By Keith ‘The Camel’ Hawkins / August 2005

It has been brought to my attention that Mr Grant is bit het up about something I wrote in this my April column:

"If I had told you ten years ago there would one day be a television channel showing just poker you would probably have given me the same look people give Craig Grant when he blithely informs them he once fought Sugar Ray Leonard for the WBC World Middleweight title at Caesar’s Palace in Vegas in front of 30,000 screaming fans. You would have patted me on the head, told me to run along and wondered if I had been keeping up to date with my intake of medication"

Now, everyone knows what a glittering boxing career Craig had. I was just gently poking fun, it was meant to be a joke, albeit not a very funny one. So I hereby publicly apologise to Craig. He never fought Sugar Ray Leonard at Caesar’s. I withdraw the comment completely and unreservedly.

On top of this apology I also promise to never make something up (even in jest) about a poker player. Everything you see in this column from now onwards will be the gospel truth.

With this in mind, here, for one month only, is the return of…..

The Camel Poker Quiz!

I am going back in the mists of time here. At least 5 years maybe as long ago as 7 or 8 years, I was in the final of a £250 No limit Hold’em tournament at Luton.

I was pretty short stacked with 5 players left. The 3 chip leaders, Hermes Michealides, Shaun Hayes and Andrew Georgiou all had about 50,000 in chips. I had 8,000 and Player X had 6,000.

The blinds were 1,000-2,000. Player X was in seat 1 and I was in seat 3. There was a £400 jump in prize money from 5th to 4th. I decided unless I got dealt a monster to pass my hands because Player X would be forced to make a move first. Hopefully he would lose and I would sneak up to 4th!

We both went through the blinds with the big stacks forcing us to fold. I went down to 5k and he should have been right on 3k. But what’s this? He now had a healthy stack of 18k!!!!

Immediately I sought the card room manager and demanded a chip count. When she came over to perform this the other players were understandably mystified "What’s all this about?" "Why are we doing this?" were just two of the questions asked. Player X meanwhile kept his counsel and went a deep shade of red. Although the chips were out by exactly 15k, the card room manager decided she couldn’t do anything because no one saw exactly what had happened. The fact that the chip box, which had recently been used to colour up the small denomination chips, lay open behind the dealer and about a foot away from Player X was not evidence enough.

Angry, but philosophical, I agreed to carry on with the tournament. Justice of sorts was done however, as Player X doubled me up twice with the stolen chips and he finished 5th after all. Ha!

So, for a grand prize of half a pint of lager shandy and a packet of cheese and onion crisps, your job is to identify Player X.

Good luck!

The craze that’s sweeping the developed (that’s financially, not morally) world; everybody’s either doing it, watching it or writing about it. No longer is poker relegated to the seedy smoky backrooms filled with denizens of the underworld. Now it is presented as an exciting mental challenge for competitive spirits (also known as paying customers) everywhere.

In the UK, we already had a national gambling profile that makes most other activities seem like part time hobbies; Horse racing, Football pools, Bingo. Then came spread betting on sports and financial markets, the National Lottery, and now, in case there wasn’t already a suitable outlet for your gambling needs – Poker. Poker is a game of skill so you don’t have to worry about being a sick gambler, you can be a competitor instead. You don’t even need to worry about winning, as long as you can afford your habit, the thrill of losing seems well worth the cost of the game. It’s the taking part that counts. No, Alistair Cambell is not working in the Poker Industry, but he would find it a lot easier than his last job if he was. Previously he had to deal with a sceptical public, who could spot the self interest of the government. In the world of poker he would benefit from an undiscriminating community that rarely looks beneath the surface, and is happy to accept every pill it is given as long there is a thin coating of sugar.

