Huge Errors in Poker Books
I've recently gone on a bit of a book buying spree, and reread some of the poker books that I already own. I'm amazed at the blatant errors in some of them. These books are from noted writers on the subject. (I'm unsure about whether to point out the books specifically, or to give just a common heads-up, that just because something is in print, it doesn't mean it is always correct).Â
These mistakes can be broken down into three categories:Â
1. Blatantly false informationÂ
2. Advice given that is wrong (that 99% of seasoned players would disagree with)Â
3. Editing errors and spelling errorsÂ
1. One book gives two 7-card stud examples that feature five card boards. That is 8-card stud, isn't it?!Â
Examples of when you are drawing to the second nuts in Omaha hi/lo, when you are actually drawing to the third nuts.Â
A comment that when you have rolled up 5's in 7-card split, you can't make a low. Really?Â
2. A writer gives an illustrated example of a hand that can be played in Omaha hi/lo. A558 RAINBOW. He reasons that because you have an ace and two "prime" (bike) cards the hand can be played - although he admits it is marginal. He says that it would be better if the 5's were not paired. So, is A458 rainbow more playable? Nah, it still stinks in my opinion.Â
3. One book tells a story about Doyle Brunson. Two lines later he becomes "Lyle", in two different spots. This probably occurred when the writer wrote in Doyle, and the spell-checking program gave Lyle as an alternative. Even an editor with no poker experience should have picked this one up.Â
Anyway, these are some of the mistakes I've come across. Like I said, I don't know if it is "good form" to point out the books by name. Any advice on this would be appreciated.Â
Remember some of these books are directed at the rookie player - if you followed the advice of always playing A558 rainbow in Omaha split, then you'd be headed in the direction of a bank machine.Â
Comments pro/con always welcome. If anyone else finds some major errors in the poker literature, maybe you could post them here.Â
These mistakes can be broken down into three categories:Â
1. Blatantly false informationÂ
2. Advice given that is wrong (that 99% of seasoned players would disagree with)Â
3. Editing errors and spelling errorsÂ
1. One book gives two 7-card stud examples that feature five card boards. That is 8-card stud, isn't it?!Â
Examples of when you are drawing to the second nuts in Omaha hi/lo, when you are actually drawing to the third nuts.Â
A comment that when you have rolled up 5's in 7-card split, you can't make a low. Really?Â
2. A writer gives an illustrated example of a hand that can be played in Omaha hi/lo. A558 RAINBOW. He reasons that because you have an ace and two "prime" (bike) cards the hand can be played - although he admits it is marginal. He says that it would be better if the 5's were not paired. So, is A458 rainbow more playable? Nah, it still stinks in my opinion.Â
3. One book tells a story about Doyle Brunson. Two lines later he becomes "Lyle", in two different spots. This probably occurred when the writer wrote in Doyle, and the spell-checking program gave Lyle as an alternative. Even an editor with no poker experience should have picked this one up.Â
Anyway, these are some of the mistakes I've come across. Like I said, I don't know if it is "good form" to point out the books by name. Any advice on this would be appreciated.Â
Remember some of these books are directed at the rookie player - if you followed the advice of always playing A558 rainbow in Omaha split, then you'd be headed in the direction of a bank machine.Â
Comments pro/con always welcome. If anyone else finds some major errors in the poker literature, maybe you could post them here.Â