David Daniel

I read his book 'Poker: How to Win at the All American Game' in my poker youth a few years back and recently reread it. It very much romanticizes poker. Deals mainly with home games, knowing your opponents, and has some pretty strong opinions about other poker authors.

I found it entertaining.


I'd love to hear opinions and/or reviews from those who've read it.

Wuff! I bought DD's book (a mistake) and did my best over a long period of time to learn something from it--kept going back to it and re-reading chapters etc. Eventually I learned enough from other, better books to realize that DD has little to say of value; most of the book is boast and brag. He doesn't cover fundamental concepts, but instead spends his time insulting the reader, his opponents, and other poker writers. You're better off (even for home games) reading Sklansky for theory and Sklansky/Malmuth/Zee for specifics on a given game, plus putting in some casino time. Once you learn to play a standard game (e.g. 7 stud) you can then apply the ideas to home games.


As an example, DD doesn't anywhere talk about the size of the ante and how it affects play. That's pretty damn fundamental.


The only interesting thing is his PokerWiz software. I haven't bought it, and I've heard that the interface is terrible, but at least he generates some useful stats from it (Appendix 1).

Mason had it as one of the worst in his book review section in Gambling Theory, which for my money is the best gambling book ever written.


Pat

I agree with Mr. Malmuth's negative review, both in its general conclusion and its specifics. Mr. Daniel comes off as a complete ass. His opponents are morons and the experts are as well. Well, Mr. Daniel, if your opponents are so bad, maybe that explains your alleged success. After all, it is not too difficult to beat up on "weakies". As Mr. Malmuth points out, his stroies are just not believable.


Let's review one in particular, the four Jacks lowball hand mentioned by Mr. Malmuth. Mr. Daniel is dealt 4 Js in draw lowball. Several see the draw. After the draw there is a bet, call, raise and then Mr. Daniel re-raises. The rest (I believe 3 or 4 others) all fold.


There are several flaws in this story which also argue against a layer ever trying this. First, his opponents are loose players. How many loose players, after seeing bets and raises pre-draw and bets and raises post-draw are going to drop because of another raise? Second, these players showed Mr. Daniel no respect by both betting and raising after the draw even though Mr. Daniel stood pat. Then because of one raise, they develop, instanteoulsy and collectively, enough fear of his hand to fold in masse. One moment they have no respect, then one bet causes raisers to fold. Not just raisers, but a raiser who rasied a bet that was called by an intervening player. Even if the raiser thought the original bettor was bluffing, the fact the there was a call requires the raiser to have a fairly strong hand. And it really could not have come as a surprise to the raiser, or others, that a pat hand raised. So why the sudden fear?


He also focuses too much on it being a people game. Of course, it is in part. But he believes that the fundamentals are noty just secondary, but a very small part of the game. Granted, he discusses mostly home poker where it is easier to get to know your opponents and develop long-term stategies to profit from your observations. However, he has little respect for the fundamentals.


I am glad that I borrowed the book from the library. It would make me a tad sick if I bought the book and allowed Mr. Daniel to profit off of what I believe is not just bad advice but probably fraudelent as well.


By the way, why the obsessive use of the phrase "inter-personally challenged"?


However, it is quite funny in a way because it is so unbelievable and Mr. Daniel comes off as such a bombastic jerk.