Phil Gordon's Little Green Book

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I do find the writing style to be somewhat irritating and it is possible to write in first person without using 'I' in every sentence. However, I think the content is pretty good. A nice suppliment to Harrington. I don't like it quite as much as Improve Your Poker by Ciaffone, but it's well worth the money.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do as you say, not as you do? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

I want to learn more about NL. Just starting in poker. Is this a good first book to buy on NL?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I want to learn more about NL. Just starting in poker. Is this a good first book to buy on NL?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's a great first book on NL hold 'em.

Follow it up with the Harrington/Robertie books.

[The Absurdist]

"It is horribly written. It seems like every fifth or sixth word is "I," and probably 20 percent of the words could be eliminated. I find it amazing that these major publishers don't do basic editing, and Phil Gordon, who I believe is a good guy, should be very upset about this."

--Not to pile on, but this observation is quite absurd. As others have mentioned, this is Phil's attempt to have a conversation with the reader about how he plays. His book is subtitled _Lessons and Teachings in No Limit Texas Hold'em_, meaning the style will be informal and conversational, an attempt to simulate a personal lesson. Whether or not this trope is successful, is up for debate, but his method is in keeping with his stated intention. If a famous chef were to write a cookbook attempting to take you into his kitchen for a personal lesson on how he prepares meals for his family, wouldn't you expect him to use "I, me and my" far more often than a scientist writing in a scholarly journal? I actually like the direct, informal approach. Instead of saying "the application of game theory, hand reading and the science of interpreting physical mannerisms were insufficient to yield any well founded conclusions about my opponent's possible holding," Phil says "I couldn't figure out what the guy had," more clear and less pretentious.

As for the absence of professional editing, in his acknowledgements Phil thanks Howard's father Richard Lederer for spending so much time reviewing the manuscript. I doubt he was working on the strategy sections. By my count, Richard Lederer has published 17 books on English usage and grammar, and is as close a thing America has to a Dean of modern American Usage. I am certain he approved of the manuscript. We should all be so lucky as to have his help with our writing.

[ QUOTE ]
"It is horribly written. It seems like every fifth or sixth word is "I," and probably 20 percent of the words could be eliminated. I find it amazing that these major publishers don't do basic editing, and Phil Gordon, who I believe is a good guy, should be very upset about this."

--Not to pile on, but this observation is quite absurd. As others have mentioned, this is Phil's attempt to have a conversation with the reader about how he plays. His book is subtitled _Lessons and Teachings in No Limit Texas Hold'em_, meaning the style will be informal and conversational, an attempt to simulate a personal lesson. Whether or not this trope is successful, is up for debate, but his method is in keeping with his stated intention. If a famous chef were to write a cookbook attempting to take you into his kitchen for a personal lesson on how he prepares meals for his family, wouldn't you expect him to use "I, me and my" far more often than a scientist writing in a scholarly journal? I actually like the direct, informal approach. Instead of saying "the application of game theory, hand reading and the science of interpreting physical mannerisms were insufficient to yield any well founded conclusions about my opponent's possible holding," Phil says "I couldn't figure out what the guy had," more clear and less pretentious.

As for the absence of professional editing, in his acknowledgements Phil thanks Howard's father Richard Lederer for spending so much time reviewing the manuscript. I doubt he was working on the strategy sections. By my count, Richard Lederer has published 17 books on English usage and grammar, and is as close a thing America has to a Dean of modern American Usage. I am certain he approved of the manuscript. We should all be so lucky as to have his help with our writing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hi Phil Gordon. Welcome to 2+2.

[npc]

[ QUOTE ]
"It is horribly written. It seems like every fifth or sixth word is "I," and probably 20 percent of the words could be eliminated. I find it amazing that these major publishers don't do basic editing, and Phil Gordon, who I believe is a good guy, should be very upset about this."

--Not to pile on, but this observation is quite absurd. As others have mentioned, this is Phil's attempt to have a conversation with the reader about how he plays. His book is subtitled _Lessons and Teachings in No Limit Texas Hold'em_, meaning the style will be informal and conversational, an attempt to simulate a personal lesson.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've hesitated to jump in on this issue so far, but I really can't resist any more. You can count me among those who like the book (a little more than Mason's first impressions, a little less than Mason's second impressions :-), but in my review I also indicated that I found some of the wording to be below my standards.

