What do you think?
Rate this book
The Truth Detective: A Poker Player's Guide to a Complex World
'Revealing' ANGELA SAINI
'Thrilling' PHILLIP BALL
'Deserves to be widely read' ALOM SHAHA
This is a book about getting to the truth.
At the poker table you need certain skills to win. The more Alex O'Brien played competitively, the more she realised those skills are essential in everyday life too. From reading body language to calculating risk, dealing with uncertainty and separating emotion from facts, her toolkit will help you make better decisions and understand what's happening around you.
Offering insights from the latest psychology, neuroscience, game theory and more, you'll encounter new ideas and ways of thinking from pioneering researchers and experts in their field. With O'Brien as your guide, you'll learn to see clearly, think carefully and cut through the noise of a complex world.
'Thrilling' PHILLIP BALL
'Deserves to be widely read' ALOM SHAHA
This is a book about getting to the truth.
At the poker table you need certain skills to win. The more Alex O'Brien played competitively, the more she realised those skills are essential in everyday life too. From reading body language to calculating risk, dealing with uncertainty and separating emotion from facts, her toolkit will help you make better decisions and understand what's happening around you.
Offering insights from the latest psychology, neuroscience, game theory and more, you'll encounter new ideas and ways of thinking from pioneering researchers and experts in their field. With O'Brien as your guide, you'll learn to see clearly, think carefully and cut through the noise of a complex world.
- GenresNonfiction
288 pages, Hardcover
Published November 2, 2023
8 people are currently reading
207 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 - 6 of 6 reviews
Want to read
July 4, 2021I've spent a large amount of my life playing chess and bridge, so advocating poker as a tool for learning about life isn't going to have the appeal for me it might for others. Indeed, years ago now when I was looking at learning something new I tossed up between knitting and poker with the former winning. I figured I wouldn't learn anything new from poker, given my games background.
However, I would definitely encourage taking up poker for the reasons advocated by O'Brien. There's a report here if you want more details prior to the book's appearance: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-0...
I would add, that much like chess, although computers have become extremely strong and changed the nature of the theory of the game, that does not change the basic message. Chess, bridge, and no doubt poker do develop life skills. For my money I am not sure what poker adds to bridge, in which one has relationships both with a partner and opponents, something chess and poker lack. But then, a poker player might have arguments I don't know about.
However, I would definitely encourage taking up poker for the reasons advocated by O'Brien. There's a report here if you want more details prior to the book's appearance: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-0...
I would add, that much like chess, although computers have become extremely strong and changed the nature of the theory of the game, that does not change the basic message. Chess, bridge, and no doubt poker do develop life skills. For my money I am not sure what poker adds to bridge, in which one has relationships both with a partner and opponents, something chess and poker lack. But then, a poker player might have arguments I don't know about.
January 8, 2026
This had the potential to be an excellent book. It's at the intersection of two very interesting things - poker and statistics. Poker is a game of strategy and involves gambling, and statistics, probability and stochastic reasoning can be made very interesting as we've seen from authors like Nassim Taleb. It was to my great disappointment then to find that this book is about neither of those two things.
The book begins with a 10-page introduction about a poker anecdote. Very interesting. Then part one of the book, which spans as far as page 70, does not talk about poker in the slightest. Here are some topics covered instead: Carl Sagan, astronomy, the moon landing, artificial intelligence, climate change, Fox News, Italy's invasion of Greece during WWII, the Bolsheviks, Sadam Hussein and statistics about how many messages were sent on Whatsapp, Facebook etc.
At about page 30, I got the sense that the author was aiming to emulate "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman, and I smiled to myself when she mentions "system 1 thinking" and "system 2 thinking" on page 40, though she doesn't actually mention Kahneman afterwards, which I felt was unfair. Give the man his due. Part one was a stream of consciousness where the author gives her political opinions in a cringe, Reddit-esque sort of way about instances ranging from atheism, to Trump to the moon landing. Really bizarre. But also, a short word on this. Her points were hypocritical in some areas. She says "... whether Neil Armstrong really landed on the moon (he did)." This type of certainty would be fine normally, but to then go on to say things like "Do you know this to be true or do you think you know?" makes it quite hypocritical. Of course it's probable that Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, but her whole point is to be open to new evidence, and she doesn't seem to be by adding "he did" in parentheses.
The same is seen when she says "Those who [...] had lower cognitive abilities were more likely to see bullshit as profound", but then cites religious beliefs as an example of bullshit. It's a controversial opinion to say the least, but it's a fair opinion for her to have. What's bizarre and hypocritical is that she then proceeds to say "in order to face those who do not believe that all humans are equal", which, not to argue semantics, is a distinctly religious viewpoint, espoused in the book of Genesis, earliest scholarly dating being the Yahwist (J source) at circa 950 BC, Judaism, Christianity and also in Chinese Mohism in the 5th Century BC and a few others. In fact, William Wilberforce's success in ending the trans-Atlantic slave trade via the Slave Trade Act of 1807 was due solely to his Christian faith. It's not the end of the world but it's something that grinds my gears. Say whatever you want but be consistent.
