Annie Duke's book: anyone read it?

[greatwhite]

[ QUOTE ]
You "only skimmed the book"...and yet feel you can write a review?

Anyway...what are these "flaws" you did not feel compeled to elaborate on in the review?

I have to admit, I only skimmed it myself this evening, however it seems like a perfectly good read--rather like Positively Fifth Street with some autobiography thrown in. I'm looking forward to sitting down and going thru it next week.

---Leavenfish

[/ QUOTE ]
I probablly should have been a little more specific but I can't think of any off the top of my head. While skimming it, I didn't see any poker related flaws, but with her stories. I should of pointed that out. I can't think of any off the top of my head but some of the things I read made me go "Yeah right..." Next time I go to the bookstore I'll explain it better, but I can't think of anything off of the top of my head right now, simply because I kinda forgot alot of things she talked about. However, from whay I read I did not find it to be great and I was very angry with all of those fake reviews on Amazon I felt like totally trashing the book which obviously would just be wrong without fully reading 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.

[jdl22]

Just out of curiousity, why are people complaining about the poker strategy bit when the book is clearly meant to be autobiographical?

I haven't read it, was thinking about it and will probably get it at some point, I have a few books yet to read. For those that have read it, how did the part following her progress through the O8 tournie compare with the WSOP bit in Positively Fifth Street? This is the part that would interest me as well as the WSOP TOC and the growing up bit.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Just out of curiousity, why are people complaining about the poker strategy bit when the book is clearly meant to be autobiographical?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that the griping about the lack of strategy is as bad (yet) as happened with Barry's book. There was a lot more expectation and pre-publication discussion of Barry's book, and speculation about its contents. This book was not as much anticipated, but still, everyone wants the book to be what they want, not what the author wants. If you want strategy from Annie Duke, go to her web site.

[ QUOTE ]
how did the part following her progress through the O8 tournie compare with the WSOP bit in Positively Fifth Street? This is the part that would interest me as well as the WSOP TOC and the growing up bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Positively Fifth Street is a much better book, and did a much better job of painting a vivid picture of the poker life. That one was about poker and Las Vegas; this one is all about "me, Annie Duke".

The short chapter about the TOC is available on her web site.

The "growing up bit" is standard female biography, all about babies and houses and relationships, exacerbated by neurosis.

[DrSavage]

[ QUOTE ]
You should write more book reviews.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
Just out of curiousity, why are people complaining about the poker strategy bit when the book is clearly meant to be autobiographical?

I haven't read it, was thinking about it and will probably get it at some point, I have a few books yet to read. For those that have read it, how did the part following her progress through the O8 tournie compare with the WSOP bit in Positively Fifth Street? This is the part that would interest me as well as the WSOP TOC and the growing up bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're confusing reviews of this book and of Barry's book. Every comment here has been about what the book had related to instructional content, not that content in question didn't live up to expectations. No griping. No "This books sucks because..." One reviewer did say it doesn't seem to be a strategy book, but that's ok, doesn't make it a bad book!

It's clearly meant to be both autobiographical and instructional. If you'd seen the book, that would be clear to you. Most people have considered both parts here which, given those being the obvious two parts of the publisher's intent, is fair.

I probably read 15 pages that weren't the almost useless descriptions of pros. There was nothing as remotely gripping as McManus's book. I read his book in one sitting after being instantly sucked in. Wouldn't be fair to compare the two definitively since I haven't finished Annie's book, but I have a strong suspicion McManus's book is a much better narrative.

I do think Annie deserves some credit for talking about her panic disorder. Not easy to talk about, could inspire others with the disorder to confidence and success, admitting faults/problems, etc.

[maurile]

I've only just glanced through the book, but I attended her booksigning last night. She spent about 45 minutes addressing a crowd of maybe 65 people, mostly just answering questions from the audience. I came away extremely impressed with how articulate, smart, and personable she was. Despite whatever problems she has with anxiety, she's a fantastic speaker.

From what I can tell so far, Annie Duke's book appears to be similar in structure to Chris Moneymaker's book -- part general autobiography, part storytelling about her WSOP tournament victory.

I'm looking forward to reading it.

[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.

[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

[cwsiggy]

"...down-right entertaining"

I'm pretty sure that is not supposed to be hyphenated. Though that was a well written, concise review.