Enjoy!

I will go through the flaws in the common complaints briefly, and only because they are so pervasive that I feel the need to refute them.

1.  The software is rigged against them or to ensure more rake.  Most poker software is inspected by 3rd parties to ensure fairness and there has never been any case that they have been tampered with or that they have  malfunctioned.  Many people have played a statistically significant number of hands (I have played over 10 million hands in my career) and these hands and boards can be imported into a database in order to ensure they are occurring at the correct frequencies.  People have done this and the random number generator has never been found to be unfair in any way.  Since hand histories are available and people can compile a statistically relevant number of hands, if there were irregularities, they would have been found.

2.  The “cashout curse,” is when people lose soon after they cash out their winnings.  The best explanation I have heard for this phenomenon  is regression to the mean.  This is when a losing player runs above expectation (is lucky and wins) and then cashes out.  When they then return to expectation (by losing) they view losing as something anomalous, because now they believe themselves to be winners who have cashed out.  The easiest way to resolve this internal conflict is to blame it on the software being rigged against people who cash out, rather than to admit that they are not as skilled as they believe.

3.  Statistically unlikely events.   I smile every time I get aces on the same table in back to back hands, because I know how many players would say the software is rigged because it is so rare (about 48,000 to 1 against).  In actuality, I play more than 25,000 hands a week on average, so while it is unusual for me to have aces in back to back hands, it comes up about every 2 weeks.  Even I have been a professional for a long time, I sometimes feel like I have lost every hand for a few days in a row.  In reality, when I feel like I am getting unlucky, I tend to forget the hands I win and focus on the hands I lose.  The truth is that variance occurs and that relative to my winrate, sometimes I lose more than I should and sometimes I win more than I should.  Overall, it is exactly as expected.

The irony of the parallel between the 2016 Presidential Election and the people who complain about online poker being rigged is not lost on me.   For the past several weeks Donald Trump has started to forcefully call the election, the voting and the media rigged against him.

First, Trump saying that he might lose because the election is rigged is not a sound argument because that would require the coordination of thousands of local, state and federal election officials, who have both Republican and Democratic party affiliations.  Polls in Pennsylvania show Trump down approximately 10 points and predict he has a less than 10% chance of winning.  This independent data serves a check against claims of widespread voter fraud in same way I can evaluate my hand histories to ensure that the random number generator is operating correctly.  The most likely explanation for Trump losing is not that the polls, media and election are rigged, but that voters are favoring Hillary Clinton by a significant margin.  It is highly unlikely that significant voting fraud will take place since there have been several studies who have determined that it is minimal(under 100 cases in the last 3 elections). Anecdotal evidence is not evidence of widespread conspiracy in the same way that your friend getting aces twice in a row doesn’t mean that the software is rigged.

Second, when Trump is suspicious of Republican candidates’ poor performances in inner city districts comprised of mostly minorities, he fails to consider that: a) The districts are small, as small as a few hundred people.  b) The districts are comprised of people and demographics who tend not to vote for Republicans.  c)Trump is polling in the low single digits with minorities.  So, it is not an anomaly that he would get few votes in a district where the polls say people are not voting for him and the demographics predict he should be doing poorly.  I am sure Trump isn’t suspect of rural Wyoming districts where he is winning nearly 100% of the vote.

Third, Trump’s complaint that the media is rigged is bogus.  The media’s hyperfocus on him has resulted in enough attention to get him this far.  He achieved unprecedented fame and recognition simply from being wealthy. He was in the tabloids when he was younger, on the Apprentice, and now, every news channel covers his rallies, which gives him a platform to expand his audience.

Trump’s expectation in the primaries and in the presidential campaign was poor because of his lack of experience, lack of knowledge and his many scandals.  Most other politicians would have lost their support long ago, and the fact that none of his outlandish and offensive statements or actions were enough to squash his campaign meant that he was surely “running above expectation.”  Until the last few weeks, the media coverage has been to his “yuge” benefit, so he is starting to sound a lot like someone who is complaining about the “cashout curse.”  Over the past few weeks, he has returned to his expectation, in which people are horrified and unlikely to vote for him based upon what he has said and done is merely reversion to the mean.  It is not statistically surprising.

