Ruff Poker Blog
Learn Train Dominate Poker

When I began playing poker choosing a ‘primer’ -as poker strategy books are often called-was a fairly simple process, since there were typically only a handful of books on the particular topic in print! And no, I’m not 75 years-old, I began playing poker a few years before the nuclear bomb known as Chris Moneymaker went off in 2003.

Nowadays, the process is a lot more complex for the sheer fact that there are hundreds of ‘primers’ to choose from, so with that in mind I have devised the following list of the 10 poker books you MUST read, and honestly I am loathe to include any ‘primers’ on my list; although a couple of more theoretical tomes seem to have found their way onto it, as well as two general poker ‘primers’!

• 1. Ace on the River, by Barry Greenstein
• 2. Cowboys Full, by James McManus
• 3. Positively 5th Street, by James McManus
• 4. Zen and the Art of Poker, by Larry W. Phillips
• 5. Biggest Game in Town, by Al Alvarez
• 6. Education of a Poker Player, by Herbert O’Yardley
• 7. Big Deal, by Anthony Holden
• 8. Theory of Poker, by David Sklansky
• 9. Mathematics of Poker, by Bill Chen and Jerod Ankenman
• 10. One of a Kind, by Nolan Dalla and Peter Alson

So without further adieu, here is #7 on the list of poker book you MUST read:

Big Deal, by Anthony Holden

Big Deal chronicles the author’s saga as he plays on the professional poker tournament trail for a year -starting with the 1988 World Series of Poker and ending at the 1989 World Series of Poker. Far from a how-to book on poker, Big Deal is similar to James McManus’s Positively 5^th Street-in fact it is the precursor of McManus’s book by more than a decade– in that both tomes give players a look at the inner workings of professional poker minus the glitz and glamour, but still leaving enough shine that the reader will immediately want to book a flight to Las Vegas and do better than the author!

Big Deal follows Holden to major poker tournaments across the globe in exotic locales like Malta and Morocco, as well as the more typical poker settings of Las Vegas, Louisiana and California. After winning a satellite into the Main Event, Holden decides to spend the next year honing his poker skills, and trying to make it as a professional poker player -Without spoiling the book, let’s just say Holden ends the book as he began it: As a writer!

Holden’s book is aimed at a wide audience -he is after all a London columnist and author-and doesn’t need much poker acumen to read -in fact you’re likely better off knowing little about poker since his plays and strategies are a bit outdated shall we say.

I picked Big Deal for my list of the 10 poker books you MUST read because like Positively 5^th Street, reading Big Deal makes you want to immediately find a poker game, and play against the best in the world: Or, if you are like me and are a life-long player, you’ll become nostalgic for your early years in the game, when you had more hope and a whole lot less skill!

When it comes to generalizations in poker none rings truer than “You want to maximize your wins and minimize your losses”, but the practical application of this concept often escapes people. Whether your goal is to maximize or minimize, the methods are the same, and involve three key concepts:

• 1. Utilizing position
• 2. Pot control
• 3. Isolating weak opponents/avoiding strong opponents

In this series I will take a look at each concept and how it applies to the concept of maximizing your wins and minimizing your losses. The final installment: Isolation and Avoidance.

Isolation and Avoidance

The final aspect of maximizing your wins and minimizing your losses deals with making adjustments to your specific opponents; specifically which opponents you want to have to deal with. Poker is like any other competition; there are certain players you look forward to playing against -and will go out of your way to play with-and there are certain opponents that you’d rather not see at a poker table.

This is where isolation and Avoidance come into play. It’s important that you make sure you are adjusting your strategy to steer clear of any strong opponents in the game -not to the point of complete avoidance-because  there isn’t much of a reason to get involved with a player who is unlikely to make any mistakes. Conversely, there are certain players that you not only want to play against, but should go out of your way to discourage others from playing with at the same time.

Think of this like fishing: If you know a particular spot on a lake where there are tons of fish and no fishermen, you don’t go blabbing around time about it, or inviting everyone on the block to meet you at your prime spot. You keep it to yourself, even to the point of giving out misinformation about the spot.

It also makes little sense to go out on the water with a bunch of professional anglers in their Bass Boats while you row out with your old fashioned fishing pole in a canoe!

Well the same holds true for poker, when there is a poor player that has entered the pot you want to try to isolate them so that you have the best chance of gaining from the hand, you don’t want to invite other players into the pot. Think of it this way: Suppose the poor player has a 40% chance of winning against you heads-up, but if you allow an equally skilled player into the pot as well the fish’s winning percentage drops to 20% with you and the other player splitting the other 80%. In this case you’ve lost 20% equity by allowing the other player into the pot. This is why it’s so important to isolate bad players even if the raise/re-raise isn’t completely justified.

