Tom McEvoy's Card Player Articles

[Ed Miller]

Is it just me, or are Tom McEvoy's articles the most inaccurate and poorly thought out pieces of the whole magazine? I've only been playing poker for six months, and yet I remember reading his articles on many occasions and coming to the conclusion that he is simply out to lunch. His article in the most recent issue, "Playing Big Connectors Lower Than A-K" is an example. Gems include:

Explaining why having a suited hand is not really much of an edge over an unsuited hand:

"Unless you have unusual psychic abilities or X-ray vision that allows you to read what’s coming off the deck, you can never know if or when your coveted flush cards will hit the flop. Almost all of us have occasionally succumbed to emotions or hunches — “I just knew the flush was going to come” — and sometimes they’re correct, but usually they are not. Anybody could be a world beater if he always knew what was going to come on the flop, but we don’t know that, so we have to abide by sound game theory and solid strategies about which cards to enter the pot with."

I'd like Tom to tell me what "sound game theory" has to say about what cards to enter the pot with. More discussion about why being suited is overrated:

"When playing suited connectors or even nonconnectors, you should realize that if you flop two cards of your suit, you are still an underdog to make the flush after the flop. You are now committed to call on the flop and usually on fourth street. Thus, if you don’t hit the flush, you are burning up at least two bets, and even more in a raised situation. Also, you might make the flush and still lose to a bigger flush if you’re in a multiway pot. Remember that when you are playing a flush draw in a multiway pot, it had better be the nut-flush draw."

I'm not usually snide or gratuitously critical, but, being the only major poker periodical in the country... you'd think that they would not print outright misinformation.

[eldo77]

It's just you.There's nothing unsound in this article.

[Bozeman]

Tom is a good player, but he is not a good theorist. Take what he says with a grain of salt, but there are often good ideas in his column (and sometimes incorrect ideas or explanations).

Craig

[David Ottosen]

I'd agree they are rather silly most times. When I saw the title of his new article, I imagined the content of the article would probably read something along the lines of "Don't".

But I never respected him after watching his Funky Monkey Dance of Joy after winning the WSOP, and hearing his "Texas Sucks!" speech.

[Ed Miller]

A summary of his paragraphs:

Muck AQs and AQo to an UTG raise - AQo is an easy muck to a typical UTG raise, but AQs is not.

You are a favorite to miss your flush, so being suited adds little to a hand, and if you wouldn't play the hand offsuit then you shouldn't play it suited either - obviously the notion of small edges doesn't impress him.

Don't play QJs UTG unless the game is loose-passive - I personally think this is too tight... and his reasoning for it (you wouldn't play QJo and being suited isn't a big deal) is silly. He also implies (though doesn't directly say... which is a very poor stylistic habit for an article such as this... waving hands and leaving gray areas) that playing QJo UTG might be profitable in a loose-passive game... and I think that is almost certainly false.

His next paragraph, while not "wrong" in any objective sense, is filled with all sorts of voodoo implying that playing a hand because it's suited is tantamount to "playing a hunch" simply hoping that a flush will fall out of the deck. To that end, playing any poker is playing hunches, and we probably should all just go home and take up shuffleboard. He also makes an amusing comment about "sound game theory" that makes me think that he read Theory of Poker at some point and figured he'd drop a convincing-sounding term in.

He then makes a salient observation about how most people should probably tighten up from early position. I agree wholeheartedly.

His final paragraph is again filled with innuendo, but this is the advice I glean from it if I take it at face value: muck non-nut flush draws if you are in a multiway pot. If you were to follow this advice literally, then this would have you folding K [img]/forums/images/icons/diamond.gif[/img] Q [img]/forums/images/icons/diamond.gif[/img] on a flop of J [img]/forums/images/icons/diamond.gif[/img] 6 [img]/forums/images/icons/diamond.gif[/img] 2 [img]/forums/images/icons/spade.gif[/img] with six players in for two bets each (presumably you raised before the flop... though I suppose maybe you shouldn't because KQo is a weak hand or something). I can only assume that this is not really what he intends, but in that case he should be much more careful about saying things like "Remember that when you are playing a flush draw in a multiway pot, it had better be the nut-flush draw," without further clarification.