In addition, Trump has pursued a strategy that is unlikely to earn him enough votes to win the election.  His attacks on Republican allies, attacks on women and minorities and his reluctance to encourage the voters on a local level, do not appeal to voters he desperately needs to win.  He has doubled down on his core of support to the almost to the exclusion of others and his core does not contain enough voters for him to win.  Touting irrelevant statistics like online click polls and the number of people at rallies as proof Trump is winning are akin to measuring poker earnings by how often your opponent folds to your bluffs.  In the past, and hopefully in the future, anyone who behaves like Trump and has views like his will reach their expectation sooner and not be considered a serious candidate for President.

There has been a lot of discussion before the debates about how little Donald Trump has prepared and it really bothers me.  He has mocked her practicing for the debates and for her knowledge of the issues.  Winging it and saying whatever crazy idea comes to his head has become his badge of honor.  I am not sure when it became acceptable to look down on those who are working hard and trying to be their best.

There have been so many reports on his unwillingness to learn about policies, do mock debates, read anything longer than one page and to prepare that these things are pretty much as understood as his lack of knowledge and depth on basically every subject.  His reply to most of these criticisms is to say that he is so smart that he does not need to prepare, his style has worked for him in the past and that he has beaten 17 other candidates so why should he change.  This is a fallacious argument that is similar to the poker player who feels no need to study because he is already winning, forgetting about the fact that he could be winning more.

We want our doctors to be educated (not just have a passing interest in science) and to be learned in the newest technologies.  How would you feel if you went in and the doctor said, “bloodletting by leeches has worked in the past, so that is the treatment we are going to go with?”  That is why there is continuing education for most professions.  The fact that Trump is unwilling to work at his newfound craft and thinks he knows everything(“I know more than the generals about ISIS”) speaks volumes about his personality and how he would act as president.  Hillary Clinton, who has spent many years in and around government, is deeply involved in the nuances of policy and has spent the past several months preparing for the debates by doing mock debates, going over topics that might come up and preparing for different lines of attack and defense.

The way Clinton is preparing is the way one should prepare based on the seriousness of the job at hand, the stakes involved and the desire to do the best one can do.  Are you happy with your boss/spouse/doctor who doesn’t try to get better and thinks they know it all?  Why should we settle for that in a president? I hope all the preparation and hard work shines through for her tonight.

http://www.si.com/tennis/2016/06/29/wimbledon-roger-federer-marcus-willis-best-moments-highlights

http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/marcus-williss-very-brief-wimbledon-fairy-tale

When I saw you busted just short of the final table of the World Series of Poker last year I was disappointed because it would have been great for poker and poker legalization across the United States.  You are one of the most recognizable figures in poker, and have always maintained a smile on your face while making the game seem fun and enjoyable to the masses.  Hats off to you!

When I first saw the report of your final hand, where you called preflop with A4 and checkraised all in on an AdKdT board it seemed clear to me that your hand was an obvious shove preflop.  When I saw the explanation of your mistake of this hand and 2 others on your blog, I was pretty shocked to see the clear mistakes in reasoning and I feel compelled to point them out.  The italicized are your words and the bolded are mine.

“Hand #1 Justin Schwartz threw out a 500k chip in the cutoff with 80k-160k blinds and didn’t say anything. I know limping is part of his game plan, but he had smaller denomination chips that he could have called with. My thinking was that he did this on purpose to make it look like he meant to raise so that the rest of us left in the hand would be less likely to attack his limp.
I picked up 7d 8d on the button and limped. This is exactly the type of hand that plays well post flop and I didn’t think it was necessary to isolate Justin. The small blind folded and the big blind checked his option.
The flop came Kd 7s 6c and both players checked to me. Here is where the mistake comes: I bet 250k. The big blind folded, and a short stacked Justin check raised to 600k. I called with lots of back door potential with a 3 card straight, 3 card flush, and a pair.
The turn was the 3 of clubs and he went all in for about 3 million. I didn’t think about it for very long and folded my pair.

So what is the mistake? My bet sizing on the flop allowed Justin enough room to check raise me as a bluff. If I bet 450k he would have to risk a million or so to bluff me and that wouldn’t have left him enough wiggle room. By betting just 250k in a spot where I could easily be bluffing myself, I opened the door to get outplayed. I found out later that he had QT of clubs so he turned a flush draw but I was still ahead. I don’t think folding the turn is a mistake, besides, he had 15 outs to beat me, but that could have been avoided had a I made a more substantial bet on the flop.”

