Which books should I get by Tom McEvoy and Ken Warren, if any? - Page 3

SNOWBALL138 · #21 10-24-2005, 03:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
While many lemmings on 2+2 like to critise them, McEvoy/Cloutier have a heck of alot more WSOP bracelets than most of thier critics do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really wouldn't argue that the correctness of McEvoy's writing is justified by his tournament results, because his tournament results are pathetic. I can't remember the exact numbers, because I calculated this a while ago, but McEvoy has averaged approximately 70k per year over the last 22 or so years in tournament prizes. This doesn't account for his buy-ins therefore it is entirely possible that McEvoy is actually a losing player

In a discussion of who was the worst player to ever win the WSOP, Daniel Negraneau wrote, with a tone of surprise, that people didn't know how bad a player McEvoy is. In other words, McEvoy isn't even in the same league as Moneymaker, Fowler, or Varkonyi. WOW!

Best regards,
Snowball

David Sklansky · #22 10-24-2005, 04:08 AM

In a discussion of who was the worst player to ever win the WSOP, Daniel Negraneau wrote, with a tone of surprise, that people didn't know how bad a player McEvoy is. In other words, McEvoy isn't even in the same league as Moneymaker, Fowler, or Varkonyi. WOW!

Best regards,
Snowball

Daniel is way off on this one. At least if you are evaluating them at the time they won. Both have probably improved a lot by now.

grandgnu · #23 10-24-2005, 04:12 AM

I only purchased one McEvoy book, the winning NL Tournies version. While it's decent for beginners to get into the game without donking off all their chips right away, it's pretty much like comparing a bite of a hamburger to a large, juicy steak when you put it up against Harrington on Hold 'Em Volumes I & II.

The Harrington books are THE best things I've ever read. He explains everything on why you're playing in a certain way, and he covers the early, middle and late stages, including the dreaded (or profitable) bubble period, short-handed play, heads-up, etc.

Just some awesome books. Caro's Book of Poker Tells is also useful for live games, although I wish he'd update it, too many photo's from the 70's for my liking (handlebar mustaches, ahoy!)

Also, Super System 2: was not impressed. The Omaha 8 section was good, I'm not a limit hold em player, so can't comment there. Doyle Brusons section on NL Hold 'Em I couldn't stand. Pretty much all he says is "I'll put all my chips in on a draw. I'll call a large bet on the flop so I can pick up a draw on the turn and put all my chips in. I'm not afraid to gamble. People think I get lucky. I get lucky. Blah blah blah"

I've read Sklansky's Theory of Poker, but it was a bit too math-centric for me. I believe he's got a book on Advanced Hold 'Em out there, I should've bought that instead of the McEvoy crap.

SNOWBALL138 · #24 10-24-2005, 04:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Just some awesome books. Caro's Book of Poker Tells is also useful for live games, although I wish he'd update it, too many photo's from the 70's for my liking (handlebar mustaches, ahoy!)

[/ QUOTE ]

Joke as much as you want, but when handle-bar mustaches come back in style, you'll know how to pick up tells on those who wear them.

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty much all he says is "I'll put all my chips in on a draw. I'll call a large bet on the flop so I can pick up a draw on the turn and put all my chips in. I'm not afraid to gamble. People think I get lucky. I get lucky. Blah blah blah"

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, your summary is very funny. I laughed hard when I read it.

However:

Doyle's strategy is very mathematically sound for medium to low stack situations. He summarizes it by saying that if he takes down ten 3k pots he can afford to play a 30k pot with 2:1 the worst of it. Also, his style allows him to get insane action on his big hands, and keeps people from bluffing him.

There's a lot of subtlety to his NLHE section. I still think that his writing has probably caused more people to get broke than get rich though, because it is very easily misapplied. This shouldn't be the case though, because he says at the beginning of the section that his strategies are to be used against strong players, but against weak players, your strategy should be to show them the nuts for all their money.

I think Mason's comment that Doyle has you putting all your chips in too often is a fair statement. Doing this in deep stack games will certainly get you broke very quickly.

Best regards,
Snowball

grandgnu · #25 10-24-2005, 04:42 AM

Well, I can't stand his writing style, Harrington explains things much more clearly than Doyle.

Also, yes, he wins three 10K pots and now he can "freeroll" for that 30K. Kind of, but winning poker is about making the correct decisions. I don't view putting all the "profit" I've made into the pot with the odds against me as "good poker".

I'd rather make good decisions and get my money in with the odds in my favor rather than against me.

SNOWBALL138 · #26 10-24-2005, 05:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, yes, he wins three 10K pots and now he can "freeroll" for that 30K. Kind of, but winning poker is about making the correct decisions. I don't view putting all the "profit" I've made into the pot with the odds against me as "good poker".

[/ QUOTE ]

nonononononononno
Its BECAUSE he is willing to play a 30k pot as a 2:1 dog that he is able to steal all of those 3k pots. These are not seperate decisions.

grandgnu · #27 10-24-2005, 06:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, yes, he wins three 10K pots and now he can "freeroll" for that 30K. Kind of, but winning poker is about making the correct decisions. I don't view putting all the "profit" I've made into the pot with the odds against me as "good poker".

[/ QUOTE ]

nonononononononno
Its BECAUSE he is willing to play a 30k pot as a 2:1 dog that he is able to steal all of those 3k pots. These are not seperate decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't try to argue with me woman, it's a proven fact that Doyle's a fish (I read it online somewhere) [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

punter11235 · #28 10-24-2005, 03:20 PM

Championship NL & PL Holdem (TJ & McEvoy) is good book for beginning NL players especially for these who are mainly limit players. It does good job explaining 2 very important NL concepts : 1)you shouldnt go broke with 1pair in this game 2)K10,KJ,AJ,KQ,A10 are crap starting hands

I think understanding this 2 concepts alone will make almost anybody winning NL player up to say 200NL.
Dont get me wrong, I think that most of advice given in this book is useless (like "timing is everything in poker") but it explains abovementioned concept in good way.

Best wishes

Rudbaeck · #29 10-24-2005, 04:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
While many lemmings on 2+2 like to critise them, McEvoy/Cloutier have a heck of alot more WSOP bracelets than most of thier critics do.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's actually a reason to hate Cloutier more, not less. He can play poker. But it's pretty obvious that he doesn't play anywhere near how he teaches. (In so far as he ever teaches, many of the books are just rambling series of anecdotes.)

Hellmuth has alot of bracelets as well. And his books are also crap.

Being good at poker doesn't mean that you automatically can teach it well. Unfortunately.

#30 10-24-2005, 05:26 PM

Dont spend your money......here I will sum up their strategy for you.
Limp AK up front, fold AQ or lower up front.
Raise and reraise Aces and Kings.
FOLD queens to a reraise.
KQ is a trouble hand, i.e. do not play this hand ever.
Play jacks or lower as cheap as you can......oh yeah, fold to a raise.
Suited connectors.....dont even think about it.
Good luck on your WSOP bracelet using this strategy....you`ll need it.