A friend told me recently how he had been called up by the makers of a show called The Poker Den. A six handed winner take all tournament with fast rising ante’s, each competitor paying £8500 to enter, and the winner getting £50,000 approx (after tipping the dealers). When he asked what percentage of the money he would be able to keep if he won, he was assuming the programme makers would be paying part or all of his entry fee. The reply of course was, all of it, as they were expecting my friend to pay the full £8500 himself. His next question was, what’s my advantage in participating then? The answer was that most of the other players would be weaker, so it was a good opportunity to make money.

This may sound like a reasonable argument, but is of course absolute bollocks, and epitomises the nature of the Industry, and the general disregard that the "House" has for its customers.(I am now awaiting my invitation to play on The Poker Den at the programme makers expense, to show me how wrong I am)

Firstly, the edge you can have on other players in a six handed tournament of this type is very small. If you plan to play one every week, or if you normally play for £8500 in a session , then it is a good spot for your money, otherwise it is a way of increasing your stakes, and risking playing too big – a cardinal poker sin.

Secondly, and even more important, is the expectation by the programme makers, that not only will you be happy to let everyone see your cards with the under table cameras; you will be delighted with the concept, that you fund the TV programme, so they can sell advertising space, and the programme itself. Everybody wants to be on TV, so reality shows and chat shows have no problems finding audiences, and participants. In the world of televised poker, they make the participants pay for the privilege too. You could argue it serves them right, and we all get about what we deserve commercially, but I can’t help feeling some financial contribution from the TV people would be reasonable.

Outside of the televised games, the rest of the Industry is like a private poker game, where the house takes a 5% rake on each pot, usually with a maximum of £25 or so depending on the size of the game. In this scenario, there is one main regular winner, The House. 5% doesn’t sound very high, but it is crippling. If the game lasts long enough, eventually most of the money will end up in the dealer’s box. Most people ignore the rake, using the argument that only winners pay, or that the cost is too small to consider.

The 7 to 10% charged for most tournaments makes it impossible for the vast majority to show a profit there either. Like the lottery there will be big winners every week, giving us all hope. Like the lottery it will be financed by the losers. This is understood in Poker, and is accepted, but only because we never get to see the full picture, as we are always right in the middle of it. If we had the vision to see what we pay in "tax" against what we win in the long term, our view of the game and its money making potential would be very different. I realise that most of you are happy just to be taking part, but some poker scum, as we are affectionately known, are always worried about the money. Everyone wants to win, but some of us also want to have more money than when we started. There’s no pleasing some people.

By Keith ‘The Camel’ Hawkins / July 2005

The WSOP is now in full swing. Fortunes are being won and lost, legends are being made and reputations are being crushed. So, it’s the usual World Series right? Well, not quite.

This years event is at the Rio not Binion’s Horseshoe. While playing conditions are excellent, there is something about the place that isn’t quite right. I may well be an old romantic (is it possible to be romantic about a dump like the ’Shoe?), but it feels like the World Series of Poker has lost its soul. The atmosphere isn’t quite the same as usual. It feels like just another, albeit huge, tournament. Perhaps the buzz will return for the main event. I hope so.

But, the main difference for me is the ever increasing influence of the TV cameras. And believe me, the influence isn’t very positive.

The cameras are everywhere. One table near me in a tournament had a galaxy of stars playing: Matusow, Bloch, Raymer and Greenstein. A camera was watching every raise, pass and call. And in order to keep everything on film, players were pushed from pillar to post, interfered with and generally hassled.

Events are being run to suit the TV schedules. Instead of 2 day events, the tournaments which are going to be shown on ESPN are being made into 3 day affairs (so the TV people aren’t subjected to a late night, bless’em) which has two knock on effects.

Players who make the TV final are effectively barred from playing 2 WSOP events on the days following the start of their event. But, more importantly, when the tournament which starts on day 2 of the televised event reaches the final table the participants are relegated to second class citizens and denied their chance of playing their event to a conclusion on the championship table which would be the highlight of many players’ careers. Instead, they are sent to some far flung table where it is virtually impossible for friends and family to observe the action and share in the triumphs or disasters. It’s a great pity.

