johnny chan\'s book..any good?
 

anyone own johnny chan's book? doens't seem to be getting that much attention. You would think it would be better than harrington's book. thoughts?

Re: johnny chan\'s book..any good?
 

Seems to be getting good reviews.
It may or may not be better than Harrington's (I dunno who really makes that decision), but Harrington's book has the advantage of this web site. People knew it was coming out months in advance, which does wonders for generating interest.

Re: johnny chan\'s book..any good?
 

just got it in the mail...i learned something about players being on tilt, however it is very very basic and very very general. he discusses hand rankings, his story, poker concepts, casino poker, online poker, tournaments, and 6 different games (lim he, stud, nl he, stud hi lo, omaha 8, and pl omaha) in about 225 pages.

Re: johnny chan\'s book..any good?
 

from your description it sounds like he is going for the mass audience. This is one thing you have to give 2+2 credit for, there books are often not really written for the mass audience, but more for people truly willing to work at becomming experts.

Re: johnny chan\'s book..any good?
 

Why are you comparing it to Harington's book? It looks like you are comparing apples to oranges. Chan's book is a general beginners book, just like Playing with the Pros, that focuses on more than one game.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Re: johnny chan\'s book..any good?
 

I got mine signed by Mr. Chan himself when i bought it through his website. His autograph was the best thing written in that book. Geared toward the beginner.

Re: johnny chan\'s book..any good?
 

Why would I think it would be better than Harrington's book?

Re: johnny chan\'s book..any good?
 

[ QUOTE ]
from your description it sounds like he is going for the mass audience. This is one thing you have to give 2+2 credit for, there books are often not really written for the mass audience, but more for people truly willing to work at becomming experts.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is exactly what it is