Book Review: Championship Hold 'em

Championship Hold ’em by (1) Tom McEvoy and T.J. Cloutier. This book is so bad it’s hard to know exactly where to begin when writing a review. But here goes. As I see it, there are two

main problems. First, is that it is filled with much specific information that is just plain wrong and contradictory to other advice given in the text. For example on page 30 the authors write “Several poker mathematician types mentioned that you should average a certain number of bets per hour when you play poker. I think that notion is erroneous.” But two pages later the text states “If you’re a serious player, you have to figure that your time is worth X-number of dollars per hour and you should play in a game that will compensate you accordingly.”


Other ridiculous advice includes not to call in multiway pots with big-little suited cards such as K♠6♠, why it’s better to play low connectors unsuited rather than suited, why when you

have the kill you should never let the money you post influence the way you play, why you should not bet J9 (because of your bad kicker) when the flop comes J32 and you are in the big blind against four limpers, why in a jackpot game “you must constantly try to overcome the disadvantage of having all kinds of players take the flop with bad hands so that virtually any strong hand is going to go way down in value,” why when playing a flush draw in a multi-way pot “it had better be the nut flush draw,” why when you have a hand like A♠K♠ on the button and five or six players are in you should check after the whole field checks and the flop is J♠T♠2♣, why the size of the pot should never influence your last bet (particularly if it is a calling bet), and finally why you should often fold a set on the turn when there is a four flush on board.


But there is also another problem with this text. It is simply that the basic philosophy of how to play limit hold ’em is wrong. Timid players do not do well in this game. It is also true that some players are overly aggressive, but always being afraid of better hands when you don’t hold the nuts and adjusting your playing strategy because of this should prove very expensive. You will allow free cards to beat you, won’t extract the maximum whey your hand is best, won’t knock other players out when it is right to do so, and will fold hands that you should be continuing on with. I don’t believe that anyone can win playing like this unless your opponents are extremely weak and limit hold ’em should be a very frustrating (and expensive) experience for you.

"You will allow free cards to beat you, won’t extract the maximum whey your hand is best, won’t knock other players out when it is right to do so, and will fold hands that you should be continuing on with."


If this is the style implied by the book and I have no reason do doubt that it is I'd like to comment on what you wrote. As you know I have the utmost respect for you and what you write. When you write something I take it to the bank. But when you state that:


"I don’t believe that anyone can win playing like this unless your opponents are extremely weak and limit hold ’em should be a very frustrating (and expensive) experience for you."


You're being much to kind. There is no possible way to win at hold'em as it's played in a casino with the style you describe that is written in the book.


One thing of interest possibly. On RGP Badger praised the forward and/or introduction by Eric Seidel for this book. What did you think of it? I haven't had a chance to read the book yet.

Here's what I think.


1. At the very low limits where the betting is spread you should be able to win a little playing as the authors describe in an easy game.


2. I doubt if Eric Seidel, who is a friend of mine, had read the book when he wrote the forward.


3. David talked to Cloutier during last years's WSOP and TJ was apparently shocked when he heard about some of the things written in the book. David also received a letter from their publisher asking for his help in fixing the errors for the next edition.

What did you think of Eric Seidel's forward to the book? It was praised as a must read for all limit hold'em players.

Erik Seidel=Super nice guy, probably has won/placed in more big limit hold'em tourneys than anyone.


TJ=never played a hand of 10-20 or 15-30 live limit hold'em in his life.


Tom McEvoy=nice guy, in his own little world, a bit foggy at times. Kinda like David!


Badger=based on his writings, knows Omaha, tourneys, online poker, movies & music, but is no babe magnet.

It's a very nice foreword, all 2 pages of it. It praises the authors and talks about how you have to adjust to different players with different game styles and thanks the authors for sharing their thoughts with us. But it has virtually no value in teaching you how to play.


I do remember the Badger post where he praised the introduction. It struck me as funny.

They say that almost every book is worth its price i.e., you will learn at least one or two new things that will help you win a pot or save a bet.


I ask you: Are there any redeeming qualities to this book? Assuming that I can spot and disregard the bad advice when I see it, is it worth the forty bucks or whatever it costs?


BTW, I look forward to seeing your review of Carson's book. I imagine that it has to be much better than this one.