And on the flipside when a strong player enters the pot you should err on the side of caution, instead of butting heads against an opponent who you have very little edge over.

In Parts 1 and 2 of this series I detailed the many incidents involving Annie Duke and Daniel Negreanu over the years, and now I will throw in my 2-cents regarding the recent verbiage used by Daniel Negreanu in the pokerplayer.co.uk interview, and the way Annie Duke has spun it.

Yes, Negreanu is a representative of PokerStars, an online poker site! Face it, representing online poker isn’t like heading up a kids summer camp, or a Women’s rights group; what type of standard should we hold professional poker players to? Yes Annie, as you alluded to in your ‘Open Letter’, Nike would certainly drop a player who used the C-word in an interview, but Nike is a global, family, brand that sells apparel to mothers and children; they are not a somewhat illegal online poker operation, operating offshore of its major markets to avoid prosecution. Look at the way Bodog or even UB’s sister site Absolute Poker has used sexy women in the past; something Nike would never think of doing! A better analogy would be: How would Playboy magazine react?

Now, if he was playing in a tournament suffered a bad beat, and called the woman a C*** it’s a different story. But in this case he is using the term to explain his feelings towards Annie Duke, not a random woman he doesn’t know. He doesn’t like her, AT ALL! And he has reason not to like her.

Obviously the backlash has not been enough that PokerStars feels any punishment to be necessary -who knows if there has been behind the scenes talk or punishment. It just feels like Duke is trying to exploit the situation to not only get her own slipping brand into the headlines, but also to take-down Negreanu.

And I’m sorry but C*** is not the same as an ethnic or racial slur; no more than calling someone a MotherF***er is. It’s a harsh put-down, and not fit for polite conversation, but equating someone who calls a particular woman a C*** as denigrating all women is quite a leap. 

One final point: Many an athlete has disrespected a woman reporter -or male reporter for that matter-and usually the person just shrugs it off, because really… it’s not that big of a deal that someone called you a name! Or how about guys like Brandon Marshal who BEAT women, *allegedly*, they still play in the NFL. Let’s not forget Shaq’s nightclub rap about Kobe that was full of colorful language. Among the many other instances that could be used to show public figures, representing a company, who have used foul language.

In Part 1 of this series I outlined the early run-ins between Annie Duke and Daniel Negreanu which were the genesis of their animosity toward each other. In this installment I’ll discuss the recent flare-up between the two.

The “FEUD” between Annie Duke and Daniel Negreanu had been on hold for a number of years prior to the Ladies-Only Tournament at this year’s World Series of Poker, where the two came down on opposite sides of the controversy surrounding the event. However, the rhetoric picked up a bit when Daniel caught Annie Duke taking a very hypocritical position regarding women in poker: On the one hand she is against gender-based tournaments like the Ladies Tournament at the WSOP, while at the same time self-applying the title of Best Female Poker Player on her website.

Still, the two weren’t exactly at each other’s throats as they have been in the past, but pretty much everyone saw the old feelings coming out in their respective blog posts. This incident probably would have died out, but for one off-the-cuff comment by Daniel.  In an interview with pokerplayer.co.uk, Daniel went a little overboard when he referred to Duke as a “F***ing C***” regarding her hypocritical stance (he later stated in an interview with PokerNews.com’s Kimberly Lansing that while he did say the quote in the article, and obviously meant it, he thought the response was off-the-record).

Just as the story seemed to be puttering out we get the obligatory response from Annie Duke on her blog, where she posts an response from PokerStars regarding the incident (anyone who has ever corresponded with a poker site knows that these are scripted responses by someone on the site’s Customer Support Team).  The problem was that whoever penned the E-Mail response definitely didn’t run it by their supervisors!

Back to that in a minute: First I want to talk about Duke’s use of the E-Mail response in her blog post. I have a problem with this because she is parading it out as if it came from the CEO himself, and not from the customer support team which she knows to be the case. It seems she is doing this in an effort to disparage PokerStars‘ handling of the situation. There is obviously a conflict of interest in doing this, since Duke is a UB Poker pro and PokerStars really has nothing to do with the whole fiasco — I had the same feelings when Negreanu talked disparagingly of UB Poker, and in general the players who represent the site not too long ago as well.

