Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Books Media Book Reviews Entertainment Games

Positively Fifth Street 162

Posted by timothy from the aces-wild dept.
peterwayner writes "If you're looking for more proof that good stories happen to those who can tell them, pick up a copy of James McManus's Positively Fifth Street, an adrenaline-charged, first person account of a reporter sent to cover the World Series of Poker in Las Vegas. But why sit on the sidelines? He decides the only way to capture the true flavor is to risk his advance and enter. Along the way, he uses his journalistic license to justify trips to strip clubs, interviews with all of the female players, examinations of the ex-stripper wife of the tournament host, investigations of a murder, and winning bigger and bigger bets at the poker table." Sounds like fun. Read on for the rest of the review.
Positively Fifth Street: Murderers, Cheetahs, and Binion's World Series of Poker
author James McManus
pages 416
publisher Farrar, Straus and Giroux
rating 8
reviewer Peter Wayner
ISBN 0374236488
summary Journalist enters poker tournament.

This book is a bit of an oddity in the literature of poker, a subject that McManus teaches along with creative writing at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. Most of the books in the field are manuals designed to teach a beginning player how to calculate the odds, bluff at the right time, and size up the rivals. The books may be informative and helpful, but the largely clinical approach does little for the casual reader.

McManus doesn't bother much with the rules of the game because he's out to explore the nexus of lust, competition and desire that gives Las Vegas such a hold on the human undersoul. To ensure that no one mistakes this for a traditional poker book, he opens with a sex-and-drug-saturated rendition of the murder of Ted Binion, one of the owners of the casino that sponsors the poker tournament each year. None of the wealth begat by poker helped Binion after he had the misfortune to marry the one ex-stripper who would later face murder charges for his death.

Despite witnessing the pain and agony visited by the money upon Binion, McManus still can't resist chasing after his share in the tournament. He has four kids to take care of and his wife is home clipping coupons. Sure, he could just write about the tournament and play it safe, but wouldn't it make sense to enter just to get a feel of it? And gosh, if he wins, he could really pay down that mortgage. Bad Jim, as he calls himself, thinks it makes perfect sense and grabs some poker software for practice.

Bad Jim has plenty of other journalistic rationalizations up his sleeve. Some of the book is devoted to his interviews with female poker players, a relatively rarity with the politically correct power to trump any complaint that this is just a thinly veiled excuse to leave the kids at home and play poker. This angle reaches a humorous climax when he finds himself in a showdown against one female and confesses, "no one wants this woman to win the event more than I do, just not this pot."

A queen on the board means that the woman wins, "paying Bad Jim back personally for two hundred years of poker domination by men, plus millions of years of the other kind." Any other card lets Good Jim take home the cash to support his wife and daughters. Who will win, Politically Correct Jim or Old School Jim?

The book is a seemingly endless stream of these confrontations where the action on the tables reflects a tension between our high-toned aspirations and baser human longings. There are plenty of learned allusions to remind us that he does teach writing at a fancy college, but they are mixed into a narrative driven by sex and greed. Has evolution given us a need for competition and battles to the death? Is poker a good substitute now that we're more civilized? Has the poker prep software given nerds and geeks an edge over the "leather-assed Texas road gamblers?"

His seemingly endless good fortune and his ability to string the conflicts into a story with various remain the strength of the book. He just can't seem to lose. And this is a good thing because the jury in the Binion murder trial is taking forever to make up its mind. Something needs to keep the tension building and Bad Jim's good luck delivers.

So he manages to string us along for almost 400 pages until we find out who wins the tournament and whether Binion's wife goes to jail. It's a terrific exploration of power, sex and death boiled into one short visit to Las Vegas. It's even better if you love poker because the endless descriptions of the hands must be a bit hard on those who don't see the fun in sitting around a smoky hall dealing cards. If you do, though, this is a wonderful read.