Your call preflop is fine, and kudos for paying attention to your opponent.  However, if you believe there is a decent chance that you will be check raised as a bluff on the flop (though that is probably results oriented thinking), then perhaps checking back or 3 betting his checkraise bluff is the correct play.  You are probably betting pretty wide when checked to in that spot, so you want it to cost you less when you bluff/bet with weak hands, not more.

Calling his checkraise because you have “a 3 card straight and 3 card flush” is silly, because with your small ball style, the last thing you want to have to do is call a big turn bet when you turn a draw (hello variance!) or to get bet off your hand on the turn.  In most of the possible turn scenarios, you lose 350k chips when you call the flop raise and fold the turn, and in some you wind up calling again with a draw (hello variance!) and fold when you miss.  The only time it really works is when you make 2 pair or trips and he bluffs it off(and doesn’t have you beat or outdraw you), which happens very rarely.  It’s obvious you weren’t deep enough to start making moves like this and you are not playing Pot Limit Omaha where he is suddenly going to get scared and check fold a strong hand on the turn or river because a scary card comes.

Hand #2 Blinds at 150k-300k Alex (short stacked) raised from middle position at a 5 handed table to 600k and I defended the small blind with Ac 6c and we went heads up to a flop of 10-10-3. I checked, he bet just 350k and I called. The turn was a 9 and we both checked, and once again it went check check on the Jack river.

So what is the mistake? This one is a little more subtle so think about this one for a minute…

Some would argue calling preflop is a mistake. I disagree with that, and that’s not the mistake. When I checked and he bet 350k I felt like I had the best hand, but wasn’t certain. The play was to check raise to one million and put the pressure on Alex to guess. A 10 is a card that is very likely to be in my hand (9T, JT, QT, KT, AT) so even if he had a hand like 88 he may consider folding. Truth is though, he rarely has a hand like that and bets only 350k. To call my check raise he would have to call more than 25% of his stack and then be in no mans land on the turn whether I bet or check.

Turns out he had Q9 and hit the 9 on the turn to beat me that hand. Many would look at the hand and think “unlucky.” I don’t see any value in that. What’s the point in labeling it as lucky or unlucky? Did I play the hand the best way that I could? No. There is value in analyzing your plays, not your variance.”

You actually played this one well and it was unfortunate that he hit a 9 on the turn to win the pot.  I wouldn’t call it “unlucky,” as that is going to happen roughly 25% of time the hand plays out the way it did, not including the times he a)has you beat or b)bluff you off your hand.

You should not be checkraising this hand to “put pressure on him to guess.”  You are unlikely to get him to fold anything you don’t have beat, and saying a ten is “very likely to be in your hand” (which it is not, use Pokerstove to count the combinations if you need) is silly.  If your range is somehow has a lot of tens in it, then calling your range should be enough to ensure you don’t get bluffed too often.   It’s interesting that you want to checkraise him to “put pressure on him to guess,” while representing a very narrow range out of position.  

You probably would happy with the way this hand played if you had won it.

“My last hand was the A4 vs J3dd hand on an AKTdd flop. Some will argue that against a player who opens 100% of buttons in that spot, that moving all in preflop is a better play. I think for most people that is absolutely true, but not for me, and not in that situation. The reasoning for that is a little lengthy but I’ll try to explain it in brief the best I can:

My goal was to win the tournament not make the final 9. I knew that Joe was abusing the bubble and the other players were not fighting back. I felt fine playing both in position and out of position against his very weak range post flop. My strategy wasn’t to just guess when he had a hand preflop that was strong enough to call a reraise, it was to see flops with him and eek out value wherever I could and rather than double up in a flip situation, GRIND my way to a double up.

It was working. I was able to go from 4 million in chips to 9 million without being in an all in situation. I was clawing my way back into the match by seeing flops and moving in with some hands when necessary.

Once I got over 8 million it allowed me to start defending my blind a bit more liberally against Joe. A few rounds in a row I had defended the blind, once with an all in reraise with KT, a much better hand to move all in with than A4, by the way, considering how he was playing.

So the reason I chose to call with A4 rather than reraise was threefold:

1) It balances my calling range from the blind a little bit
2) I WILL get extra value post flop when I hit an Ace. He can’t check an Ace
3) I avoid getting it all in preflop in spots where I will almost certainly be a 2-1 underdog when called

Once the flop came out, the hand played itself and it wasn’t meant to be in the end. Had I won that pot, though, I would be sitting on a very healthy stack of about 14 million. That’s the way I do it. Chop away, chop away, chop away, see flops, try to get it in good when necessary, and then hopefully the hand holds. It didn’t this time, but I’m quite happy with how I played overall and stuck to my game plan throughout.”

