Matt Matros's book

Macedon · #1 07-20-2005, 02:52 PM

I haven't seen this book----"The Making of a Poker Player"----mentioned anywhere in this thread.

Am I the only one who thought this was a great book?

sethypooh21 · #2 07-20-2005, 03:14 PM

I liked it a lot. Very 'well-written' from an aesthetic standpoint. An easy read, and you just might learn a little bit of poker on accident.

nate1729 · #3 07-20-2005, 03:22 PM

I started a thread that had some action a while back. See below.

--Nate

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...mp;o=&vc=1

Bluff Daddy · #4 07-20-2005, 03:26 PM

i liked it, got it for 5 bucks and there was a thread about it b/c I read it and decided to check it out

Macedon · #5 07-20-2005, 03:49 PM

Nate, I stand corrected. Well written review; interesting thread.

avatar77 · #6 07-20-2005, 05:17 PM

Yes..I read the book too and I really enjoyed it as well.

Interesting that he recommends Ken Warren's book for Hold'em..very interesting indeed.

Jordan Olsommer · #7 07-20-2005, 07:13 PM

Another vote in favor; excellent book. A modern version of Yardley's "Education of a Poker Player", except maybe minus half a point because Matros doesn't have any "player having a heart attack at the table" stories to share [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. Definitely pick it up, though.

binions · #8 07-20-2005, 07:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes..I read the book too and I really enjoyed it as well.

Interesting that he recommends Ken Warren's book for Hold'em..very interesting indeed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes - Matros is a RGP guy who apparently feels some sort of rivalry with 2+2 I guess. He makes some snide comments about 2+2 ("groupthink"), and makes some weird recommendations (Warren book).

Overall, however, the book is entertaining.

AceHigh · #9 07-21-2005, 02:30 PM

I didn't care for it. One of the problems with the book I felt is it can't decide if it's an instructional book or "story". For some reason I never like the poker "story" books, ( not Alvarez, not Holden, not McManus) so maybe it's just me.

Also, I thought he is a little close minded, he spouts he standard RGP stuff, -ARG is great, yada, yada (and where's Abdul in all this RGP talk? wasn't he the god of RGP in those days? I certainly thought so) and slams 2+2 about group think, etc. But there are thousands of posters on 2+2 and I think this is just an urban myth started because RGP has lost out/it's way. If you want to improve your poker nowadays, you come to 2+2 not RGP and it's not close. (He's not shy about putting a blurb from 2+2'er Greg Raymer on the cover, guess that kind of group think he can get behind)

Randy Burgess · #10 07-21-2005, 02:44 PM

Just shows how tastes differ. To me, it was poorly written, boring, and unenlightening. I thought it likely that it only got published because poker is such a hot topic at the moment.

To compare it to the Yardley book is an act of sacrilege! Yardley is dated, and he wasn't a professional writer, but he was a very smart man who'd done a lot of interesting things in his life. Nothing against Matros, but by comparison he's done very little.