Peter Wayner is the author of Translucent Databases and Disappearing Cryptography. You can purchase Positively Fifth Street from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Positively Fifth Street More

Positively Fifth Street

Comments Filter:
  • When it's non-technical and hits slashdot.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • poker! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Poker is the only game in town for a nerd in vegas.

      Just because you don't know that doesn't mean that it's not news for nerds.

      Poker is extreamely technical.

      I book about knitting would be just as acceptable on /., in my opinion,(knot theorists might love it) except that not enough people are interested in knot theory as there are in poker.

      • Poker, technical? Nah, it's social. Reading body language and understanding people is crucial. Most poker champions aren't mathematicians, they're extremely sharp people who don't miss anything. Ask them how they do it, and they'll just say, "I can tell what people have in their hands."

        Nerds shouldn't go to Vegas and gamble, because gambling is by definition a losing proposition. You might as well just set fire to a stack of $20 bills. Poker is slightly different, since there's no house to play aga

      • Poker is the only game in town for a nerd in vegas.

        Blackjack is the real game of number savvy nerds. I read an article in Wired that dealt with a group from MIT that played blackjack, counting cards and making great money by playing as a group. It was a fun story that made me wish I could could think of something like that. You can find it online at Hacking Las Vegas [wired.com]

      • Re:poker! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Precious Blossom ( 515223 )
        Poker is the only game in town for a nerd in vegas.

        I once read a book (The Eudaemonic Pie, now unfortunately out of print) about a group of nerds who tried to come up with a way to beat the house at roulette.

        It involved using small computers to predict where on the wheel the ball would most likely land. The computers were actually hidden in their shoes, and controlled using switches by their toes. One of them would click one of the buttons whenever the ball passed a certain point on the wheel, allowing

  • Let's not take anything away from this review and what could turn out to be an exciting book but why is this on Slashdot?

    The only link to technology is the poker software.

    What next? Books on knitting?!
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Why is this HERE? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tmark ( 230091 )
      Why not ? I'm more interested in poker than, say, anime (what the heck does "Spirited away" have to do with technology ?).

      The thrill of figuring out how to win in poker, or to beat the casinos by counting cards, seems in many ways very close to the spirit so many attribute to "hackers".

  • I read a bit of this from Harper's (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Drakonian ( 518722 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @11:08AM (#5808797) Homepage
    I read an article from James McManus [findarticles.com] in the December 2000 issue of Harper's Magazine about the World Series of Poker. It was absolutely facinating. There are quite a few characters in the high stakes poker world. I haven't read the book, but read this article for a sample of what it's all about.

  • Schools of fish swimming toward Las Vegas (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Conspir8or ( 458285 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @11:09AM (#5808803)
    Between this fine book, the recent publication of Andy Bellin's Poker Nation, a biopic on fallen poker legend Stu Ungar in the can, and the World Poker Tour program now showing on the Travel Channel, popular works on poker have been coming faster than ever.

    If there are any regular poker players out there, either in home games or casinos and card rooms, can you comment on whether this has brought a tide of newbies into the game? If so, have these fish provided any sort of windfall for the more experienced players?
    • Not as many newbies as Rounders brought in.

      Newbies who watched that were better than ATMs at the table...

      I'm still praying for a sequel.
    • We have seen 3 or four new world series inspired players a month showing up at our home game...some stay some dont... It really hasnt brought that much "extra " money to the table as even when the fish market was running low, we always had our feelers out for new player.... I dont know....If anything these new breed to TV Poker Players seem to have a few things in common, 1)They only know how to play Texas Hold'em, 2)They Love long Odds and inside draws and 3)they go all in alot and seem to think its really
    • Yes to both questions.

      Advice: never play poker 'Just for fun' in a casino, unless you get lucky, and then levae right away, you will be fleased in short order.

      If you see a poker table with only one or two seats open, you can rest assurd that everybody else at that table is a sandbagger waiting for someone to play 'just for fun'.

