Isaacs’ book is very clearly structured. It contains chapters about the games that are usually played in a poker room or tournament from limit hold’em to Omaha high-low split (draw games are briefly touched but Triple Draw is missing). In addition there are chapters about tells, home games, internet poker and casino poker. Each of these chapters is subdivided into three sections: tips for beginners, intermediate and advanced players. The paragraphs in the sections are numbered consecutively from 1 to 1000. Each of these paragraphs is usually between one and three sentences long.

To give an impression what this is all about, here an example:

“12. The nuts can change from the flop to the turn to the river. Just because you flop a nut hand, it doesn’t mean that it will remain the nut hand and you need to bet accordingly.
13. For example, if the flop is 5♥Q♣9♣, the nuts at this point would be three queens. If the turn brings the 3♣, now the best hand is an ace-high club flush.
14. However, everything can change on the river if the board pairs the 5. Now the nuts is quad (four) 5s and the second nuts is queens full.” (p. 27)

Granted, this is from the beginners section but will this make you a winner as the subtitle of the book promises. It is just about how to read the board. Do these three “tips” really belong to the 1000 best poker strategies and secrets? We would hope that the quality of the information given would increase in the intermediate section, but no.

“623. You must have a 5 to make a small straight or a wheel. Note: You cannot make a straight without a 5 or a 10 in your hand.” (p. 199)

“190. Bad beats and bad luck are often synonymous. An advanced poker player must take his beats like a man – not a crybaby, a real man (or woman!)”

and

“192. An old joke in the poker world goes like this: Q: Do you know the difference between a puppy and a losing poker player? A: The puppy will eventually stop whining!” (p. 73)

Beside the fact that the quality of information is modest and that you look in vein for a simple poker secret, the book contains numerous errors. Just a few examples from the beginning of the book.

“1. When you sit down at any poker table, your first order of business is to wait. You want to wait and watch. Try not to play a hand until you have watched eight hands or more.” (p. 24)

This is an old fallacious concept from Oklahoma Johnny Hale. He actually recommended not to play fifty (!) hands after you sat down. Isaac reduces that to “eight or more”. Of course it’s beneficial to study and observe your opponents but do that form behind the table. Not playing voluntarily when you are in a game just costs you money. For one round as Isaacs’ suggests that’s about 1.5 big bets. Remember the average win rate for a very good player is one big bet per hour. Oklahoma Johnny even went so far that he said you should fold pocket aces at the beginning of a session!

“6. The flop could also give you a good draw. Say your hand is K♣10♦. If the flop contains a jack and a queen, you have an open-ended straight draw. Now you want to continue with the hand if it is a multiway pot. There is no need to draw at a hand if there are only two other players in the hand …” (p. 25)

Isaacs says you should fold against two opponents. The scenario is not completely clear but you have at least pot odds of 5:1. With eight cards to hit your straight and 47 unseen cards, your chances to hit the straight are 4.875:1 which is already better than 5:1. And there are other things that work for you. You are drawing to the nuts, you have implied pot odds and you have three additional outs to your overcard that might be worth something. The reason Isaac recommends to fold in this case is that she hasn’t understood the concept of pot odds and implied odds (see #176, p. 69).

“22. If you flop a beautiful set, hopefully there will be a big card or two also. Your hand is so well disguised that if you’re in early position you should go ahead and bet. If you’re in late position and the pot is opened before it gets to you, don’t raise until the turn when the bet doubles. Maximize the profitability of your set. Anytime you flop a set in hold’em you will win 80 percent of the time!” (p. 29)

That’s exactly how amateurs would play the hand. They think: “The bet doubles on fourth street, so I better wait before I spring to life.” To them it looks like this play is more deceptive and makes more money.

Let’s take Isaacs’ scenario: You are on the button and you have flopped a set. First player bets, there are four callers before the action comes to you. It’s clear that you should raise now and not just call. Why? Because you have to anticipate what’s gonna happen. The most likely scenario is that everybody will call putting an additional five small bets into the pot. To do better than that you have to entice three additional bets on the turn by not raising on the flop. That’s very unlikely. I’m not saying that you never should wait until the turn before you force the action. As Isaacs points out there are situations where this course of action makes sense. But this book is about strategy and the correct strategy advice is not that you should play passively on third street if you flop big instead the key is: If you flop a hand that’s very likely to be the best at the end try everything that the maximum number of bets goes into the pot.

One last example from the advanced section: “189. I especially like to semibluff from the big blind if there is a bully on the button. Usually you can win it before the flop.” (p. 72) In more than ten years of playing middle limit I have never seen it happen that someone who raises on the button lays down his hand after being three betted by the big blind. By the way the right play for the button is to call no matter what he holds. Do you think a “bully” would lay down his hand in this situation? The advice would make sense in no limit hold’em where you can raise big but it’s from the limit hold’em section.

Other problems of the books are repetitions (e. g. #2 and #29 about the value of position, #31 and #89 about stealing the blinds from the button), trivialities (“59. A poker tournament is a process of elimination. When a player loses all of his money, he leaves the table. The last soldiers left standing win the money”, p. 39), embarrassing ingratiation (“Professor McEvoy”, about ten times) and contradictory statements.

The last chapter contains “tips, comments, and opinions from some of the superstars in the wonderful world of poker who I have had the privilege of meeting through the years” (p. xvii). An interesting question is where you can play more hands, in limit or no limit hold’em tournaments?

“Actually, in limit, you need to play tighter than in no-limit.” (T. J. Cloutier, p. 355)
“You can see more flops in limit especially if it’s inexpensive. You can play more hands under the gun or from middle position … because you know that someone can’t force you out before the flop (normally).” (Barbara Enright, p. 356)
“I can play a lot more hands in no-limit because after the flop I can win a lot of money with a hand like J-9 suited, more than I can win in limit hold’em with the same hand.” (Russ Hamilton, p. 362)

There is nothing wrong with using quotations that are or seems to be contradictory but in a poker strategy book you shouldn’t leave the reader confused.

One last point, speaking about semibluffing opportunities Isaacs give the following example: You are holding A♦4♦ and the flop is J♦4♣6♦ (#102, p. 49). Sklansky and Malmuth describe in their book Hold’em Poker for Advanced Players the following semibluffing situation: You hold A♣3♣ and the flop is Q♠3♦2♣.

Looks pretty much the same, doesn’t it? First, there is no question that Isaacs took  the example from Sklansky’s and Malmuth’s book. Second, she changed the backdoor flush draw to the nut flash draw. Third, this was a very bad decision that shows she doesn’t understand the concept of semibluffing. With that many outs you are usually not semibluffing but betting for value. While taking material from other books is common practice, in order not to arouse suspicion of plagiarism you should give the original authors credit for their work by mentioning them in the text or in a footnote. At least you should include the work in the bibliography but Sklansky’s and Malmuth’s book is missing as is David Sklansky’s The Theory of Poker. In a book that claims to deal about poker strategy this is quite amazing.

All things considered 1000 Best Poker Strategies and Secrets is a book that contains mostly banalities, quotes and excerpts from other books, nothing you need to have in your poker library.