Almost everyone’s goal is to win the tournament, not to make the final 9.  Making a poor play and blaming it on “trying to win” is a cop out.

You might feel fine playing against him postflop when he(and you) have weak ranges, but there isn’t really enough room to maneuver with a hand that flops as poorly, and has poor equity on so many flops.  You don’t need to balance your range in this spot, since it will a)probably not get to showdown b)you won’t be in this situation often c)he won’t know what you had.  In addition, when you do flop an Ace, you will get a small continuation bet out of him, but likely not too much else that you want (you want a bet, but if he barrells off, that’s not great for you).  You do much better in the long term shoving against a guy that is opening that wide(and who may or may not call marginally) then hoping to flop well and win a bet.  

All of this analysis is completely moot, since as soon as you flopped an ace, you checkraised allin, rendering all of your analysis of small ball, eking out value and grinding completely moot.

For the record, if you just call the flop, which you absolutely should, you will be put to the test on the turn when he shoves this hand.

I’d love to hear your thoughts of my analysis.

Best of luck this year!

-Jason

The idea that skill and gambling are two distinct realms and that an activity must fall into one or the other is incorrect because almost every activity has both elements of luck and elements of skill.  Take driving for example.  Driving more safely is a skill that can be learned, however every time someone gets behind the wheel, there is a chance that they might get into an accident.  Another driver could be distracted, fall asleep, or make a mistake that causes an accident that the safe driver cannot avoid.  In addition, there are unforeseen things that could happen such as the safe driver’s brakes malfunctioning, them sneezing and taking their eyes off the road, as well as a hundred other things could go wrong.  In other realms, some would call driving to the store to get milk “gambling with your life,” since over 30,000 people are killed yearly in vehicular accidents.

So what is the above example trying to show for the skill vs luck argument?  First, it is important to acknowledge that there is both luck and skill in driving, since most people suffer from the Black Swan Effect, which is the tendency to underestimate the likelihood of highly improbable, “unlucky” events, like accidents and to explain them away once they happen.  Most people only consider luck (or lack thereof) when they get into an accident, and consider it their skill when they avoid accidents without evaluating the risk from a broader perspective.  It is important to think of risks as ever present, and that each time you drive, you are making a calculated decision that assesses and accepts that risk. You can take steps to reduce the risk of activities, but you will never reduce them to zero.

For example, you can reduce your risk of getting into an accident by increasing your driving skill by taking driver safety classes or by having your brakes checked regularly, but that will only reduce the likelihood of getting into an accident, but not guarantee it.  In the same way you might prefer not to drive at night on the 4th of July (lots of drunk drivers and increased risk of getting “unlucky”), when you drive home after the fireworks, you are merely increasing your risk of getting into an accident not guaranteeing it.

So, where do you draw the line between something that is skill based and luck based? Since there is a measurable chance you could be a fatal accident, does this mean that people shouldn’t be allowed to drive? Drive excessively? Be forced to take 5 hours of driver safety? 50 hours? 500 hours?  Where is the line drawn?  I don’t want to comment on where I think the line for drivers should be drawn, but I will say that most things that people consider to be skill based have much more of a luck element then most people realize.  You got the job you interviewed for? That means that someone who was better qualified than you didn’t apply and that the subway didn’t break down on the way to the interview so you got there on time.

How does this apply to Daily Fantasy Sports and also to poker?  It can often seem that there is an overarching amount of luck involved, and in one hand, one game or one event there surely is.  In one week of Fantasy Football, there may only be only a 55% chance that the “better team” or “better player” will win and surely you can point to anecdotal evidence where you won or lost at the last second due to a “lucky” or “unlucky” play.  However, the 55% number by definition shows that there is skill involved since if it were pure luck, then all players would have a 50% chance of winning. The player with a 55% winning percentage will have a significant edge if many games are played.  People with more skill (the person winning 55% in the above example) increase the likelihood of winning money in the same way that taking a driver safety class,decreases the likelihood of getting intp an accident.  That doesn’t mean that you won’t get into an accident the day after you take the class, in the same way that picking Tom Brady doesn’t mean he won’t throw 3 interceptions.