Note, I have no objection to Phil's almost gratuitous use of the word "I". I think that's just fine. I have other objections. So, I'm deleting the part of the post to which I'm responding that deals with the "I" issues.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the absence of professional editing, in his acknowledgements Phil thanks Howard's father Richard Lederer for spending so much time reviewing the manuscript. I doubt he was working on the strategy sections. By my count, Richard Lederer has published 17 books on English usage and grammar, and is as close a thing America has to a Dean of modern American Usage. I am certain he approved of the manuscript. We should all be so lucky as to have his help with our writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know to what extent Richard Lederer was involved in the editing of this book. I agree that his qualifications on English usage are top notch. However, no copy editor that I've ever worked with would have approved this manuscript. I didn't mark them, and it would take more time than it is worth for me to go back through the book, but I recall at least a half dozen occasions when I was reading through the book thinking "the wording here is just wrong."

Let me relate just one example that I'll have to paraphraise 'cuz I don't remember exactly where it was in the text. There was a sentence of the form, "If I bet into an opponent and they raise me... ." In this fragment "opponent" is singular and "they" is plural. They don't match. I'm sensative to this, because I used to do this. (I'm guessing Phil was doing it for the same reason I used to, it's an easy technique that keeps writing gender neutral. The problem is it's improper.) In fact, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find that older reviews I wrote contain this flaw, so I'm really not trying to throw stones. However, a mistake of this sort should not appear in a professionally copy edited manuscript. To reiterate, this isn't a quote from the book, but I distinctly recall a mismatch of this form.

The bottom line is that parts of the text use wrong or poor English. This is something I don't expect most readers to notice, but I did, and it annoyed me a little. However, none of these errors detract from the meaning of the text, and I found the content of the book to be quite good. The language problems are a minor distraction from an otherwise fine book. Still, though, I found the quality of language in this book to be below par.

[The Absurdist]

Please cite a specific example of substandard English and I will be happy to discuss it.

[npc]

[ QUOTE ]
Please cite a specific example of substandard English and I will be happy to discuss it.

[/ QUOTE ]

P. 35, 3rd paragraph, 3rd and 4th sentences:

"But with 8-6 suited, it is very unlikely that my opponent will have one of those. Unless they have a pocket pair... ."

One: Most copy editors would, uh, flag a sentence that begins with "But".

Two: "My opponent" in the first sentence refers to the same person as "they" in the second sentence. I would categorize this as "substandard English". This is exactly the situation I was talking about in my previous post.

Every copy editor I know would tear me a new one if I wrote these two sentences, and they'd be right. I know this because I've written such sentences. Also, it's not like these two sentences couldn't be easily cleaned up.

I know I can find other examples, but I really don't feel like spending the time going over the book that way. Nonetheless, you asked for an example; I've provided one.

My main point is that this is a minor distraction in an otherwise fine book.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Absurdist:

I guarantee there was no editing done in the first half of this book.

From page 101, first bullet:

[ QUOTE ]
If I played passively after the flop (that is, I checked or just called) and I've improved my hand, I'm likely to play aggressively after improving my hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll let others elaborate, but this is one of hundreds of examples I could cite (and the bold was added by me.)

By the way, I do like this book, and I only mention this problem so that Phil will realize it is there and hopefully address it for the next printing.

I've also met Richard Lederer and agree with your comments on his abilities concerning the English language. And I also read the paragraph where he thanks those who
[ QUOTE ]
took an extra-ordinary amount of time to help edit this book.

[/ QUOTE ]

best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Nick:

When I first began to write, this stuff was a hobby and my words needed much improvement. But back around 1990 Lynne Loomis, who is a top notch professional editor, joined the team. I had a rude awakening.

Anyway, as the years went by improving my writing became a major effort. Furthermore, now as a publisher in a field that receives much attention, it's imperative that the books we produce be top notch in every respect and I've become very aware of the editing when it's time to read other books.

Thanks for your comments.

best wishes,
Mason