Well the basic answer to your question is no, but the tournament stuff is probably a little better.

Have you talked to the authors about the book? These guys are about as big as it gets when it comes to poker names, I'm sure they wouldn't mind some constructive critcism. I'd love to hear what their viewpoint is.

I haven't talked to them but David did talk to TJ Cloutier during the WSOP. My understanding is that Cloutier wanted to get all these errors fixed.

I believe it is important to point out that you have to put yourself in the mind of a new player. This book does an exceptional job of getting players out of trouble. Your right you can't win with this book but you can use it to float with(instead of immediatly drowning) while your learning to swim.


I also think it is important to point out that some books ie HFAP costs players money by making them play in a way that they don't yet understand. A good example of this would be after my brother started reading HFAP he said the book was crap because it told him to raise with a suited connector, this was mostly do to the fact that all beginners have the idea that Hold'em is a Big Card game. They have trouble balancing something that seems contradictory. It literaly took me 15 minutes to explain to him the concept and what the book really meant. Where as in the Championship book they talk about how two suited cards dont have the value people think. Which when transferred to the table and the moron is dropping the "well they were suited line" the beginner remembers the book and keeps his nose clean instead of raising UTG with 89s.


Both here and on RGP I have read the same arguments but have yet to see anyone explain what I just wrote I hope it is somewhat thought provoking.

"This book does an exceptional job of getting players out of trouble. Your right you can't win with this book but you can use it to float with(instead of immediatly drowning) while your learning to swim."


I strongly disagree. Giving bad advice that you can't win with is not the way I want to get out of trouble. But even if you're right, I still think you are worng. Remember this book is called Championship Hold'em and the authors make it very clear that they are (trying to?) giving winning advice.

Championship Hold'em and the authors make it very clear that they are (trying to?) giving winning advice.


Yes the title is misleading, I bought the book expecting much more but that does not change the fact that no one book will make you a winner. If one was already beating a hold'em game at any limit the book would be a waste of money not because it would cause you to form bad habits but because the good advice it gives should already be known and the bad advice while thought provoking is easily picked out, again Im saying this if one was a winner and this is the minority. If however you are a loser this book enables you to lose less, this is an extremely important point. No 1 book can turn a loser into a winner so if a book can save a loser some more money then the book should be considered a success.


Giving bad advice that you can't win with is not the way I want to get out of trouble.


Again yes this is true but my point is that most players are losers and they will never be winners. While a goal of a book should not be to save a losers money by making mistakes. A book should also not be critiqued in a way that it's considered useless if it enables a player to buy more time to learn from their mistakes.


I understand your points and agree with some of them but to blast the book without out bringing up these vital issues I believe is incorrect.

I need to respectfully disagree with both Ryan and Mason.


First of all, as a losing player, buying the book is either a waste of money or a catastrophe.


If the losing player who buys it does not really wish to study the book, it is simply a waste of money. You may argue that player who has purchased the book intends on studying it diligently. I would disagree with that as most (losing) players, I believe, will not follow through with their studies. I hear players all the time say "I read this book or that book (citing a respectable book)...and I still lose. It wasn't worth reading."


If the losing player does apply him/herself to studying this book with the intention of bettering their game, they will not be able to sort the good information from the bad. Sure, they will pick up some decent advice, but they will also pick up poor advice and apply that to there game. Ironically, this poor advice MAY (or may not) make them better players than they are currently, but there is one major problem. They will be held back terribly by these bad plays and will not progress further without UNlearning many things. What's worse is that perhaps they saw an "improvement" in their play that they may not be willing to unlearn. Thus, they may never become "good" players even if they are willing to put some effort into it.


So if a losing player is truely interested in learning the game, have them start off by reading "Winning Low Limit Holdem" by Lee Jones and FOLLOWING the advice (not just reading it...). While not TOTALLY accurate, it presents a framework that can easily adapt to further learning.


As for winning players, I believe they can pick up some bits and pieces of decent information, and KNOWING THAT THERE ARE ERRORS, use their brains to THINK about what they may be. If they are unsure of something, DISCUSS it with others.


I found the book to be easy reading and it often made me think critically (like poker books so often do) about the game.


So in conclusion, I believe this book is bad for beginners and losers, but could be useful for winning players. It was well worth the price I paid.