All-in-all, I found the article to be sloppy, inaccurate, and full of voodoo and hazy thinking. I remember reading his articles in the past and feeling similarly about them... which is why I posted in the first place... out of some frustration. Maybe I'm wrong, though... and perhaps I should have taken my mother's advice about not being able to say something nice...

[skp]

When you start out suited, your chances of winning increase in several ways i.e. making a flush is not the only reason why suitedness is important:

For one thing, you have more semibluffing opportunities. Secondly, your chances of winning on the river (by pairing, making trips, two pairs) are greater when you start out suited because that is the factor that would have allowed you to see the turn and river cards. eg. the board comes Q7328. If you happen to win with 87 on the end, it's probably because you started off suited and flopped one of your suit. Yes, being suited can cost you sometimes when you don't pick up help in the example given but in the games these days, the money in the pot is generally big enough where "chasing" with a pair and a backdoor flush draw is profitable.

As for the advice "you better have the nut flush draw"...well, of course, you would rather have it but certainly, way more often than not, you should play any flush draw to the end and expect doing so to be positive EV.

[bernie]

it is kind of ridiculous advice, BUT it did make you think a little...heh ehe.

anyway...one thing about mcevoy, and cloutier for that matter....they know tourneys, but theyd get their ass handed to em in a tough ring game. they both play very weak tight, based on what they write...have you seen any evidence where they would bet a draw?...at all? even if it's in a very +EV situation? they both love to just check and call the whole way, and only make a move with the nuts...or a bluff...no in between...

i may listen to em for tourney stuff, maybe, but with ring games, there are alot better sources. in a loose passive game there is a huge difference in being suited....

also, if you played his way, based on this laughable excerpt, youd be a very easy read...basically he's saying only play the nuts...thats an early round tourney concept isnt it?

as far as his x-ray vision, maybe he needs a lesson in implied odds and theory to see why it's better to call/play suited rather than non suiteds in this situation...

i havent read his column in awhile, or cardplayer for that matter, (though i so intend to catch up) but every once in awhile he may have a gem...but HEY, think of the players at your table who really try and practice what he says...maybe his article IS good for your game...

once again, my respect for well-known tourney players lessens. stay with the tourneys guys, we need you to have money when you hit our ring games...and show us how it's REALLY played...

note: there are some guys who can play both well, i just dont think many of them are authors of columns. based on what theyve written and the fact they generalize the the same concept works in ring as in tourneys...bull

b

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi majorkong:

I quit reading his columns a long time ago. If you're new to poker, I would recommend that you do the same.

You may want to look in the archives/older posts, but there was much discussion on these forums when their book Championship Hold 'em came out. It was filled with much advice similar to what you reference in this column. So at least he's consistent.

Best wishes,
mason

[InternetPokerPro]

Mason you have to learn to not hold back. These wishy/washy, politically correct, don't step on toes responses just don't become you. lol

[Bozeman]

Ok MajorKong, you think:

"All-in-all, I found the article to be sloppy, inaccurate, and full of voodoo and hazy thinking. I remember reading his articles in the past and feeling similarly about them... which is why I posted in the first place... out of some frustration. Maybe I'm wrong, though... and perhaps I should have taken my mother's advice about not being able to say something nice..."

Thia is true to some extent of all of McEvoy's writing, though his tourney advice is better on average. If you think this makes it not worth reading, ok, but often a player can gain some insights into the less left brain parts of poker by carefully examining this sort of advice (I believe Tom is somewhat of a right-brain player).

For example, the first poker book I bought was Cloutier and McEvoy's NL and PL book. Many things in this book should not be taken at face value (for example, it's unlikely that someone who plays as tight as they advise will win tourneys), but reading and thinking about it improved my tourney game immensely.

However, if you want advice that is more likely to be correct, and don't like carefully turning over a text, you should avoid Tom for a while.

Craig