I was hoping that if I trudged through the first part, the author would finally turn her attention to poker, the alleged topic of the book. I got to part two and here's what I saw: Lady Gaga, Charles Darwin, Bernie Madoff, Tinder, sex versus gender, the Uktu tribe of northern Canada and German beer. If I have to read about the bat and the ball costing $1.10 and the bat being $1 more than the ball again I think I might give up reading forever. It's surely just plagiarism at this point. The objects are always a bat and a ball and the price is always $1.10. Why not be creative? A trap house and a speedboat full of fentanyl cost $1.1 million. Now get this! The trap house costs a milly more than the fent. But seriously though what relevance does any of this have? The whole book is irrelevant. It reads as a college student trying to meet a required word count. It seems as though the author intended to write a book for the sake of writing a book, and spent a considerable amount of time hoarding miscellaneous anecdotes and factoids to attain that goal. Disappointed.
My big takeaway from this book? I need to be more selective in the book shop.
The book begins with a 10-page introduction about a poker anecdote. Very interesting. Then part one of the book, which spans as far as page 70, does not talk about poker in the slightest. Here are some topics covered instead: Carl Sagan, astronomy, the moon landing, artificial intelligence, climate change, Fox News, Italy's invasion of Greece during WWII, the Bolsheviks, Sadam Hussein and statistics about how many messages were sent on Whatsapp, Facebook etc.
At about page 30, I got the sense that the author was aiming to emulate "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman, and I smiled to myself when she mentions "system 1 thinking" and "system 2 thinking" on page 40, though she doesn't actually mention Kahneman afterwards, which I felt was unfair. Give the man his due. Part one was a stream of consciousness where the author gives her political opinions in a cringe, Reddit-esque sort of way about instances ranging from atheism, to Trump to the moon landing. Really bizarre. But also, a short word on this. Her points were hypocritical in some areas. She says "... whether Neil Armstrong really landed on the moon (he did)." This type of certainty would be fine normally, but to then go on to say things like "Do you know this to be true or do you think you know?" makes it quite hypocritical. Of course it's probable that Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, but her whole point is to be open to new evidence, and she doesn't seem to be by adding "he did" in parentheses.
The same is seen when she says "Those who [...] had lower cognitive abilities were more likely to see bullshit as profound", but then cites religious beliefs as an example of bullshit. It's a controversial opinion to say the least, but it's a fair opinion for her to have. What's bizarre and hypocritical is that she then proceeds to say "in order to face those who do not believe that all humans are equal", which, not to argue semantics, is a distinctly religious viewpoint, espoused in the book of Genesis, earliest scholarly dating being the Yahwist (J source) at circa 950 BC, Judaism, Christianity and also in Chinese Mohism in the 5th Century BC and a few others. In fact, William Wilberforce's success in ending the trans-Atlantic slave trade via the Slave Trade Act of 1807 was due solely to his Christian faith. It's not the end of the world but it's something that grinds my gears. Say whatever you want but be consistent.
I was hoping that if I trudged through the first part, the author would finally turn her attention to poker, the alleged topic of the book. I got to part two and here's what I saw: Lady Gaga, Charles Darwin, Bernie Madoff, Tinder, sex versus gender, the Uktu tribe of northern Canada and German beer. If I have to read about the bat and the ball costing $1.10 and the bat being $1 more than the ball again I think I might give up reading forever. It's surely just plagiarism at this point. The objects are always a bat and a ball and the price is always $1.10. Why not be creative? A trap house and a speedboat full of fentanyl cost $1.1 million. Now get this! The trap house costs a milly more than the fent. But seriously though what relevance does any of this have? The whole book is irrelevant. It reads as a college student trying to meet a required word count. It seems as though the author intended to write a book for the sake of writing a book, and spent a considerable amount of time hoarding miscellaneous anecdotes and factoids to attain that goal. Disappointed.
My big takeaway from this book? I need to be more selective in the book shop.
August 25, 2024
I wasn't a huge fan of this one because ironically the author is rather biased, I think seeking truth is one thing but self-awareness is another, there were some interesting parts about magicians and deception later on however, but it's a shame the middle part gets rather political/ranty
August 15, 2025
I do wish there was more integration of Poker, as the stories told came across very repetitive (e.g. tough player, being biased against). I felt the snippets on chess and even mafia was interesting, but it barely travelled down and the writing was very focused on the emotions at that time, instead of the experience and even aftereffects.
While I do enjoy the snippets of interview, consistently being told how experienced someone was in the field didn’t really value-add. Instead it came across as this expert is the single source of truth and focused on their background, instead of showing a balanced view, which did disrupt the reading experience.
I do feel some topics were disjointed and if anything, Part 4 felt like the main star of the show. Everything was an extensive prelude but there wasn’t a conclusion chapter to tie everything together.
While I do enjoy the snippets of interview, consistently being told how experienced someone was in the field didn’t really value-add. Instead it came across as this expert is the single source of truth and focused on their background, instead of showing a balanced view, which did disrupt the reading experience.
I do feel some topics were disjointed and if anything, Part 4 felt like the main star of the show. Everything was an extensive prelude but there wasn’t a conclusion chapter to tie everything together.
March 3, 2024
Very interesting book that was nominated for the Global Poker Awards 2023. The author does not teach about strategy, but rather relates the aspects of life that are related to poker. She learns a lot about the complex world we live in by reading and it also makes us better players. One of the best poker books from 2023 for sure.
Want to read
September 27, 2025-gift won from poker
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews