+2 has published and am ready to move on to other perspectives.

Can people who have read their work recommend their better books? It doesn't matter what aspect of poker they're about, as long as they're not introductory.

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

They suck.

[Jacob_Gilliam]

If you read Warren's Omaha book you will really, really, really, really, really know how to read the board.

[MicroBob]

The correct answer is zero.


Non 2+2 books worth looking at (some pretty good.... otherat least not completely sucky) include:

Middle Limit Holdem - Ciafonne (as well as other Ciaffone books)
How good is your limit holdem - Bryan Jacobs
Weighing the Odds in Hold em - King Yao
Internet Hold-em - Hilger
Ace on the River - Greenstein

The Super System books aren't great...but would certainly be better reads than Warren or McEvoy (or Krieger for that matter).

[Notorious G.O.B.]

Supposedly Ken Warren is a pretty strong mid to high limit player, but his books are not well regarded.

[bygmesterf]

Alot of the McEvoy's books are written for beginners, so if you are expecting to learn some super secret strategy, that won't happen.

Personally I liked all of Tom McEvoy's books, and have learned something useful from every one of them. How ever they arent cookbook type books, but instead they have folksy feel to them.

While many lemmings on 2+2 like to critise them, McEvoy/Cloutier have a heck of alot more WSOP bracelets than most of thier critics do. All that said, all the championship series books are aimed towards beginners, with the exception of "Championship Stud"

[BluffTHIS!]

Buy as many McEvoy and Warren books as you need for the following. Take two or three books so that the combined thickness is 4"+. Then glue them together and also glue the edges so that the pages cannot be opened. Then glue a flat heavy weight to them at the bottom. Voilá! You now have some nice bookends to hold your useful poker books in place on your shelves.

[David Sklansky]

"All that said, all the championship series books are aimed towards beginners, with the exception of "Championship Stud" "

Beginner's books can justifiably omit or simplify concepts But if they have them flat out wrong, the excuse that the book was for beginners is clearly just that. An unacceptable excuse for incompetance (and strong evidence that the authors actually didn't understand the concept themselves.)

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
While many lemmings on 2+2 like to critise them, McEvoy/Cloutier have a heck of alot more WSOP bracelets than most of thier critics do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Everyone:

I see this argument made often, and the fact is: It is a cop out.

A book needs to be judged by the words that appear on its pages. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Best wishes,
Mason

[SNOWBALL138]

[ QUOTE ]
While many lemmings on 2+2 like to critise them, McEvoy/Cloutier have a heck of alot more WSOP bracelets than most of thier critics do.

[/ QUOTE ]


I really wouldn't argue that the correctness of McEvoy's writing is justified by his tournament results, because his tournament results are pathetic. I can't remember the exact numbers, because I calculated this a while ago, but McEvoy has averaged approximately 70k per year over the last 22 or so years in tournament prizes. This doesn't account for his buy-ins therefore it is entirely possible that McEvoy is actually a losing player

In a discussion of who was the worst player to ever win the WSOP, Daniel Negraneau wrote, with a tone of surprise, that people didn't know how bad a player McEvoy is. In other words, McEvoy isn't even in the same league as Moneymaker, Fowler, or Varkonyi. WOW!

Best regards,
Snowball

[David Sklansky]

In a discussion of who was the worst player to ever win the WSOP, Daniel Negraneau wrote, with a tone of surprise, that people didn't know how bad a player McEvoy is. In other words, McEvoy isn't even in the same league as Moneymaker, Fowler, or Varkonyi. WOW!

Best regards,
Snowball

Daniel is way off on this one. At least if you are evaluating them at the time they won. Both have probably improved a lot by now.

[grandgnu]

I only purchased one McEvoy book, the winning NL Tournies version. While it's decent for beginners to get into the game without donking off all their chips right away, it's pretty much like comparing a bite of a hamburger to a large, juicy steak when you put it up against Harrington on Hold 'Em Volumes I & II.

The Harrington books are THE best things I've ever read. He explains everything on why you're playing in a certain way, and he covers the early, middle and late stages, including the dreaded (or profitable) bubble period, short-handed play, heads-up, etc.

Just some awesome books. Caro's Book of Poker Tells is also useful for live games, although I wish he'd update it, too many photo's from the 70's for my liking (handlebar mustaches, ahoy!)

Also, Super System 2: was not impressed. The Omaha 8 section was good, I'm not a limit hold em player, so can't comment there. Doyle Brusons section on NL Hold 'Em I couldn't stand. Pretty much all he says is "I'll put all my chips in on a draw. I'll call a large bet on the flop so I can pick up a draw on the turn and put all my chips in. I'm not afraid to gamble. People think I get lucky. I get lucky. Blah blah blah"

I've read Sklansky's Theory of Poker, but it was a bit too math-centric for me. I believe he's got a book on Advanced Hold 'Em out there, I should've bought that instead of the McEvoy crap.

[SNOWBALL138]

[ QUOTE ]
Just some awesome books. Caro's Book of Poker Tells is also useful for live games, although I wish he'd update it, too many photo's from the 70's for my liking (handlebar mustaches, ahoy!)


[/ QUOTE ]

Joke as much as you want, but when handle-bar mustaches come back in style, you'll know how to pick up tells on those who wear them.


[ QUOTE ]
Pretty much all he says is "I'll put all my chips in on a draw. I'll call a large bet on the flop so I can pick up a draw on the turn and put all my chips in. I'm not afraid to gamble. People think I get lucky. I get lucky. Blah blah blah"


[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, your summary is very funny. I laughed hard when I read it.