Going by the timeline it seemed PokerStars was content to let this run its News-Cycle and die out on its own, but with Duke’s “Open Letter” to PokerStars entry on her blog PokerStars had to write up a formal response, which of course keeps the story alive much, much, longer.

Here is the OFFICIAL response by PokerStars, which was given to PokerNews.com:

PokerStars does not support the use of derogatory or hurtful language directed at any other player. While this was a personal matter between two players, we wish that better judgment had been used in the choice of words.

As to the PokerStars email posted in “open letter to PokerStars” on Annie Duke’s site, our support handles over 10,000 emails per day, and this was a case where our staff member incorrectly speculated with personal opinion, and overstepped their boundary. However they did not ‘condone’ the use of Daniel’s language at any point as is implied. Rest assured, this email was *not* PokerStars‘ official statement on this issue.

So, this is where we stand at the moment: I will post one final entry in this series where I give my thoughts on the whole affair.

PokerPlayer.co.uk Interview with Daniel

Annie’s Blog Post

There has been a lot of talk recently about a specific interview with Daniel Negreanu that appeared on pokerplayer.co.uk recently where he calls Annie Duke a “F***ing C***”, causing a firestorm of opinions in the poker world. Unfortunately, the interview is just the latest transgression in what has been on an ongoing feud between the two Poker Stars that began some 15 years ago! Hopefully I can shed some light on what has transpired over the years between Negreanu and Duke to help put Daniel’s recent comments in context.

People who have been a part of the poker community prior to the 2003 explosion are much more familiar with the ‘beef’ between the two poker superstars -having been around the poker scene since around the year 2000, and as a former RGP forum member I’m fairly well acquainted with the bad blood between the two, which seems to have begun at their first encounter at the poker tables.

***I’m going from memory, and what research I can do, so if anyone familiar with the situation sees something that doesn’t jibe, or seems to be incomplete or wrong, please feel free to contact me about it***

The first real public airing came in early 2002 when Daniel posted on now defunct rec.gambling.poker forum (commonly referred to as RGP) about a run-in with an unnamed woman at the Bellagio. Which then drew an “Open Letter” response from Howard Lederer -you’ll see the Open Letter response again in part 2 of this series, it must be a Lederer thing. While Daniel left the ‘woman’ unnamed, Howard had no qualms about identifying Annie as the villain in Daniel’s story, so at this point the cat was out of the bag, and the poker world did the 2002 equivalent of “GET YOUR POPCORN READY!”

A few months later in 2003 Daniel Negreanu again posted on RGP his reasons for, “what makes me think that this woman is such a low life.” In the post Daniel cites 8 specific examples of Duke’s angle-shooting, breaking of poker-room etiquette, and hygienic deficiencies. A few of the tales can be read in James McManus book Positively 5^th Street, where McManus goes out of his way to paint Duke in the best possible light -but still fails-as well as being corroborated by the other players mentioned.

Let me interject a little personal opinion and history at this point:

I’ve talked with Daniel in the past, actually he answered a random e-mail of mine years ago when I first took up poker, completely out of the blue mind you, and we had maybe 20 or so other e-mail conversations, mostly about poker. He is exactly how he appears to be, and was a great help to my early poker game –especially when I switched from Limit Holdem to Omaha 8 or Better.

Now, I’ve never met Annie Duke, and have never communicated with her in anyway, so I don’t know the “real” Annie Duke at all. However, I do know many poker players, and very few have overly nice things to say about her –although few are as put-off by her as Daniel is, most of the time you get eye-rolls and sarcasm, and the occasional story like the eight Daniel tells in his RGP post. And it’s obvious from her Celebrity Apprentice appearance that she rubs people the wrong way.

The next flare-up between the two occurred when Annie Duke had Daniel’s chat revoked on PokerStars, and subsequently found an e-mail in her inbox from Daniel, which somehow found its way onto the Internet thanks again to Howard Lederer:

“Subject: Stop your whining

You got a lot of nerve you dizzy c**t.  If someone asks me if you are Puke, that’s exactly what I’ll tell them.  You talk all kinds of shit about me and I could care less.  You are entitled to say what you want about me, I don’t care in the least. You trying to censor me?  Ah naw, that ain’t gonna happen.  I’ll say what the fuck I want to say about you.  You think “I” start those discussions? Bitch please, I’m not the only one who has witnessed you be your pukey self. Wait till you read McManus’ new book… what- are you going to try to have it cleared from the shelves too! lol. People SEEK me out to tell me how much they hate you.  As for me sayin’ shit about you?  Deal with it.  I ain’t goin’ anywhere.”