But, the main problem with the TV cameras is that thorny old issue. Money. Some of the figures being mentioned of how much money ESPN are paying Harrah’s for allowing them to cover the WSOP is truly staggering. And how much of this pot of gold is going back to the players, who provide all the entertainment for the couch potatoes back home? Zero, nadda, nothing! Not only are the players getting no reward for the TV exposure, they have to pay for the privilege in ever rising rates of juice. (Remember the good old days when the main event was juice free? It really wasn’t that long ago!)

So, in the very unlikely event of the Camel making a televised final table or the slightly more likely event of appearing on a televised table during the protracted coverage of the main event I am going to make a stand. I can’t deny them using my image (you have to sign away your rights before you play), but I can refuse to do a cosy interview where they ask all manner of inane questions and I answer like a programmed puppet. And that’s exactly what I propose to do. It won’t make a jot of difference of course, unless I happen to win the thing. But, just imagine if somewhere down the line a player who wins a big event refuses to comply with broadcasters requests for an interview and actually stood up for poker player’s rights. We might actually receive our share of the huge pie that is televised poker money.

On a lighter note…

Here are a few things I overheard while playing poker at the Rio last month:

Padraig Parkinson was asked how he was running. His answer? “It depends when you start counting. If it’s this week I’m doing terribly, if it’s the last 20 years not too bad at all…”

“Bad Beat” Channing was asked what he was planning to do that evening “If I done no good here, I will go over to the Palms” And to think, his mother is an English teacher!

A couple of quotes from inimitable Sam Grizzle next: there was some debate on a table as to what players thought of internet poker players. Grizzle stopped the conversation dead. “I don’t discriminate. I hate everyone!”

Then, later at the same table Grizzle’s backer came over to see how he was doing. The money man soon wandered off. Someone asked Sam why he was being backed in a $225 satellite. His answer? “My Daddy always told me never gamble with my own money, I might lose!”

Finally, just to prove poker players have more on their minds than just flops, bad beats and raises one Northern professional on seeing a particularly well endowed young lady came out with “What is it about Vegas women? Even the ugly ones have great tits!” Who said the age of the new man was upon us?

Good luck to everyone playing in the main event. Especially to me.

Well, it wasn’t exactly a tea party, but even Lewis Carol’s opium fuelled imagination would be hard pressed to compete with Ladbrokes Poker Million.

The inspired commentary team of Jesse May (Stanley Unwins spirtual succesor) , aided and abetted by RoytheBoy, mixed more metaphors than you can shake a stick at in the bush, and both got more excited than the Queen of Hearts. My own personal excitement was slightly dampened by the taste of sour grapes in the back of my throat, but I swallowed hard, and accepted ladbrokes invitation to have dinner and watch the Poker Million live at the Metropole.

The problem was that although they created an atmosphere of sorts with tables of supporters cheering for their favoured players, the size of the room meant that the audio quality was bad, and that made the action harder to follow. I had the free dinner, and left to watch the finale on TV at home, where I could appreciate the finer points of NoLimitHold’Em in the comfort of my underwear.

One pro, Martin from Denmark had the chip lead for the majority of the tournament, until he eventually succumbed to the fearless amateurs, going out third. MadMarty Wilson, dressed as a woman and using the name Helen fell only at the last hurdle, and even then I suspect she got bored, and didnt really care whether she won $400,000 or $1,000,000. Given that she won three, one table satelites, to get to the final; along with a special one table event that included the current World Champion, The Mad Irish Monk and The Salmon (Lewis Carol eat your heart out), I could only watch her play with admiration along with the tiniest tinge of envy as she made the game look so easy.It wasn’t just the aggressive moving of her chips, or the fearless nature of her play, but she also made many great reads on her opponents, and was capable of passing a big hand. Credit must also go to the winner, whatever his name was, who also demonstrated his ability to play well under pressure, and who outlasted the field, finally disposing of the seemingly indestructable MadHelenChamberlinWilson. His name is Tony Jones (I think), and I suspect he will derive pleasure from his performance for years to come, and the money should last a while too.