      I had the 'pleasure' of playing with a professional gambler a number of years ago. After the guy won a hand without looking at his hand, I left.

      Once i was playing poker and I was dealt 4 kings and some other card. I tossed the one card for another. A couple of other players kept raising the pot to its limit. when I showed them my cards, one guy said "why did you draw one if you had 4 of a kind" I said "so you would think I was going for a full house, or an inside straight" He actually came across the table at me and was dragged out of the casino.
      heh, one of my finer moments.

      After words. the other player congratulated me on a well played hand.

      Finally, I will pass on a piece of advice my father gave me "Never draw to an inside straight."
      • Once i was playing poker and I was dealt 4 kings and some other card. I tossed the one card for another. A couple of other players kept raising the pot to its limit. when I showed them my cards, one guy said "why did you draw one if you had 4 of a kind" I said "so you would think I was going for a full house, or an inside straight" He actually came across the table at me and was dragged out of the casino.

        How sad. This was probably some guy who did ok at his local Thursday Night Game with foolish rules li
      • That's one of the things that pisses me off about Vegas, how gamblers expect everyone to do things the gambler way, instead of the smart way. Screw tradition.
      • A little poker trivia here.

        You can draw to an inside straight if the pot odds are good enough.

        Let's say you're playing draw poker. You've got A-K-J-T-3. You're first instinct is to toss the 3 and hope you get a queen back. Normally, that would be a stupid move.

        But let's say, for some reason, there was a lot of betting before the deal or the draw, or maybe you're playing no-limit, and there's a lot of money in the pot. Well, if the bet required for you to stay in is $1, and there's more than $11.75 i
        • Oops, noticed a flaw in my math.

          If there are 22 unknown cards, then 4 of them make your straight, and 18 of them don't. So if there was a dollar in the pot, and it was a dollar to bet, then if you made the bet 22 times, you'd win $4 and lose $18 (assuming, for the sake of probability, you caught a different card each time). So you'd lose, on average, $12. Bad move.

          However, if there was $4.50 in the pot, then you'd, on average, win $18 (4 winning cards * $4.50), and lose $18, so you'd come out even. So

    • Re:Schools of fish swimming toward Las Vegas (Score:5, Interesting)

      by unperson ( 223869 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @12:48PM (#5809807)
      Short answer...poker is getting to be a more difficult game to win at.

      Most semi-pro (or uber-recreational) players will tell you that this influx of fresh blood has made poker an even more difficult game to win at. The reason? Of the new generation of players, most are members of the scientific intelligentsia. Take Chris Ferguson, previous world champion. Education? Try a Ph.D. in Computer science.

      Other pros include dotcom richies, programmers, mathematicians, assorted professionals, etc. This new generation doesn't consist of the unemployed gambling addicts of yore, but rather the brain trust of the 21st century. BEWARE!

      New generation players *know* how to calculate odds. That's a given. They can play by the book, because they're smart, and they have memorized the book and can even derive the book for themselves if need be. However, psychologically speaking, they are still susceptible to tells, tilting, and otherwise predictable bluff strategy.

      Bellin's book rocks by the way. Start with Bellin.
      • As a semi-professional poker player I can say right now that the best thing about playing against Academics is their tells. They almost ALL have an obvious tell involving playing with their glasses, adjusting their watch, obsessively counting their chips, MAJOR things that aren't even subtle. I've played twice against a fellow that checks his watch every time he bluffs. EVERY TIME.
        Most of them are masterful players by the numbers, but retain some odd physical or social tics that make them subpar players at
    • If there are any regular poker players out there, either in home games or casinos and card rooms, can you comment on whether this has brought a tide of newbies into the game? If so, have these fish provided any sort of windfall for the more experienced players?

      I play in a couple regular home games, and I do pretty well. Over the year, I usually win a little bit more thn I lose, but I've never gotten the balls to go play at a card casino.

