Why criticism of Champ. Hold 'em?

Ok, I am a poker book junkie, so in spite of all the lambasting of Cloutier and McEvoy's books that I have read here, I bought Championship Hold 'em anyway.

I really cannot understand why people rip this book. I have read a ton of poker books and I thought that this one was very valuable, with much great advice. The only criticism I could see is not really a criticism, just an observation that you should not read this book if you haven't read several others on hold 'em first. But I'd say the same about HPFAP (and no I'm not saying it is as good as that book, just that it is not a bad book in my opinion).

The example I have heard given here is that they say that they prefer getting dealt 98 offsuit to 98 suited, or something like that. Will from the way I interpret it, they are not saying that this is a LITERALLY better hand, just that if the 98 is suited it can get you into a lot more trouble if you play it long. Like if you fail to realize a bigger flush is out against you.

I do think that there are some philosophical difference with other authors, which may only be minor but which I noticed. They constantly reiterate that "hold 'em is a big card game," and that in hold 'em people make too big of a deal over whether a hand is suited or not. That is, if you are in an aggressive game with much preflop raising, and you decide to play KQ of diamonds under the gun, "because it's suited," but wouldn't dream of playing it under the gun in the same situation if it was unsuited, that is maybe not the best way to look at it. That is because there is a 95 percent chance that the flush is not going to come for you, and even if it does it is not the nuts. They say, "if you wouldn't consider playing a hand on the strength of the ranks of it's cards alone, then you probably shouldn't play it at all." This something that I agree with because I have noticed it in my own play. In situations where I get QJ suited in early position I will cold call anyone's raise in early position, when I would never even call for one if it was unsuited. Given that I only have approx. a 5% chance of making my flush, it is my opinion to agree that this......is not too smart. Yet I think that is the way most people play it because there is an overemphasis on suitedness as compared to the actual times you will make the flush. I don't necessarily think this is overestimated in late position but in early position, particulary in an aggressive game, I very much think it is.

Another excellent point they make is that if some guy has "spider webs growing off his chips" because he hasn't played a hand in over an hour, and suddenly he reraises a raiser in front of you, maybe you should muck your QQ or even your KK if he is supertight. In many of the other texts I have read, this would be (gasp) heresy to ever muck QQ or KK preflop (or AK) preflop, no matter what the circumstances. But as someone who has gotten torched with those same hands many times before (when tight raisers in front had bigger ones), I think this is a valuable piece of advice.

My own opinion is that you should read as many poker books as you can, or at least most of them, because while one way may be better than another, it makes you think about the game. If you only read S&M, or only read Lee Jones, or Krieger, or Cloutier/McEvoy, you are just going to be like those people who listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio and no one else because "Rush is god!" You will just end up spouting one view because you think it is "best." It may be best, but if you just regurgitate advice instead of comparing and contrasting different advice, then you are just a parrot and you don't really think about the game as much, in all likelihood. Or at least that has been my experience. I just wanted to state that I think this book is worth reading and I don't agree with the criticism of it.


Tim

I would have to agree with you Tim. I think there is enough good advice in this book to make it a valuable read. I would say that the writing style is a bit clumsy, and they maybe don't quite explain their reasoning as clearly as they should. Its certainly not the best book available on the topic, but I definitely got something out of it. The revised edition should be coming out shortly, if it hasn't already, and maybe some of the criticisms will have been addressed and improved.

if you look in the archives of the general topics section you will find threads called


Having a field day.


Many blatant mistakes in this book are pointed out in this thread.

Its valuable for anyones success to keep an open mind and get whatever insights are hidden between the lines as it seems you have done..

To many of us we expect things to be black and white... but really that narrows our capacities...

As one becomes more enlightened theres value to any conceptaul statement whether right or wrong...


jg

Here is my review. Notice that I rank books on a scale of 1-to-10 with 10 being the best and 1 being simply awful.


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.

Mason,

I totally respect your review and am not disagreeing with it, seeing as you know more in one pinky than I know in my whole body about poker. It does seem to me, however, that there is a contradiction here. These two men have proven that they are enormously talented and successful players at both limit and no-limit hold 'em. Few would dispute that at both games they are 2 of the very best in the world. Given this, if the advice they give is, "simply awful," there is only one conclusion to be reached: they are lying. Because if they are not lying, than this advice could not be awful, as they are 2 of the most successful hold 'em players in the world. I do not see how logically one could draw any other conclusion. If they follow there own advice (to not do so I would equate with lying), and they are 2 of the most successful in the world, then teh advice cannot be awful. Are you saying that they are lying, or at least not following their own advice which they espouse in this book? Because if they actually play this way, their results would indicate that this advice is not awful at all.

Tim

My guess would be not following their own advice. Playing poker and teaching poker by writing or otherwise are two entirely different spheres. All books are written with an intended audience. The composition of the audience will change how the book is written. I would seriously doubt Tom and T.J. play exactly as they write. But they are trying to teach you how to play, not telling you what they would do. The best play for a pro can sometimes be different from the best play for an average player. Without the same hand-reading ability and experience, perhaps the authors believe many players will get into trouble in situations that pros could play out of.


This is one of the reasons I feel that HPFAP is one of the most useful books - it assumes an experienced reader will be playing more on theory and strategy. Most pros probably play more on strategy and game feel, but when they teach they resort to using rules. The authors might fear giving strategic advice because many players will not correctly recognize the applicable situations in a real game.


That said, if T.J. Cloutier gives me advice, I would be reluctant to ignore it.


Fallon

"These two men have proven that they are enormously talented and successful players at both limit and no-limit hold 'em. Few would dispute that at both games they are 2 of the very best in the world."


I disagree. I've never seen Cloutier play limit hold 'em in a ring game, and the other guy, well, let's just say that he is good for the game.


But it doesn't really matter whether they play well or not. What's important is what the book says, and in this case it is just terrible.

I haven't read the book, but I know that the authors re-edited the book and released it January 2002. There is no way you can know which one you buy by the cover, you have to look inside for the year of edition.


It is supposed to be a lot better, according to a well known poker writer, with revised sections and additions by D. Negreanu and other top pros who do play in the higher limit games.


I don't know how the book would rate now.


Nicolas Fradet (The Prince)

That's interesting because they asked David for help in redoing it. David spoke to Cloutier about the many problems in the book during last years WSOP and apparently Cloutier was quite surprised by it. Anyway, a few weeks later David received a letter from their editor asking for his help in redoing the book. However, no help from us was forthcoming.