In case anybody wasn’t sure before hand, hopefully it will now be more apparent that the six handed one table satelite on a thirty minute clock is a great leveller. I don’t know whether this makes for good TV or not, as it becomes apparent that an hour or two’s coaching and a ‘devil may care’ attitude, is more than enough to take on some of Europes Top Pro Players.
Moving on, but staying on the subject of institutionalised madness, it is hard to understand why English casino (and online-site operators) behave in the way they do. Its not like they don’t have an example to follow to help them along. I don’t normally lavish praise on American institutions, but when you compare them to their English counterparts, they seem to be in a league of their own. Casino operators in the UK who have poker in their casino’s are doing poker players a favour.At least that is the attitude that comes across. The idea that they are valued customers seems to be lost on the Casino’s, who begrudgingly allow them on to the premises, even though they appear to spend less money than the punters at roulette and blackjack. The fact that they are able to attract large numbers solely because of the poker is lost on them. The expansion of the poker market via the Internet has generated a brand new customer base, so the casino’s are able to carry on as before. It will be a long time before they manage to exhaust the market so no doubt they are all congratulating themselves on their successful method of working. The truth is they have a license to print money, so even the brain dead members of their respective boards feel reassured by their success. The truth of course is, if they knew what they were doing, they would be even more profitable. Personally, I hope they all go skint.

By Ashley ‘The Poker Cynic’ Alterman / July 2005

By Keith ‘The Camel’ Hawkins / June 2005

Now my blood is really boiling. I have just finished Matt Matros’s book "The Making of a Poker Player" which I spoke about last month. (I know, I know! I am a very slow reader. But Matros hasn’t got any pictures in his book to make it easy reading).

The postscript details the authors run to the final table of the $25,000 WPT championship at the Bellagio in 2004. It is well worth the read. But, one paragraph really stood out:

"After sixty-eight hands of high pressure final table poker, the producers of the WPT came out to the table and told the three remaining players that we needed to be more talkative. It made for better TV. There was a $2 million difference between third place and first place, and now I had to worry about how much I was talking? It was one distraction too many. I am not making excuses-but I was annoyed. I should have been more focused. But this directive from the producers made something in my brain snap."

You what?

I can tell you I would be far more than simply annoyed. These three guys are playing for millions of dollars and the TV people are telling them to laugh and joke like they are playing £5 beginners comp at Luton. If I was playing against Martin de Knijff I would probably put on a mask and not murmur a word in the hopes of not revealing a tell to such a brilliant player. As for talking more, well, I would like to think I’d tell them where to stick their table chatter.

This is only the latest of a growing number of examples of how TV is interfering with poker.

Three instances immediately spring to mind:

1. At the heads up Championship in Barcelona last year there were supposed to be only 2 blind levels in each round. Because the semi finals took so long and the camera crew wanted to go home they tried to raise the blinds for a third time in the Mortenson/Puras match in order to bring it to a swift conclusion.
2. A player (who shall remain nameless) was very ill the night before his WPT final. He had a very high temperature and was vomiting regularly. He needed as long as possible in bed to recuperate to try and perform his best. Not only did the TV people force him to arrive two hours before the final began for interviews and make up but when filming began they refused to let him leave him the set and he suffered greatly under the heat and lights and played way below his best.
3. There is a rumour that a canny player can take advantage of the cameras. He waits to look at his cards until all the other players have shown there’s to the under table camera. By noticing which player the cameras are focussing on he deduces who has the best hand. Clever, but clearly wrong.

I am not denying TV has been good for poker. It has. But, poker must have been better for television. Why else would TV companies be rushing to show more and more poker tournaments?

Poker players provide the prize money, the action and the entertainment. If TV is adding nothing to the prize pool they should not be allowed to interfere with the integrity (or flow) of the game.