So here we have Daniel’s first use of the C-word in regards to Annie Duke -and since I haven’t seen another instance of its usage by him I have to assume it’s a term he uses specifically for Annie Duke, not women in general-as well as the origination of the Annie Puke moniker.

For her part, Duke seems to only have ‘gone after’ Daniel publicly in her book, privately is another matter, where she refers to him as an “Online Tormentor”.

After this, the feud was relatively quiet, and it seemed Howard and Daniel pretty much buried the hatchet, with Negreanu and Duke just taking the silent approach toward each other. That was until the 2010 World Series of Poker, and the Ladies-Only Tournament found the two on opposing sides of the controversy surrounding the tournament… But, I’ll save that for part 2!

Howard’s “Open Letter” to Daniel

Daniel’s E-Mail following his chat ban

Negreanu airs Duke’s Dirty Poker Laundry

When it comes to generalizations in poker none rings truer than “You want to maximize your wins and minimize your losses”, but the practical application of this concept often escapes people. Whether your goal is to maximize or minimize, the methods are the same, and involve three key concepts:

• 1. Utilizing position
• 2. Pot control
• 3. Isolating weak opponents/avoiding strong opponents

In this series I will take a look at each concept and how it applies to the concept of maximizing your wins and minimizing your losses. Next up: Pot control.

Pot Control

Controlling the size of the pot is a crucial aspect in big bet poker. You want to bet an amount that will get paid-off with your winning hands, but at the same time you want to bet as little as possible when you are bluffing. The trick is to make these amounts -as well as your betting patterns– mirror each other. Like everything else in poker, this is like walking a tightrope, where you will sometimes offer a player the right odds to chase you down when you could have moved them off their hand, but you do this so that when you are bluffing you don’t have to bet this same large amount.

Often times poker players do the exact opposite of pot control: Instead of playing big pots with their big hands, they continually make big bets with weak and mediocre hands, when the reality of the situation is they don’t know if they are bluffing or value-betting.

This causes a second problem when you get re-raised, or bet into on the Turn or River, because the pot is so large it’s harder to call these bets, which makes it easier for your opponents to move you off the best hand.

For example: Suppose you raised pre-flop with AJ, get a single caller in the BB, and the flop is K-J-3. Your opponent checks, you decide to make a continuation bet, and your opponent calls. The Turn is a 7, and you fire again when you are checked to. Now, in this instance if your opponent calls or raises you are in trouble, and because of the Turn bet will likely have to fold to a raise here, or to River bet. However, if you had simply checked behind, you would be able to call any reasonable bet your opponent makes on the River -you also have the added benefit of inducing a bluff from a lesser hand, like JT or A3-or value-bet yourself should your opponent check to you again.

This is why it is so critical to your long-term prospects to control the size of the pot: Play big pots with your big hands, and keep the pot small when you are trying to bluff or have a marginal holding.

When it comes to generalizations in poker none ring truer than “You want to maximize your wins and minimize your losses”, but the practical application of this concept often escapes people. Whether your goal is to maximize or minimize, the methods are the same, and involve three key concepts:

• 1. Utilizing position
• 2. Pot control
• 3. Isolating weak opponents/avoiding strong opponents

In this series I will take a look at each concept and how it applies to the concept of maximizing your wins and minimizing your losses. First up in the series: Utilizing position.

Position

Position is crucial to your success in poker, and most people equate it with being able to take down pots when everyone -including you-misses; the ability to make better decisions because you have more information; and the capability of employing all the plays in your arsenal, such as semi-bluffs, free-cards, and so on. But what many people fail to realize is that being in position is the #1 factor when it comes to maximizing your wins and minimizing your losses.

Here is a simple example of this: Suppose you have pocket Aces in first position, get one caller, and flop a set: Perfect situation, right? Well, it’s a good situation to be in, but how do you proceed? Do you fire a continuation bet, or slow-play your monster? Often times a continuation bet will end the hand right there -unless your opponent is unfortunate enough to hold the case-Ace-and slow-playing not only rings of strength since you raised pre-flop, but also gives free-cards and keeps the pot small.

On the other hand if you are in position with your set of Aces you’ll have a much better idea of the strength of your opponent’s hand. Often times you’ll be checked to; bet your hand; and take down the pot, but in position you’ll avoid giving free cards throughout the hand, and will be in control of the pot size -which will be discussed in part 2 of this series!

