What do you think?
Rate this book
Poker Essays, Volume II
Success at poker does not come easy. However, poker can be extremely rewarding since it will allow you a degree of freedom that virtually no other profession can offer. Yet, very few people ever achieve this level of competence even though many try. The reason for this is that very few players are able to master all the skills that a top professional needs. Some are unwilling to make the effort -- "these players usually come to gamble" -- and others who try are not quite able to grasp the debt of sophistication that is required. This text contains those essays that this author wrote from 1991 through early 1996. Topics General Concepts, Technical Ideas, Structure, Strategic Ideas, In the Cardrooms, Quizzes, Erroneous Concepts, and Something Silly. In addition, advice is offered on handling rushes, moving up, poker skills, simulations, maximizing your expectation, betting when first to act on the river, whether limit hold 'em should have two or three betting levels, playing the overs, adjusting to the big ante, how to play well, low-limit hold 'em, how many hands you should play early in a tournament, chopping the blinds, cardroom theory, and much more. As with the original Poker Essays, this book is designed to make the reader do a great deal of thinking about the game. In fact, very few readers will agree with everything this text offers, but the information provided should help most people become better poker players.
313 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1996
1 person is currently reading
23 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 17, 2019
Also still very much worth reading
This second collection of Malmuth's essays was also first published in book form in 1996, which means some of the material is definitely dated; nonetheless this book is still very much worth reading mainly because of Malmuth's expertise and thoroughly professional approach to all things poker.
Just for the fun of it I will take a more critical approach in this review than I did in my review of his first collection.
In an essay entitled, "Is It Better to Be Lucky or Good?" Malmuth ventures that he would rather be lucky. This recalls the old rounder's dictum, usually voiced after a bad run of cards, "I'd rather be lucky than good." Of course the rounders always said that because they figured they already WERE good. Malmuth's somewhat quizzical take is really an excuse to comment on variance and short term luck in poker. The statement "...if you are lucky, you will probably win, and if you are unlucky, the probability is high that you will lose" (p. 33) is actually something of a tautology in that the very concept of being lucky implies winning, while being unlucky implies losing. Malmuth's main point is luck is always a statement about past events. Since each poker hand is an independent event, there is no way of knowing whether one will be "lucky" in the next hand. Lucky people HAVE BEEN lucky. Whether they will continue to be lucky is an open question.
It's good here to recall another old rounder's dictum, "I play results." What this means is that when a player has been winning and there is a question as to whether that player has been lucky or good, and you don't have enough evidence to be sure, the judicious course is to assume that the player is good--that is, to base your evaluation of the player on his or her results, not the possible prejudicial reports from other players. Many losers whine about their luck, which means that they often think that the players beating them are just lucky when in fact the losers are getting outplayed.
In the essay, "Is a Point Count Worthwhile?" Malmuth argues rather convincingly that such schemes are questionable in hold'em, highly questionable in stud, and possibly of some very limited value in Omaha. The main point he makes is that because point counts don't take into consideration position or the tendencies of the other players, or in stud, information from exposed cards, they can be misleading because the value of your hand changes with the changing circumstances. As Malmuth explains, K9o is a better hand on the button than say T9s if nobody has entered the pot, but not as good if there are several callers already in. By most point count systems they would be about equal in ranking.
I developed a point count system many years ago. What I learned (and I think this is something that both Sklansky and Malmuth have missed) is that a point count system can help the beginning player as a guide and as a study aide. Sklansky arranged starting hold'em hands into groups as a guide. Sklansky's system required the player to commit to memory which hands to open or raise with in which position. I believe a point count system would make the learning curve less steep. A simple one for hold'em is A = 13, K = 12...etc; suited = 4; connected no gap = 5, one gap = 3, etc; pair = 14. Thus AKs = 39; T9o = 22, and so on. (My system was a little more sophisticated, but not much more valuable than this.)
Some differences between this and Malmuth's first collection include more essays on Omaha and Omaha eight or better, and more essays on "great players" and what makes them great or not so great. Similarities include the continuing discussion of which game is more difficult, seven card stud or hold'em, and why Malmuth believes that limit hold'em is more complex than no limit hold'em.
There are the usual quizzes and well-meaning lectures to poker room staff, dealers and professionals for which Malmuth is well known and appreciated.
I want to close with a couple of quibbles on the quizzes (if you will):
Malmuth writes, "If hold'em was not played with community cards, that is, if everyone received their own flop independent of everyone else, then it would be correct to play almost every hand." (p. 245) This is obviously false (and probably just careless phrasing by Malmuth). This would be similar to seven card stud with a bet before third street. Again obviously playing any two cards would not be wise just as playing any two cards in antiquated five card stud would not be wise.
On page 247 he writes that "a small pair...in a many-handed pot...will not win as often as a random two cards." This is also incorrect. Even 22 is more likely to win than a random set of two cards, the average of which is something like the "computer hand" of Q7o.
Finally, I was surprised to read that Malmuth's "guess" is that AA will win in low limit games "approximately one-third of the time." Trust me, I have the stats: pocket rockets in any game--even micro limits--will win more than fifty percent of the time. If you raise with them every time I can promise that at the 2/4 to the 30/60 level they will win at least 70% of the time, and if you go to the river and call every bet regardless of the action, they will win at least 75% of the time! A cold computer simulation of simply dealing out the cards verses nine players will show AA winning about a third of the time, which is what I imagine Malmuth had in mind.
Bottom line: again a must for the professional player and a pleasure to read for all serious players.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
This second collection of Malmuth's essays was also first published in book form in 1996, which means some of the material is definitely dated; nonetheless this book is still very much worth reading mainly because of Malmuth's expertise and thoroughly professional approach to all things poker.
Just for the fun of it I will take a more critical approach in this review than I did in my review of his first collection.
In an essay entitled, "Is It Better to Be Lucky or Good?" Malmuth ventures that he would rather be lucky. This recalls the old rounder's dictum, usually voiced after a bad run of cards, "I'd rather be lucky than good." Of course the rounders always said that because they figured they already WERE good. Malmuth's somewhat quizzical take is really an excuse to comment on variance and short term luck in poker. The statement "...if you are lucky, you will probably win, and if you are unlucky, the probability is high that you will lose" (p. 33) is actually something of a tautology in that the very concept of being lucky implies winning, while being unlucky implies losing. Malmuth's main point is luck is always a statement about past events. Since each poker hand is an independent event, there is no way of knowing whether one will be "lucky" in the next hand. Lucky people HAVE BEEN lucky. Whether they will continue to be lucky is an open question.
It's good here to recall another old rounder's dictum, "I play results." What this means is that when a player has been winning and there is a question as to whether that player has been lucky or good, and you don't have enough evidence to be sure, the judicious course is to assume that the player is good--that is, to base your evaluation of the player on his or her results, not the possible prejudicial reports from other players. Many losers whine about their luck, which means that they often think that the players beating them are just lucky when in fact the losers are getting outplayed.
In the essay, "Is a Point Count Worthwhile?" Malmuth argues rather convincingly that such schemes are questionable in hold'em, highly questionable in stud, and possibly of some very limited value in Omaha. The main point he makes is that because point counts don't take into consideration position or the tendencies of the other players, or in stud, information from exposed cards, they can be misleading because the value of your hand changes with the changing circumstances. As Malmuth explains, K9o is a better hand on the button than say T9s if nobody has entered the pot, but not as good if there are several callers already in. By most point count systems they would be about equal in ranking.
I developed a point count system many years ago. What I learned (and I think this is something that both Sklansky and Malmuth have missed) is that a point count system can help the beginning player as a guide and as a study aide. Sklansky arranged starting hold'em hands into groups as a guide. Sklansky's system required the player to commit to memory which hands to open or raise with in which position. I believe a point count system would make the learning curve less steep. A simple one for hold'em is A = 13, K = 12...etc; suited = 4; connected no gap = 5, one gap = 3, etc; pair = 14. Thus AKs = 39; T9o = 22, and so on. (My system was a little more sophisticated, but not much more valuable than this.)
Some differences between this and Malmuth's first collection include more essays on Omaha and Omaha eight or better, and more essays on "great players" and what makes them great or not so great. Similarities include the continuing discussion of which game is more difficult, seven card stud or hold'em, and why Malmuth believes that limit hold'em is more complex than no limit hold'em.
There are the usual quizzes and well-meaning lectures to poker room staff, dealers and professionals for which Malmuth is well known and appreciated.
I want to close with a couple of quibbles on the quizzes (if you will):
Malmuth writes, "If hold'em was not played with community cards, that is, if everyone received their own flop independent of everyone else, then it would be correct to play almost every hand." (p. 245) This is obviously false (and probably just careless phrasing by Malmuth). This would be similar to seven card stud with a bet before third street. Again obviously playing any two cards would not be wise just as playing any two cards in antiquated five card stud would not be wise.
On page 247 he writes that "a small pair...in a many-handed pot...will not win as often as a random two cards." This is also incorrect. Even 22 is more likely to win than a random set of two cards, the average of which is something like the "computer hand" of Q7o.
Finally, I was surprised to read that Malmuth's "guess" is that AA will win in low limit games "approximately one-third of the time." Trust me, I have the stats: pocket rockets in any game--even micro limits--will win more than fifty percent of the time. If you raise with them every time I can promise that at the 2/4 to the 30/60 level they will win at least 70% of the time, and if you go to the river and call every bet regardless of the action, they will win at least 75% of the time! A cold computer simulation of simply dealing out the cards verses nine players will show AA winning about a third of the time, which is what I imagine Malmuth had in mind.
Bottom line: again a must for the professional player and a pleasure to read for all serious players.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
Displaying 1 of 1 review