You must  evaluate the luck vs. skill argument from a long term perspective because in one game or short period of time there is a lot of luck.  Anecdotal evidence does not substitute for long time framed reasoned analysis.  You wouldn’t say football is a game of luck because Tom Brady threw 3 interceptions.  You would say that there is a lot of skill involved because the Patriots are 12-3 and because Brady has been a successful quarterback and had good statistics for years. If Daily Fantasy Sports does not have an element of skill and is purely gambling, then your wife should win at fantasy football as often as you you do, and all of your sports watching and analysis has been for nothing.

I have been a professional internet poker player for 12 years, playing mostly no limit hold’em cash games with buy-ins ranging from $200-$1000 and have been playing online in New Jersey since it was regulated in November 2013. Since Party Poker and Borgata Poker (henceforth referred to as Party Poker) began operating in New Jersey, their software has been plagued with crashes, disconnections and other bugs. Over the past 6 months of playing on Party Poker their software has crashed on my computer approximately 500 times and each time it crashes, the software folds my hand on each of the 10 tables I play simultaneously, often when I have already put a significant amount of money into the pot. As a result of the high volume I play and the frequency of the crashes, the amount of money I have put into pots and folded away as a result of their faulty software has been staggering. This is a problem not just for me, but for players all over New Jersey and all over the world that use Party Poker’s software. I, along with many others, have made Party Poker aware of the software problems for over 6 months by emailing support, tweeting, conversing with upper level management and advising their tech people. Their response has always been the same “there were no technical difficulties that arose from our end, check your computer” or “We are working on it and have escalated it to the appropriate department.” These are the same form responses that I, and many others, have received word for word for over 6 months without any resolution to the problems. Despite these responses, I have gone to great lengths to ensure that the problem is not on my end including purchasing a new computer and changing internet service providers.

When Party Poker software crashes and I am automatically folded, the hand history, the report that lists what happened in each hand in note form, is not written to my hard drive like it is when there is no crash. As a result of this, I only have a rough guesstimate of the amount of money I have lost due to the software crashes and I have no record of what took place in those hands. I have been asking Party Poker for a complete copy of my hand histories for nearly nearly 2 months so that I can do my 2014 taxes and so that I have accurate records. For a few weeks they were “working on it” “escalating it” and “forwarding it to the respective department,” until they started ignoring my emails. Only after contacting the Department of Gaming Enforcement in New Jersey, was I able to get approximately 160,000 of the 470,000 hands I have played on Party Poker in the past year and they have been unable to locate roughly the records of more than 310,000 hands.

I put the 160,000 hands I received into an empty Hold’em Manager database and approximately 14,000 of those hands had the action incorrect or wrong, including every single time the software crashed. The actions, as represented in the hand histories I was sent, were often impossible such as me betting and then calling my own bet or me betting and then folding to no further action. I repeat, there was not a single time where the software crashed that I received a correct hand history demonstrating that, and the only records of hands where the software crashed that exist are incorrect. There is therefore no way for me to account for the money the software crashing has cost me.

I believe that when the software crashes on my computer, the hand history is not correctly written to their servers. This is akin to Gmail not saving your conversation with a friend because the friend signed off in the middle of the conversation. Of the 14,000 hand histories that were incorrect, not all of them were incorrect because Party Poker crashed on my computer. Since the crashing on my computer caused the hand histories to be incorrectly recorded on their servers, when it crashed for others their hands must have been incorrectly recorded as well. Since approximately 10% of the hand histories I received were incorrect, I believe that in 10% of the hands I played in, myself or someone I was playing poker with was disconnected from their site due to a crash caused by the Party Poker software. Based on my own approximate losses, the prevalence of these bugs and the sheer number of players affected, the amount of amount of money lost due to this bug is in millions of dollars if not more.

Regulated internet poker was established to prevent disreputable sites that have little regard for their customers from participating and to protect the players. It is incredible to me that politics have prevented PokerStars, whose reputation and customer service is impeccable, from receiving a license in New Jersey thus far, but Party Poker, who has a history of operating in the manner I have described above have been allowed to operate.

I request that Party Poker finally and completely fix their software bugs and compensate people for the losses they have incurred as a result of their negligence.