However:

Doyle's strategy is very mathematically sound for medium to low stack situations. He summarizes it by saying that if he takes down ten 3k pots he can afford to play a 30k pot with 2:1 the worst of it. Also, his style allows him to get insane action on his big hands, and keeps people from bluffing him.

There's a lot of subtlety to his NLHE section. I still think that his writing has probably caused more people to get broke than get rich though, because it is very easily misapplied. This shouldn't be the case though, because he says at the beginning of the section that his strategies are to be used against strong players, but against weak players, your strategy should be to show them the nuts for all their money.

I think Mason's comment that Doyle has you putting all your chips in too often is a fair statement. Doing this in deep stack games will certainly get you broke very quickly.

Best regards,
Snowball

[grandgnu]

Well, I can't stand his writing style, Harrington explains things much more clearly than Doyle.

Also, yes, he wins three 10K pots and now he can "freeroll" for that 30K. Kind of, but winning poker is about making the correct decisions. I don't view putting all the "profit" I've made into the pot with the odds against me as "good poker".

I'd rather make good decisions and get my money in with the odds in my favor rather than against me.

[SNOWBALL138]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, yes, he wins three 10K pots and now he can "freeroll" for that 30K. Kind of, but winning poker is about making the correct decisions. I don't view putting all the "profit" I've made into the pot with the odds against me as "good poker".

[/ QUOTE ]

nonononononononno
Its BECAUSE he is willing to play a 30k pot as a 2:1 dog that he is able to steal all of those 3k pots. These are not seperate decisions.

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, yes, he wins three 10K pots and now he can "freeroll" for that 30K. Kind of, but winning poker is about making the correct decisions. I don't view putting all the "profit" I've made into the pot with the odds against me as "good poker".

[/ QUOTE ]

nonononononononno
Its BECAUSE he is willing to play a 30k pot as a 2:1 dog that he is able to steal all of those 3k pots. These are not seperate decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't try to argue with me woman, it's a proven fact that Doyle's a fish (I read it online somewhere) /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[punter11235]

Championship NL & PL Holdem (TJ & McEvoy) is good book for beginning NL players especially for these who are mainly limit players. It does good job explaining 2 very important NL concepts : 1)you shouldnt go broke with 1pair in this game 2)K10,KJ,AJ,KQ,A10 are crap starting hands

I think understanding this 2 concepts alone will make almost anybody winning NL player up to say 200NL.
Dont get me wrong, I think that most of advice given in this book is useless (like "timing is everything in poker") but it explains abovementioned concept in good way.

Best wishes

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
While many lemmings on 2+2 like to critise them, McEvoy/Cloutier have a heck of alot more WSOP bracelets than most of thier critics do.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's actually a reason to hate Cloutier more, not less. He can play poker. But it's pretty obvious that he doesn't play anywhere near how he teaches. (In so far as he ever teaches, many of the books are just rambling series of anecdotes.)

Hellmuth has alot of bracelets as well. And his books are also crap.

Being good at poker doesn't mean that you automatically can teach it well. Unfortunately.

Dont spend your money......here I will sum up their strategy for you.
Limp AK up front, fold AQ or lower up front.
Raise and reraise Aces and Kings.
FOLD queens to a reraise.
KQ is a trouble hand, i.e. do not play this hand ever.
Play jacks or lower as cheap as you can......oh yeah, fold to a raise.
Suited connectors.....dont even think about it.
Good luck on your WSOP bracelet using this strategy....you`ll need it.

[SNOWBALL138]

Sorry. You forgot the most important thing:

You have AK and it missed the flop? Check. What if he bets? Fold. I find it very very hard to believe that Cloutier doesn't make continuation bets.

Nice summary on Championship PL/NL Hold 'em. I recall there is also a practice hand where you're given AK and the flop comes AQ7 (there was a raise and reraise preflop). An opponent bets, Cloutier says to fold because it's a sure thing you're up against AQ, AA, QQ, AK or 77. I'm not an NL expert, more of a limit player, but it seems to me that if you're going to play this way, you should stay away from NL Hold 'Em.

[MicroBob]

not sure which book it was...but there was some bit somewhere where he argues that the 5th flush card 'feels' like it is more likely to come if he has 2 in his hand and there are 2 on the board (as opposed to 1 in his hand and 3 on the board).

whether he knows this is true or not is immaterial. Even SAYING something like this is just plain bad.

Whether it is more difficult to extract out of your opponents by hitting a '1 hole-card' flush is also immaterial (even though it's usually true) because he was merely talking about the chances of making your flush based on how many of those cards were in your hand or on the board.


I only read through this part in the book-store paging through it (or maybe somebody mentioned it here on the forums) but I think THIS is the most important lesson to take from his book.
Limping and check-folding with AK is a close second though.


----------------


Obviously the number of bracelets that they have is irrelevant too.
Bad advice is bad advice no matter how many bracelets you have.
If Phil Ivey wrote a book telling you to always push all-in with 72o in an effort to 'try to catch them offguard' would you just say "well...he's got some WSOP bracelets...so I guess I should do that."??
No - you would say "has Ivey lost his mind?? That advice is terrible.


Cloutier, McEvoy and Hellmuth all have a handful of bracelets...but when it comes to writing worthwhile poker advice they have all VERY CLEARLY done a pretty lousy job.
Their books are riddled with TERRIBLE poker ideas.