On the flip side, being out of position can also cost you more money when you’re second-best, because it’s your opponent that has not only the advantage in hand strength, but also a tactical edge. Let’s continue with our AA theme for this example, only this time it’s your opponent who flops a set against your AA. In position you’ll likely make your continuation bet, get called, and will probably be checked to a second time on the turn, at which point you can either continue your aggression -most likely getting check-raised-or decide to slow down and control the size of the pot, which causes your opponent to not only miss a bet on the turn, but makes the river bet much smaller as well.

Out of position is a different story, since your opponent will never miss a bet with his set, and more importantly his hand is better disguised, since he is not check-calling out of position -typically a sign of strength-but is simply calling on the flop -perhaps raising-which is anal to common play nowadays with good hands, or total air.

So when it comes to maximizing your wins and minimizing your losses position is crucial: You’ll still play the same hands either way, but if you were to look at your stats when you have position with AA and when you are out of position you’ll see just how important it is; especially when it comes to cutting your losses. Without position it’s far more likely you will miss bets, and fall victim to more questionable calls.

A while back I wrote a satirical blog entry titled Vince McMahon meet Doyle Brunson, where I detailed a plan to “script” poker: Adding some bad guys ‘Heels’ for poker fans to boo, and hero’s to prop up and cheer. Well, poker got a bit of WWE feel recently when the Daniel Negreanu vs. Annie Duke feud was rekindled by some harsh language in a throwaway line in an interview for pokerplayer.co.uk.

During the interview Daniel Negreanu was asked about the Ladies-Only Tournament controversy at this year’s WSOP. After a quick explanation of his previous views on the subject, Daniel pulled an Emeril and kicked it up a notch! BAM! After switching the subject to Duke’s role in the controversy -and rightfully pointing out her hypocritical position on females in poker-Daniel said: So I’m like ‘how offensive are you, you f***ing c***? You want to say you’re speaking for women, yet you claim superiority over all of them.’”

Well the first censored word is an easy one to figure out, and for those of you unfamiliar with the second censored word, Daniel called Annie a “See you next Tuesday”!

Here’s a quick rundown of what has taken place between the two before this latest transgression.

It’s kind of hard to call Daniel a villain in this conflict since Annie Duke does not really have a glowing reputation in poker circles: Mention Duke’s shenanigans amongst her peers and you’re likely to get a lot of eye-rolls, and off the record comments that stop a step shy of Daniel’s words. Not to mention she did seem to rub Joan Rivers and others the wrong way on Celebrity Apprentice.

However, did Annie deserve to be called what Daniel called her? And what, if anything, does this say about Daniel?

To the first point, really nobody deserves to be called THAT in a public way. To the second point, if the interview was loose, I can see how he would use this word -and likely instantly regret using it-since it’s obvious he doesn’t think very highly of Annie Duke: It’s actually the second instance of him calling her this -he did so in an e-mail to her after Duke got his chat banned on PokerStars. Not to mention that Daniel was being interviewed for a UK poker site, and from my experience with Brits the word seems to be a bit more in use in the UK.

So in the end, it seems like a bad choice of insults for Daniel to have chosen -although F***ing B**ch would have likely gotten the same response-and although he is a poker player, not a youth minister or school teacher, you do need to realize when you are being recorded! Should he be punished in any way by his sponsors? No. you take him in the office, show him his contract and say, “C’mon man, you can’t say that about her or anyone again… UNDERSTAND?”

It always amazes me the lengths people will go to save money in various areas of their life, but when it comes to poker these same people leave so much money on the table, simply because of the slightest lack of effort or patience. For instance, when it comes to buying a car, or groceries, or refinancing a house people will shop around, and actively seek the best bargain. Yet when presented with similar choices in poker they simply choose the most expedient one, regardless of how much money it will cost them in the long-run.

Here are a few examples where 99% of poker players simply overlook the choices that are available to them:

Example #1: Game Selection, Stakes

Game selection is an area where virtually every poker player can improve. The idea of choosing the best game goes way beyond finding a table with weak players, or that falls within your bankroll. Proper game selection involves finding the most profitable game available -so long as it fits within your bankroll.

In my years as player at Foxwoods it always amazed me the number of players that would completely ignore the ultra-juicy $4/$8 and $5/$10 games once they started playing $10/$20and $20/$40 -bear in mind this was before the No Limit boom, when Limit Holdem ruled the card-room. It was as if their ego wouldn’t allow them to partake in these games any longer. Personally, I always found the $10/$20 and $20/$40 games throughout the week -especially mid-day– were basically tight, bordering on the label of a ‘Rock Garden’ or ‘Locksmith Convention’. On the flip-side, the $4/$8 and $5/$10 (which had a Kill at $100) games were much looser, and much more profitable.

