Annie Duke's book: anyone read it?

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
You should write more book reviews.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Quality review.

I skimmed the book today, reading the entire chapter at the end discussing different poker pros.

From what I read, I would tend to agree with the posters here. The poker advice seemed elementary. The general feel was fluffy. The emotional depth seemed limited. The part about different poker pros was safe and in many cases so lacking in description as to be pointless.
Not uninteresting, but hardly compelling.

The panic attack thing doesn't particularly surprise me. Watching her in the 2004 ToC and reading McManus's experience with her in the 2000 main event, she seems extremely high strung.

After reading the Professor, the Banker and the Suicide King, I was a little bothered by her unexplicit, yet obvious, description of Andy. Unless Craig's book was almost completely fabricated, he was anything but a fish. Competitive, strong instincts, worked hard on his game, inspired fear amongst pros not just due to financial risk, and (apparently) doing well until he got tired against many of the pros.

I'll probably give it more of a chance and read a few chapters, but I don't expect to finish it. There are far too many other poker books in the games book section at the bookstore that I haven't yet read that have more promise.

[DrSavage]

[ QUOTE ]
You should write more book reviews.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes please. Thank you for saving me a few bucks.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Ben:

After your review, which I'm confidant is accurate, I doubt if there will be many Two Plus Twoers lining up to purchase it.

I'm also curious about two things. First, how did you get an advance copy? Are you involved with the publishing company? Second, does Duke discuss the ill fated Poker World magazine, her roll in it, and all the problems that followed?

Best wishes,
Mason

[Rob-L]

Poker World - wasn't that out in the mid 90's?

I think I subscribed to it, got the first 6 issues and then it went belly up.

If that is the same magazine, I had no idea she was involved.

Very interesting.

[benfranklin]

Hi Mason:


[ QUOTE ]


I'm also curious about two things. First, how did you get an advance copy? Are you involved with the publishing company?


[/ QUOTE ]

I am in the business, but have no direct connection with the publisher (Penquin Group). Someone there who knows of my interest in poker gave me an advance copy.


[ QUOTE ]
Second, does Duke discuss the ill fated Poker World magazine, her roll in it, and all the problems that followed?


[/ QUOTE ]

She devotes barely a page to her Poker World venture. She says she was looking to diversify financially, and so, "Along with my brother and a few other backers, I invested $10,000 to launch a new publication. (At the time, this was a huge financial commitment for me.)"

She quickly breezes over any details about starting and operating the magazine. (She does mention one typical start-up mistake: her sister had just graduated and needed a job, so she was hired.) She says that the magazine failed because the timing was not yet ripe for a poker magazine, and, "Also, I didn't get along with one of the principals involved. I didn't get along with my sister, either. And I didn't have the money to hire the right kind of staff. In fact, none of us knew exactly what we were doing, and I had pretty much taken the whole success or failure of the magazine onto myself."

No further details about the fate of the magazine or those involved, other than that she decided that she needed to concentrate on playing, and they shut the magazine down. Basically, it sounds like it was amateur hour.

[Piers]

But does she give any good advice on improving your game by flirting?

I would consider the book inappropriately named if she didn’t.

i agree on the fishiness of the amazon book reviews.... they just seem too punchy and concise. like a PR wrote them.... just have that strong feeling... although there was a spelling error, but i assume that's what smart PR firms do to portray authenticity.

if you haven't read the reviews, do, as i think you'll agree.

[SoftcoreRevolt]

I was rather skeptical of people saying the reviews are fake, but after reading them, yeah, I'd have to agree.

Amazon reviews that short are typically very poorly spelled with no attempt at proper grammar or capitalization. And most that short are written by people who really hate the album/book/movie and are leaving a 1 star review, not 5 stars. If they are that short and positive they usually read: ANNA DUKE'S BOOK IS AWESOME AND SHE IS HOT I WANT TO GIVEY OU MY STBS!

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
I was rather skeptical of people saying the reviews are fake, but after reading them, yeah, I'd have to agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't 80% of them!?

I received a free copy and 5 CD set read by Annie today. I'll be happy to give another view when I am finished.

---Leavenfish

[MikeCraig]

I don't know if anybody reads these replies weeks after the original posts but this thread grabbed my attention. I have a suspicion that peoples' dislike of Annie Duke is creating this business about "fake reviews." My basis: first, posters are suspecting they are fake because they are short and well-written, as if that's somehow inconsistent with "real Amazon.com reviews." Then someone points out that there was a typo, but that's just the work of a PR firm to make it seem less fishy.

How brilliant and insidious are these PR firms? Smart enough to make them short and proper in spelling and punctuation, then smarter by NOT doing that sometimes? Yet not as smart as you guys, or smart enough to make them longer or with worse spelling?

My own "evidence" is anecdotal but my experience with one book and a big publisher is inconsistent with this theory of Evil PR Super Geniuses.

A. Publishers generally think Amazon.com results in relatively few sales (of mainstream-publisher books; specialty houses could be an entirely different situation)and is not a good indicator of success. My editor told me, "If you're in the top 100 and you're there for a long time, that means your book is doing well. Otherwise, it's too small a sample to matter."

B. Publishers are very cheap about publicity. I've got my own experiences to support that, the policies of Time Warner as they were explained to me, and stories from other authors (even some big-name celebrities) who were paying their own expenses on book tours because the publisher wouldn't spring for it.

C. The risk is far too great. There is a sub-industry of people who follow the publishing business. If such a practice really went on and had some impact, it would be a huge story inside the industry. And unless this book was the only book where this PR firm (publishers don't even hire PR firms for most books, and are notoriously cheap on publicity) did such a thing, word would get out.

I think we should be a little more critical of conspiracy theories.

Michael Craig