Indeed, I am beginning to believe that poker players should start boycott TV events which don’t add money or allow sponsors logos. Until the TV moguls realise they have to give something back they will continue to abuse us in the way they are doing now.

The circus in question is the WSOP, The World Series Of Poker,regarded by many as the Holy Grail. The town of course is Las Vegas, that bastion of American hypocracy and double standards. Where else would the highlight of the annual poker calender take place?

Alot of changes have taken place since the original World Series was held in the early seventies, but the prestige of the main event, has only increased with the increase in numbers of contestants, and consequently larger prize money. Winning this one event is now enough to secure your place in poker folk lore, and the $5Million or more which the winner will pocket will ensure a comfortable ride for even the wildest of gamblers, for sometime to come. I can see the attraction for professionals and amateurs alike to compete for the sports biggest prize, but the series of events leading up to the main event, seem to me to offer a far greater chance of glory. Winning a bracelet (the trophy that goes with the prize money in each event) is enough of an achievement for the majority of aspiring champions, but it seem that the lure of the main event eclipses the whole series.

The online poker sites are a significant contributor to this emphasis, by running endless satellites enabling people to qualify for the main event, but none for the other events. Given there are nearly six weeks of tournaments, this seems a rather unbalanced approach to take. I can understand that all the sites are desperate to provide the winner of the main event as this sort of publicity is probably worth millions to them. However, they would benefit if they provided the winners for any event, so I fail to understand their one pointed approach. I guess the lure of the main event provides a steady stream of contestants judging by the 700 or so players who have already qualified via Poker Stars. The offer of free accomodation if players will wear their branded shirts, will ensure that their logo is visible everywhere during the duration of the tournament, and I’m sure they get economies of scale by focussing all their attention on one event. The real question is , is this good for the players?

This is a tricky question. On the one hand the additional money brought into the game by Online poker has revolutionised Poker.This provides more opportunites for the players, more action, and a greater pool of recreational players happy to spend a significant portion of their disposable income to support the increasing number of professionals and successful amateurs. On the other hand, the guiding principles behind all events are not the interests of the contestants, but the interests of the Major Players. These being the World Poker Tour – great for producing tournaments with the best players in the world, as long as they are happy to sign away all intellectual rights so no players are able to benefit from sponsorship, just the organisers – The Online Poker sites also attempt to squeeze every last cent from their customers, as one would expect, and have managed to make the WSOP another vehicle for their continued expansion. This has turned the main event into a circus, to the detriment of it’s prestige. I believe there will be three "alternate" starting days due to the huge numbers of players involved, and the only way to ensure enough players are eliminated on the "first" day, is to put the blinds up at an alarming rate. This shift away from the emphasis on skill is an unfortunate side effect of the expansion of poker which is seen more clearly here than anywhere else. Fortunately this is only true at the start of the tournament, and the later stages will seem the same as ever.

On balance, I have to say that expansion of poker is good for everybody involved with the game. There were allways external forces determining the direction of poker, mainly the casino’s, and they were always motivated by profit. The only difference now is that the potential prize pool has been enlarged , and the driving forces behind the expansion are more organised and consequently more profitable than ever before. The players benefit from all this new money, so complaining about the dubious practises of some operators( in a general sense) is about as reasonable as complaining about being beaten by a worse hand. Market forces are in control now, more than ever before, when local morality had a significant impact on poker in different locations globally. Morality is relative, profit is absolute, so we know which will be forced to give eventually. After all, profit is the over-riding principle which we usually manage to place above all other considerations.

Meet the new boss, he’s the same as the old boss, and if you were expecting anything else, you are too optimistic to be a poker player.