      This recent surge of poker in media, really beginning back with the film Rounders, has brought new people to the game, many of them very willing to part with their money.

      The trouble is, these "fish" can be hard to play against, because they think they're playing video poker, and call way too often. When I'm holding Cowboys, and the flop comes suited 4-6-A, if a guy bets heavily into me, I put him on A-something, or maybe a flush draw (which he should have mucked anyway) . . . so I'll muck more often than not. But when it's some noob holding crabs, hoping to river the straight . . . and then he does (!) it throws the game off.

      Doyle Brunson (I think?) said "Play the man, not the cards," and that's a great bit of advice, that can be hard to effectively use when playing against total noobs that get lucky way too often.

      Man, I want to play now. Is it Saturday night, yet? ;)
      • Give them a couple of bad beats and you'll start getting some more respect.
      • I play in a couple regular home games, and I do pretty well. Over the year, I usually win a little bit more thn I lose, but I've never gotten the balls to go play at a card casino.

        It's not that bad. Sometime last year, I hit the Grand Casino in Gulfport, MS and dropped about forty dollars playing 1-5 seven stud. It was a learning experience, teaching me not to get impatient and playing marginal hands.

        A couple of weeks ago, I hit Vegas and played Hold'Em at the cozy Luxor Poker Room. Nothing like the B
      • Here's a tip which I freely admit I have stolen from Lee Jones' Winning Low Limit Hold 'Em [conjelco.com]: this is known as (you probably already know) a "loose-aggressive" situation, where players play too freely and aren't afraid to bet all the way to the river on crazy draws like you describe. Like any other predictable situation in Poker, it can actually work to your advantage if you play it right. And in this case, "play it right" usually means "really tight," eg, don't bet anything pre-flop besides big pairs and b
        • Concur on the Jones book. By way of comparison to chess, Jones lays out the big points quickly and easily (chess: bring out your material quickly; try not to move a pawn twice; watch for pins, forks and skewers, and similar material) whereas Sklansky assumes a great deal and is better appreciated by persons who have played a few hundred thousand hands (chess: an encyclopedia of openings).
      • Try "Winning at Low Limit Holdem" by Lee Jones. It's in a second edition, which I haven't seen, but his first edition was a pretty good cookbook on how to approach a game full of fish.

        It was either Doyle or TJ that said that quote about 'play the man' (I'd be inclined towards TJ, and probably wrongly so). He's spot on, though. If you play the fish as a fish, you just sit and grow leather on your ass until you get a G1/G2 hand and then pray it holds up, and make them pay dearly when it does.

        It was actually
      • The trouble is, these "fish" can be hard to play against, because they think they're playing video poker, and call way too often. When I'm holding Cowboys, and the flop comes suited 4-6-A, if a guy bets heavily into me, I put him on A-something, or maybe a flush draw (which he should have mucked anyway) . . . so I'll muck more often than not. But when it's some noob holding crabs, hoping to river the straight . . . and then he does (!) it throws the game off

        If you're having this problem too often you eit
    • Can anyone tell me why Texas Hold'em is so popular? You only get two cards, and the rest is random chance! So many times on the Travel Channel I see someone win because they make a pair of queens to beat the other's ace-high. That's not skill!
      • Texas Hold'em actually has a much higher skill-to-luck ratio than most poker variants. Since all the players use the public board cards, you can make much stronger inferences about the types of hands your opponents have, and where your hands stands amongst them. This is why it is the game played for the world poker championships.

  • Let me get this straight: (Score:3, Funny)

    by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06@nospAm.email.com> on Friday April 25, 2003 @11:11AM (#5808819)
    a sex-and-drug-saturated rendition of the murder of Ted Binion

    So it isn't a rendition of the sex-and-drug-saturated murder, but was written during a sex-and-drug binge by the author?

    he had the misfortune to marry the one ex-stripper who would later face murder charges for his death

    As opposed to all of the other ex-strippers who were responsible for his death but have been overlooked by prosecuters?

    Anybody else a bit confused?

  • Ahem, speaking from experience (Score:3, Informative)

    by L. VeGas ( 580015 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @11:11AM (#5808825) Homepage Journal
    For a city that seems to fascinate the geek crowd so much, there is comparatively little tech here. Mostly it's casinos with their AS400's. All the nerdsmart people here (and I know both of them) are here because they're stuck for one reason or another.
    • the concealed wifi wearable computers hooked up to beowulf clusters of advanced servers so that teams of geeks can use the latest technology to break the bank, live like kings and get close to real awake living girls who don't have court orders against them? What about them, living the dream?!?!
      • Well, it was fun for a while, but those wearable computers kept chaffing me.

      • Re:Yes, but what about ... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Surak ( 18578 ) <.surak. .at. .mailblocks.com.> on Friday April 25, 2003 @11:37AM (#5809025) Homepage Journal
        They'd catch you, just like they catch card counters. People have devised various methods for making it look like they aren't cheating, but the casinos catch on almost every time. For one, there are cameras *everywhere*. There's always someone watching every table, all the time.

        The big problem is that even if they don't catch you using the device, people who cheat often get greedy. And it shows in the betting patterns. Casinos *know* what 'normal' betting patterns look like. Anyone getting luckier than usual is immediately placed under suspicion and then is under constant watch until they either leave the casino or they get caught cheating (in which case they'll be leaving the casino anyway -- the hard way ;)

        • don't seem to have anything to do with putting together a team of geeks to break the bank, live like kings or get access to real live awake girls. Therefore, I will be respectfully ignoring them while I plot how to live the dream.
        • They have an automatic algorithm to determine whether you are cheating. Although it is very complex let me explain - if you are winning you must be cheating.

          Given the probability of winning (0) one can then plug this number into our algorithm where W = you :

          P(A|B) = [P(B|A) x P(A)] / P(B)
          W = Negative Ghostrider
          Loser = You

        • I think you are a little off point when it comes to poker.

          Cheating at casino poker is different than trying to rip off a slot machine or a blackjack table. In a poker game, the casino gets its commission ("the rake") everytime, up front. The cheats aren't trying to rob the casino; they're going after the other players.

          Certainly the casino has an interest in maintaining a fair game, but it is safe to assume that only a minor percentage of the total security resources are dedicated to catching poker cheats.

        • It doesn't even really matter whether you're cheating; they don't need a reason to force you to leave. If you figure out a legal way to win money, you'll still get kicked out.
      • If you're interested in that sort of scheme, "The Eudaemonic Pie" is a must-read. It's about a bunch of grad students at UCSC (several of whom end up being big players in the fields of chaos theory/non-linear dynamics) who develop sophisticated models to predict where certain off-kilter roulette weels will stop. As I recall, it involved shoes which allowed one person to tap in certain parameters of a given wheel spin (when it passes a set point); predictions were sent via RF to another shoe computer which

        • Re:The Eudaemonic Pie (Score:3, Informative)

          by ChadN ( 21033 )
          Not RF, they used magnetic induction to communicate (there were two wearers, one who only bet black/red and did all the observation of the wheel and calculation of the odds, and the other who then bet to win). RF would have been easily detected, whereas magnetic induction is short range (and less common; also this was back in the late 70's)

          Recommended reading for any UCSC grad students in math or sciences.
    • I used to know someone who had a picture of the Fremont Street Experience displaying a Windows bluescreen.

  • If you wanna learn about Vegas... (Score:4, Funny)

    by TopShelf ( 92521 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @11:12AM (#5808834) Homepage Journal
    You'd best consult Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas [amazon.com]. Just watch out for the buzzards...

  • Real Nerds + Las Vegas story (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 25, 2003 @11:15AM (#5808852)
    Read Hacking Las Vegas [wired.com] over at Wired about MIT nerds' exploits in Vegas.

  • Women and poker (Score:4, Funny)

    by ohboy-sleep ( 601567 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @11:15AM (#5808854) Homepage
    This sounds like a very interesting book and I'm definitely going to pick it up; but I do have one problem with it. What's with the whole Women Rising Up to Combat Poker Stereotypes angle?

    There should be nothing about poker that would cause any kind of limitation to women playing it and winning. I play a weekly chump-change poker game with some friends (where going home $30 richer is an excellent night), and sometimes a wife or girlfriend will play for the night. In my limited experience their play is just as mediocre as the men I play poker with.

  • Other similar poker books (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AdamBa ( 64128 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @11:16AM (#5808865) Homepage
    I just read Positively Fifth Street and agree it is quite enjoyable. Other books in the "professional write/amateur poker player goes to Binion's for the World Series of Poker" genre include Anthony Holden's Big Deal [amazon.com] and A. Alvarez's The Biggest Game in Town [amazon.com] (both of which McManus freely admits inspiration from). I actually think Big Deal is slightly better written than Positively Fifth Street (McManus spends a bit too much time being gonzo in his writing), but of course McManus does better in his foray into no limit Hold 'Em.

    Although McManus spends a bit less time than the others explaining how a poker player thinks, his glossary is actually better so you can follow along with phrases like "I got sucked out by the case nine on the river".

    - adam

    P.S. If you are instead a fan of the "gamble with your writing advance in Vegas" genre, 24/7 [amazon.com] by Andres Martinez is pretty good.

    • Re: also The Eudaemonic Pie (Score:4, Interesting)

      by elwinc ( 663074 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @11:24AM (#5808934)
      then there's Eudaemonic Pie [backinprint.com] by Thomas Bass. About how some tech smart folks attempted to win at roulette by digitally modelling the spinning wheels (hint: the ball usually falls off the high side of a tilted wheel, and they're all slightly tilted). The Eudaemons built some of the first wearable computers. [mit.edu] A fun read.

    • Blackjack (Score:3, Informative)

      by sleepingsquirrel ( 587025 )
      Although it's about blackjack, not poker, I'd also recommend Bringing Down the House [wired.com] by Ben Mezrich. The subtitle speaks for itself, "The inside story of six MIT students who tooks Vegas for millions." You can't ask for a better story about geeky college students analyzing the mathematics of card counting and beating Vegas at their own game.
    • For a great overview of poker culture, A. Alvarez's Poker: Bets, Bluffs, and Bad Beats is a great coffee-table book. Biggest Game in Town is a bit dated, going into the details of the World Series of 1982.

      If you're looking books on how to play, the veritable bible of poker, Doyle Brunson's Super-System, has been re-released by Avery Cardoza Press. You should be able to find it all over...

    • I'll just add a couple cool gambling books to the list: [wilwheaton.net]

      *Bringing Down the House

      *Poker Nation

      *Telling Lies and Getting Paid

      If you wanna learn how to play:

      *Doyle Brunson's Super/System

      *Mike Caro's Poker Tells

      *Hold 'Em Poker for Advanced Players

      And of course, make sure you watch Rounders and The Sting. ;)

  • Harper's article (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I think this book came out of a Harper's article [findarticles.com].

    Imagine if Neal Stephenson played poker. It's like that--but the tournament actually happened. My favorite part is where McManus ends up playing at the same table with the author of the poker book Mcmanus studied in order to prepare for the tournament!

  • News for Nerds (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If you've never read about poker, or don't understand it, you might think that this isn't News for Nerds.
    If you have read about poker you'll know that poker is the only game for nerds in Vegas.