Huffington Post

Bonus: Jon Stewart on Chris Christie

He considers sitting but not playing anyone unethical, a charge which I find laughable.  There are no rules in poker stating that you must play anyone who sits with you, continue to play or play in a specific manner.  I am sure this player would like it if I went all in every hand, but calling it unethical because it does not conform to what he would like to see is silly.  Of course, this player does not play everyone who sits with him, play in every game, or play at the highest possible stakes, but only plays against those players against whom he thinks he has an edge.  This player, like every other poker player, does things at the table that others would consider wrong or unethical.  While I may not always agree with his poker or life choices, I do not feel it necessary to attack him for them.  In fact, I believe it is a compliment to his game that I believe he is a good player and that there is more money to be made elsewhere.

Below I will repost some of what I previously wrote on the topic:

“I often sit at empty tables in an attempt to start new games to increase the total number of tables I am playing.  When regulars that I do not match up well against sit down to play, I will often decline to play them.  Lately, several regulars have berated me for not wanting to play  them 1 on 1, “heads up” in poker terms, called me a bumhunter, and said they were going to sit at all my heads up tables so that I couldn’t play anyone else.  Most have said to me, “I will play anyone” and in the online poker world, it seems to be a badge of honor to be willing to play whomever sits with you.  I wonder how they would they feel if Phil Ivey (the best poker player in the world) came down and said, “I play anyone, so you should play me now.”

My reply lately has been to ask why these players aren’t in Ivey’s Room in the Aria Las Vegas where the buyins are hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Clearly these players exercise some choice in who they play, and their willingness to play anyone extends only to playing people they believe they have an edge over.  In fact, many of these players do not play every available game online in New Jersey, but are using criteria for game selection that is not primarily concerned with profitability.  Though I find it irritating to be berated, especially by people with whom I have been friendly, I believe that they are less skilled in achieving the end goal of playing poker professionally: making money.

I believe there are 2 sets of essential poker skills, hard skills and soft skills.  Hard skills encompass everything related to playing a poker hand like whether or not to bet, how much to bet or whether you think your opponent is bluffing.  Soft skills are everything else involved in playing poker, like being in the correct mindset, where to sit at the table and how not to tilt.  You need both sets of skills to be a successful professional.  For example, someone who is great at betting, but who tilts off their whole bankroll when they take a bad beat, has soft skills that counteract their hard skills to the point that it is going to be tough for them to be a long term winner.

There are many, many situations that occur at the poker table, and as a professional, it is my job to know which ones are profitable and to try to put myself in those situations.   I have spent thousands of hours doing analysis in order to figure out where the money is made and how best to make it.  For example, there are many players who I would not like sitting on my left (acting after me) but who I am happy to have on my right (acting before me).  Does that mean that I will never sit with them on my left?  Of course not, but there needs to be a something positive that counteracts the money I lose (or cannot make) because of the tough player on my left.  If you are not consistently not discerning about these small edges that frequently occur, they quickly add up  and really eat into the bottom line.

Before I play a hand, I try to determine whether or not it is profitable for me to play in a game.  Into that calculation goes some of the following: Am I a favorite in this game?, Will it distract from my other games?,  Do I have enough games going now?,  Will I learn something from playing here?,  Will the game start if I play heads up?, in addition to many other things.  I do the mental calculation to figure out if  I think it is profitable, and if it is, then I play, if not, then I don’t.

Often when I do start a game and the weaker player sits, I find myself in a poor position and not able to make money, while someone else who sat later will get one of the more profitable seats and therefore reap the benefits of my playing heads up to start games.  I don’t generally play in a game with 5 other tough regulars, not because I don’t think I can win in the game, but because its not worth my time and mental energy to win at a small rate (and endure a lot of variance),  when I could be focusing my attention on more profitable scenarios.  If my opponent does x, and I have trouble reacting to x, I am not going to go out of my way to play them heads up, a.k.a. giving them money.  Once I figure out a good way to counteract what they are doing, I might play them heads up to challenge myself and see if my solution works.”

Non-Fiction

(=)Not That Kind of Girl by Lena Dunham.   I enjoyed some of the stories in the book, but a lot of it was filler such as the reprinting of her food diary.  She doesn’t speak to me, but her voice came through in the book and I would certainly recommend it to her fans.

(+)Brain on Fire by Susannah Cahalan.  The author’s personal tale of the effects of a rare type of brain encephalitis.  It was very interesting to read her struggles and descriptive without being graphic.