World Series of Poker, Las Vegas
Report by James Vogl on Saturday, 1 May 2004 at 7:57 pm

Two months ago I won an online qualifier to play in the $25,000 Bellagio WPT finals. After weeks and weeks of expectation I found myself sitting down with $50,000 chips in front of me and blinds of 25/50 in the largest money tournament ever held to date. During the first break I heard a lady in the crowd on her cell phone, ‘You are never going to believe this honey. I just shook Gus Hansen’s hand’ (three times WPT winner). This along with the TV cameras, media interest and a $2.7 million first prize goes to show that poker is on the way to not just being a backroom gambling game but is becoming a high profile sport.

The fan did not mention to her husband that a minor celebrity via the name of Ben Affleck was also in the field of 340. He was also spotted completely wasted, throwing chips across the table and bluffing off $80,000 in a high stake no limit hold-em game that night before hitting the baccarat tables.

After 14 hours of play towards the end of the second day, I dropped unceremoniously out of the marathon, with a week to contemplate the upcoming WSOP and share with the self proclaimed ‘Brat Pack’ comprising Keston, Jones and Posner.

After this week of relaxation (?) I found myself all in with 9, 9 against pocket Jacks deep in downtown Las Vegas in my first ever WSOP event, the $2000 NLH, contemplating a trip back home. But I managed to spike a 9 on the river, and from there on I basically didn’t lose a pot and found myself winning a gold bracelet and 400 LARGE ($400,000).

I won’t bore you with any of the hands (if anyone is interested the final table airs June 18th on ESPN in America), but I will say that it is only just sinking in that I managed to beat the second largest field in WSOP history after playing during the tournie with such great players as Chip Reese, Phil Ivey, Devilfish, Sammy Farha and Gus Hansen to name a few.

As I am fairly new to poker I thought only the final event gave a gold bracelet, so when the interviewer asked what does winning mean to me and I said, ‘ Well 400 thousand, I don’t feel like a champion really, just very, very lucky.’ He was quite surprised especially when he saw the bracelet on E-bay the next day! (Only kidding)

Thanks for everyone’s support on the forum and all the phone calls. It really has been an amazing week. I will be here for the next month trying to pick up a few more bracelets, so see you downtown in the Horseshoe or back in the Vic!

No-Limit Texas Holdem Buy-in: $2,000
Number of Entries 834
Prize Pool $1,534,560
Official Results
1st James Vogl London, UK $400,000
2nd Shawn Rice TX $213,300
3rd David Chiu CA $122,640
4th Tuan Nguyen CA $105,420
5th Carl Frommer CA $92,080
6th Charles Shoten CA $76.720
7th Anthony Lelluoche Paris, France $61,380
8th JC Tran CA $46,040
9th Brian Haverson PA $30,700

By Keith ‘The Camel’ Hawkins / May 2005

I was in Vegas recently and I made my usual visit to the Gamblers General Store to pick up any interesting new poker books that have been published recently.

One I bought was "The Making of a Poker Player" by Matt Matros. It is certainly fascinating and a very good read. It describes his ascent to the top of the poker tree from the hallowed halls of an Ivy League university.

One paragraph troubled me however:

"As for the tournament, I only survived it for four hours. Early on, I check-called for a third of my stack against a psycho who had gone all-in for T3,225 into a T175 pot. I called with top pair and one card to come, figuring I was probably way ahead. Unfortunately, my psychotic opponent had the nuts (yes, he bet T3,225 into a T175 pot with the nuts), and I was drawing dead."

Excuse me, Mr Matros? You called a huge bet with one pair on the turn and you are saying your opponent is psychotic? I think you have something mixed up here my friend.

But, believe me, Matros is far from alone. I well remember a "world class" player bemoaning his exit deep into a WSOP main event a few years ago. He said to me "I raised and the donkey moved all-in. It was such a huge re-raise he couldn’t possibly have aces or kings so I called with queens". Needless to say the "donkey" had wired aces.

You often hear a similar tale from seasoned players who have been knocked out of televised poker tournaments. They moan and groan about how badly "internet players" perform.

I don’t know about you, but I reckon many of these "internet players" play better poker than some of the guys who’ve been on the scene for 30 years.