  • McManus = pompous ass (Score:3, Informative)

    by 00klaDM0k ( 620607 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @11:31AM (#5808983)
    I appreciate any and all additions to the non-technical poker canon as I am a degenerate gambler but I will steal McManus's book as he's telling folks on the interview circuit that he's called or bet huge amounts without revealing the difference between real chips and tournament chips. Telling someone that you once called someone's bluff when they raised you $35,000 (should be T35,000 which is how you denote the difference between tourney chips and real chips) without telling them that the chips did not represent real money is like telling them all your old gunfighting stories without mentioning that everyone was using blanks. McManus is a chump.

    • Re:McManus = pompous ass (Score:4, Informative)

      by ahem ( 174666 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @12:22PM (#5809507) Homepage Journal
      While in the end I'd agree that a distinction should be made between $x and Tx, I think he's actually ok not bothering with this explanation for the WSOP. After all, you get T10k for $10k, so it's kind of like real money. If you start getting real technical, and focus on the fact that the most you could win is $1.5MM after gathering together all ~T5MM chips, then your equity is $~=0.3T

      Therefore, a T100k bet is like putting $30k on the table. Still a pretty big bet.

      Chump yourself

      :)

      • bullshit. This only makes sense if you can get up from the table and cashout for 30% of your chips. Otherwise, they have a theoretical value only. And in a layman's case, the chips are worth much less than your equity equation indicates. Your calculations assume an even field.
        • You're right that I gave a back of the envelope guess at equity. I did ignore relative skill. I figured relative skill was ok to ignore since we were talking about the final table, where 99% of the field has been washed out.

          In any case, I'd be more than happy to buy your chips for 0.30 on the dollar if you were heads up in the final and evenly stacked or the underdog.
    • There is actually a section where he describes the deflating of value of tournament chips, though you're correct that throughout he uses a dollar sign on the values. I suspect, though, that it's because he's actually *thinking* this way, and psyching himself out in the process (even after reading it, I'm still not sure how he got to the final table -- some really questionable draws in there!)

  • Journalistic detachment much? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Xeger ( 20906 ) <slashdotNO@SPAMtracker.xeger.net> on Friday April 25, 2003 @11:33AM (#5809001) Homepage
    Deeply ingrained in US journalism is the idea of journalistic detachment. It's generally frowned upon when reporters become involved with the subject of their reporting.

    It seems to me that entering into the poker tournament you were sent to cover, and then betting increasingly more, becoming increasingly more involved -- this is not a good example of journalistic detachment. McManus' failure in this regard may be one reason that most of his material was published as a book, rather than a series of articles.

    In McManus' defense, I should note that US journalism is extra-particular about detachment. Much of the world follows a partisan model, where the journalists admit from the start that they have an agenda, and that they cannot be completely detached from the subject. So they emphasize objectivity instead, arguing that a journalistic work can both inform and present an agenda, as long as it's done objectively.

    • Re:Journalistic detachment much? Hahahaha (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Freaking hilarious.....

      There is a war correspondent here in canada who has footage of CNN's cow Amampour telling her crew that the refugees she has as a backdrop were not haggard looking and to get them to stop playing baketball...

      How about the British network which took a german journalist to court when he uncovered that a bosnian 'camp' didnt have barbed wires as shown on worldwide tv but that the cameraman had gone inside the barbed wire enclosure (which was used to protect some kind of hydro pole) to
      • I don't see your point, Eurotrash. Only one of your examples involves an American journalist. More noise to drown out the few insightful thoughts on Slashdot- and some moron modded you up.
        • The parent poster is Canadian, not European. Let me spell this out for you -- Canada is the large country to the north of you where people are generally well-educated, well-informed, friendly and not prone to swallowing propaganda.

          BTW, Eurotrash is generally used to refer to trust-fund kiddies in NYC who spend their days partying, not all Europeans. If you must denigrate us, at least choose an insult that isn't already taken.
      • I might point out that the Constitution of the United States values a human's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness above ALL ELSE -- yet our judicial system clearly, through its actions, clearly does not. Peoples' constitutional rights are violated day in and day out, moreso than ever before because of the terrorism "threat."