(-)The Art of Mental Training by DC Gonzalez.  Another in the genre of self training books that repeat standard advice without expanding on it further.  Painfully beginning each chapter by reading how the author’s mentor treated him like the Karate Kid made me wonder if the author even had an editor.

(-)Daring Greatly by Brene Brown.  This book on vulnerability was written in the same mold as Lean In, that is to say it is semi-autobiographical and attempts to apply those lessons to the world.  I want to give an example, but I can’t bear to open the book again.

Fiction

(=)Girl by Blake Nelson.  A teenage novel my wife was recommended.  It was a little silly, but not too bad considering the genre.

(+)An Abundance of Katherines by John Green.  I enjoyed this story about an OCD boy who only dates girls named Katherine(19 of them).  It was lighthearted and funny and it was very easy to root for the main character.

(+)Looking for Alaska by John Green.  This novel by the same author as above was more suspenseful as a boy goes in search of his friend who has disappeared.  It’s told in the same enjoyable voice that An Abundance of Katherines was told.

(=)Paper Towns by John Green.  This book was a little more preachy than the previous 2 books by John Green and the story was not nearly as entertaining.  It was certainly the worst of the 4 books by John Green I have read, but luckily it was short.

(+)The Husbands Secret by Liane Moriarty.  This story about a woman who finds a letter from her husband weaves together 3 stories in a thrilling way.

(+)And the Mountains Echoed by Khaled Hosseini.  One of the many books I have read lately that weaved together different stories and viewpoints across time periods.  It was really captivating, though the names were a bit hard to keep straight.

(-)The Dog Stars by Peter Heller.  This book about a post apocalyptic man and his dog was barely readable.  The short sentences and thoughts were a different writing style, but ultimately didn’t work.

(+)The Silkworm by Robert Galbraith.  The second in the series by J.K. Rowling about a private detective was better than the first.  I am probably going to read the rest of the series as she writes them.

(+)Act of War by Brad Thor.  It was a spy novel that did a good job of keeping me on the edge of my seat.  Not as good as some of the others I have read lately, like I am Pilgrim, but good nonetheless.

(=)The Orphan Master’s Son by Adam Johnson.  The author’s narrative from 3 different points of view was well written but there were some very boring parts and chapters mixed in.

(+)Gray Mountain by John Grisham.  It’s John Grisham doing lawyerly fiction.  Not one of his greatest, but pretty good nonetheless.

(+)The Son by Philip Meyer.  Another novel with 3 different narrators that occurs over many years about a family in Texas and its struggles.  It was very dense, and slowed towards the end, but I enjoyed it.

(+)All the Light we Cannot See.  Yet another novel with multiple narrators over time set during World War II.  This book won many awards and was a good read, but I don’t understand what all the hype is about.

(+)The Invention of Wings by Sue Monk Kidd.  Probably the best of the multi-narrator over time books I have read.  The author made me feel for both the slave and the slave owner in this story about a slave’s life.

(+)The Elegance of the Hedgehog by Muriel Barbery. This book was beautifully written, had a lot of intellectual references and was very funny.  I didn’t even hold against it that it had 2 different narrators.

Poker

(-)Harrington on Cash Games 1 and 2 by Dan Harrington and Bill Robertie.  It covers some basic, necessary material at first, then some outdated tactics that might be good for the lower limits.  I feel that if you are going to write a strategy book aimed at lower stakes players, all of the information should be correct, because they cannot differentiate when it is not.

(-)Harrington on Online Cash Games by Dan Harrington and Bill Robertie.  Same as above, except with the evolution of online cash games, this book is even further behind the times.

(=)Straight Flush by Ben Mezrich.  This was a good fast read about the creators of Absolute Poker.  However, knowing the story, the author took a bit too much license on the facts and skipped over the scandal, without doing much research.

(+)The Mersennary E-Book.  This was an excellent book about playing heads up, and heads up sit-n-go’s which gave applicable advice that was spot on.

(+)Expert No Limit Holdem 1 and 2 by Will Tipton.  These books really delve into the nitty gritty of playing poker from a mathematical point of view.  Playing exploitable and unexploiteable are discussed in great depth and the book is very dense with information.

(+)Applications of No Limit Holdem by Matthew Janda.  A book similar to the one above, with more examples.  It had more practical advice without being as dense, but was also excellent.

(-)The Poker Blueprint by Tri Ngyuen.  Same crap by the same author.  General advice that is often wrong without any way to implement it.