I played in a £1,000 tournament at Luton a few weeks ago. I was startled to see how few of the field I recognised and how well many of the "unknown" players played. I concluded that many of these guys must have learned their trade on the internet where you get upwards of five times as many hands dealt than in live play. So, in two years, an alert newbie can learn as much as he could ten years of live play. Quite a staggering thought.

What I reckon is that we should give a newbie the benefit of the doubt. Just because you don’t recognise a player doesn’t mean he can’t play or is a maniac.

When I suggest you should respect your opponent I don’t just mean you should behave honourably and courteously towards him (although you should, obviously). I think you should respect a player’s talent level until he definitively proves he doesn’t deserve it. Just because a stranger plays unorthodoxly or bizarrely doesn’t mean he can’t play. Everyone does things differently. And differently doesn’t mean mistakenly.

If you don’t give your opponents a little bit of respect, I promise you your results will suffer because of it.

If you find any here, let me know and I’ll make sure it doesn’t happen again. One of the downsides of the huge growth of poker is the endless, often free advice now readily available for aspiring poker players. As if it isn’t bad enough that there are thousands of self appointed experts in the field of poker, now they all want to tell you how to play. Only an expert would have a chance of deciding which advice was worth listening to and which was hot air.

Experience is the best teacher, and learning something as a result always has more impact than reading about someone elses discovery. However, alot of theory in poker is counterintuitive, and not easy to grasp without some help.The problem is, as a novice, or as someone who wants to learn more, where do you go? You may feel that the more renowned and successful players are the ones to follow, and look for books by people in this category.Unfortunately, the ability to play poker and win, doesn’t allways include the ability to write about it, or explain it clearly for others.In some cases even the players themselves do not fully understand what they are doing.However, long term success will usually be enough of an endorsement to guarantee the author has some information of value.Most winning poker players are reluctant to explain their success in detail as this seems a self defeating excercise which only informs the competition. But fortunately for the novice, there are always some, whose egos can only be fed by letting everyone in the world (or the 85 people who buy their book) know just how smart they are.

Some of these authors claim their purpose is to help the spread of the game by explaining the finer points. This was mostly pre internet, as that ridiculous excuse no longer holds water. The spread of the game? If few play it and fewer understand it, who the hell is going to buy the book they have just written to propagate poker? Mostly they were propagating their own "knowledge" and insight in case you were unaware of their superior intellect.

Doyle Brunson whose Super System is a classic in the field of Poker Manuals, said he bitterly regretted writing the book as he made it more difficult to win after having explained his system to everyone else. Allowing for the fact that it is one of the greatest books on modern day poker, it is easy to see that the original motivation of the author was not financial gain, but a wider recognition. I believe he has written a sequel, or an update to the book, so he obviously forgot his initial regret and allowed his ego to get the better of him again.Still, he probably doesnt care what I think as he has already got the lot. Admittedly things have changed. The argument for a financial motive is now almost valid due to the expansion of the target audience. Hundreds of thousands playing poker worldwide on line. Live poker feeding on this huge growth, with endless tournaments in Europe and the US. And with the growth of poker on TV, the potential audience for books is expanding geometrically.

There is a valid argument which says you should read everything written by others about poker.The truth is that in most texts you will find something of value which will more than justify the cost of the book.You may have to put up with alot of bullshit along the way, but it should prove worthwhile for you. You just need to exercise plenty of discrimination and cynicism, because eventually you are the one who needs to decide what advice to ignore and what advice to follow. You will find contradictory advice if you read enough,hopefully informing you that there is no definitive way of playing. You need to incorporate any important concepts and strategies you discover into a style of your own that you are comfortable with. Improving your game is hard work which requires your application, and understanding of the finer points involved.If you can get a little help or be pointed in the right direction by reading someone elses advice, it must be worth while, just don’t expect them to provide the answers you are seeking.If they provide the right questions for you to ask, that is enough to help you improve your game.