        Does this mean the Constitution is invalid? Of course not -- it just means we don't respect our own constitution. Similarly, just because American journalism doesn't r
        • Look for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the Constitution. You won't find it. That's from the Declaration of Independence, which was an actual revolutionary document. In fact, look for human rights or civil rights in the original body of the Constitution, and you won't find it. That's all in the Bill of Rights and later amendments. The Constitution is simply a detailed and mundane plan for how to form a practical government.

          Interestingly, our first attempt at forming a government, the
    • It seems to me that entering into the poker tournament you were sent to cover, and then betting increasingly more, becoming increasingly more involved -- this is not a good example of journalistic detachment.

      I think journalistic detachment is of particular value in certain arenas, politics being the foremost example, but when it comes to subjects which fall under the umbrella of entertainment or recreation, I tend to give writers far more leeway. Not having any sort of journalism coursework, however, I c
    • I can't believe you got mod points for that bunch of bullshit. Journalistic detachment? What a load. Jesus. Much of the world is more honest than our national press corps. To call them detached is laughable. Fox news, while repugnant, is arguably the only honest news channel in the US. They at least admit they're right wing.

      Additionally, if you knew anything about journalism beyond this drivel you would understand that McManus' in no way failed. If you read the New Yorker, or The NYT Magazine, or Harper'

      • New Yorker. Harper's. NYT magazine. This is popular journalism. Along with Boy's Life, Cosmopolitan and Dr. Dobbs' Journal, these publications don't even pretend to maintain journalistic detachment. Obviously, McManus' own work is in this vein.

        I'm simply pointing out that he was sent to cover this poker tournament and ended up writing a book about it, and postulating that perhaps it's because he lost track of his objectivity. I think the ex-stripper would agree.

        Calm down, man. Take a deep breath. O

    • ....I am not sure on what grounds are u basing ur arguements upon,but it is certainly shaky!
      Detachment,my foot!Look at the coverage of the war in US media. If you really want detatched,objective journalism,take a look at Bremner,Bird,Fortune [channel4.com] or America's finest news source [theonion.com]
      • Garbage in, garbage out. During the latest Iraq war, virtually the entire American press corps has served as the Pentagon's mouthpiece because the only source of information on the situation in Iraq was the Pentagon, and "embedded" reporters.

        The problem is that TV journalism makes more money than print journalism, and it makes even MORE money by losing track of objectivity and tailoring the news to please the target audience. It's no coincidence that newspaper sales plummet every year. People have taken t
        • Instead, I'd rather they recognize that objectivity is impossible. Everyone has a bias - everyone, reporters included. Honest journalists, then, are upfront about their biases, so that readers can evaluate their reporting by considering their bias.

  • humans only (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kshkval ( 591396 )
    Maybe this is on slashdot bc poker is one of the competitive mind games that a computer will never win.

    • Re:humans only (Score:3, Insightful)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )
      I guess that explains why video poker rakes in billions a year....
      • I wouldn't have replied except that it was modded insightful

        Video Poker is not the same as what is discussed in this book. In video poker you win based solely on what hand you get, not by beating an opponent. You are not playing against the computer. The computer is only their to randomly (I hope) deal out cards to the player.

  • Here [bobdylan.com] are the lyrics to Bob Dylan's Positively 4th Street-- the song the title borrowed from.
  • "That was headquarters. They want me to go to Las Vegas at once, and make contact with a Portuguese photographer named Lacerda. He'll have the Details. All I have to do is check into my suite and he'll seek me out."

    "God Hell! I think I see the pattern. This one sounds like real trouble You're going to need plenty of legal advice before this is over. And my first advice is that you should rent a very fast car with no top and get the hell out of LA for at least forty-eight hours. This blows my weekend, becau
  • The book is dedicated to him. Does anyone know what happened? Thanks.

    - adam

Slashdot Top Deals

Your own mileage may vary.

Close