So, my typical MO was to play $5/$10, and yes, even the ‘Yellow-Chip’ $4/$8 games during the week, and look for juicy games at higher limits during the evening and on weekends.

This phenomenon holds true online as well. It’s not uncommon to search through the lobby and see a $2/$4 No Limit game that has pots double the size of the $5/$10 games running! But so many players simply refuse to believe that a lower stakes game can provide a higher win-rate.

Don’t limit your choices by disregarding games a level or two below the current stakes you typically play.

Example #2: Game Selection, Table

Of course, the most obvious aspect of game selection is choosing a juicy table. A quick stroll around the card-room, or perusal of the lobby of an online poker site, should be all you need to spot a few weak players, or an especially juicy game. However, the vast majority of poker players simply jump into the first seat that is available to them, regardless of the lineup!

I know, you don’t want to wait 20minutes only to have the fish leave before you even get a seat, but the beauty of poker is that no matter how long it takes for you to be seated, the game will always be there! Or, another game will take its place. This is why you’re always better off waiting for a good game, than jumping into a lousy one.

Example #3: Game Selection, Site/Card-room

The last aspect of game selection I will discuss is WHERE you play. Sometimes you don’t have many options, but when you do you should definitely shop around for the best ‘deal’. This is especially true online: I have a hard time figuring out why some players stick with a single site. There has been numerous times where I’ve searched three or more online poker sites’ lobbies before finding the best game. Had I only had money on one of the sites I would have been forced to play in a far less profitable game.

This is also true for live poker; if you happen to live in area with multiple card-rooms nearby. And don’t forget to compare the rake collection of each room; the bonuses and rakeback deals offered; in addition to the quality of the players in the games.

By doing all of these things, which take very little time and effort, you can be certain that you are setting yourself up for success by making the right decisions given your choices.

When I began playing poker choosing a ‘primer’ –as poker strategy books are often called-was a fairly simple process, since there were typically only a handful of books on the particular topic in print! And no, I’m not 75 years-old, I began playing poker a few years before the nuclear bomb known as Chris Moneymaker went off in 2003.

Nowadays, the process is a lot more complex for the sheer fact that there are hundreds of ‘primers’ to choose from, so with that in mind I have devised the following list of the 10 poker books you MUST read, and honestly I am loathe to include any ‘primers’ on my list; although a couple of more theoretical tomes seem to have found their way onto it, as well as two general poker ‘primers’!

• 1. Ace on the River, by Barry Greenstein
• 2. Cowboys Full, by James McManus
• 3. Positively 5^th Street, by James McManus
• 4. Zen and the Art of Poker, by Larry W. Phillips
• 5. Biggest Game in Town, by Al Alvarez
• 6. Education of a Poker Player, by Herbert O’Yardley
• 7. Big Deal, by Anthony Holden
• 8. Theory of Poker, by David Sklansky
• 9. Mathematics of Poker, by Bill Chen and Jerod Ankenman
• 10. One of a Kind, by Nolan Dalla and Peter Alson

So without further adieu, here is #2 on the list of poker book you MUST read:

Cowboys Full, by James McManus

Cowboys Full is one of the best written poker books of all-time -no surprise since it comes from a master of prose like McManus-and that is saying a lot since Cowboys Full is basically a history book! McManus takes the reader on a journey from the obscure origins of the game in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, through the Americanization of the game along the Mississippi, all the way up to the Internet age of poker.

As he did in Positively 5^th Street -another entry on this list-McManus was able to pen a poker tome that doesn’t necessarily rely on poker to tell the story: In the manner that Star Wars was told not through the characters living the story, but through two droids eyes who were mere background players, the reader is told American History through the eyes of poker in Cowboys Full.

The target audience of this book is wide-ranging, since the book would appeal to poker players, but also to history buffs, but what makes the book so special is the sheer volume of information that is conveyed to the reader. McManus is the professor of Poker History, who can teach even the most wizened poker historian a thing or two.

What makes Cowboys Full a MUST read poker book is the way the author is able to blend facts, wit, and feeling into the book, making what should be a history fun and exciting, but still jam-packed with insights and knowledge. Cowboys Full is the definitive work on the history of poker, and the reader will walk away with a stronger understanding of the games past, as well as the challenges it still faces.