At Gambler’s Book Shop in Las Vegas I picked up an autographed copy of Ken Warren Teaches Texas Hold ’em. This is not Warren’s first book about Texas hold’em. He is the author of the Winner’s Guide to Texas Hold’em Poker published in 1996, and known for its numerous mistakes. Seven years later Ken Warren presents us with another book about Hold’Em. Has he learned from his earlier mistakes? Let’s see.

First of all Ken Warren Teaches Texas Hold ’em is ostensibly not a reprint nor a revised version of the old book, it’s completely new written though it contains some material of the earlier book. Gone is my favorite quote from the old edition where Warren tells you what players you want to play against.

“Players with tattoos: Anyone dumb enough to have themselves tattooed probably won’t exhibit a lot of intelligence at the poker table.”

When you take the book into your hands you’re impressed, it’s heavy and thick (more than 400 pages). You’re tempted to think that maybe the subtitle “The most comprehensive book ever written on hold ’em” might be true. Then you look inside the book and notice that each chapter is separated by a blank center spread that only contains the chapter number. On average there are three blank pages between the chapters. Given the fact that there are 34 chapters, about 100 pages are empty. Then you look at the layout and notice that maybe half of the page is used for the text. All in all, I doubt that this book is more comprehensive than the original one. Be that as it may, more important than the size is the content.

Warren’s book is aimed for beginners. He starts with the rules of the game and how to read the board. It gets interesting when Warren talks about what hands to play. Like Sklansky, Warren puts the playable starting hands into groups.

Warren Group 1 : AA, KK, QQ, AKs, AQs
Warren Group 2 : JJ, TT, AJs, KQs, AK
Warren Group 3 : ATs, KJs, QJs, JTs, AQ
Warren Group 4 : 99, 88, KTs, QTs, J9s, T9s, 98s, AJ, KQ

These are the only hands you should play (“Do not play any other hands unless you are in the blinds.”). His advice on how you should play these hands before the flop is rather strange, not to say bizarre. “Next time you play hold’em in your regular game, always raise and reraise with Group 1 hands. When you have these hands, be the one to put in the last raise before the flop.”I would be reluctant to cap it with QQ against a good player, not to talk about AQs.
With Group 2 hands you should raise or call if it’s raised in front of you. "With Group 3 hands, always see the flop, unless you have to call three or four bets cold. If you call two bets cold and a player behind you reraises, go ahead and call to see the flop.” Do you really want to call two bets cold with hands as weak as ATs or JTs? With Group 4 hands, Warren continues, you should always limp and call a bet if raised. Obviously Warren thinks you can play like a robot before the flop, it doesn’t matter how many players are in, who called or raised and what your position is. The last point is especially strange because Warren has a chapter about position in his book where he tells the reader how important it is to act last because of the additional information available to make a decision. But according to Warren’s advice before the flop position plays no role!

Warren comments about his starting hand recommendations: “The other purpose of having you play this tight is to show you how a high limit player or semi-pro would play before the flop.” Oh Lord, there is no professional hold’em player who plays even remotely like that otherwise he wouldn’t be a pro for long! But it gets even better! Warren presents the baffled reader another way to play his starting hands (“I’m now going to show you another starting hand strategy”).

Might it be that Warren thinks poker is like bingo, if one system doesn’t work just try another one. Obviously the second strategy is the one Warren plays himself. He discusses the hands the thinks are playable. Needless to say the second system is not much better than the first one. Just some examples. When you hold KK he says: “There’s also the dreaded ace overcard on the flop, which will come 22.5 % of the time. For these reasons, if you are in late position with pocket kings, you might want to just limp in for one bet to see the flop.” This is the same argument he uses for not raising in late position with QQ.

Remember, in the first system he told you to always cap it with AQs and now you shouldn’t even raise with KK or QQ. Anyway, not raising with KK or QQ is a horrible play, that’s exactly the way weak-tight player’s play. They always fear that they are already beaten or that the next card will beat them. You can’t play winning poker like that. In all likelihood with KK (or QQ) you have the best hand before the flop, so raise to put more money into the pot and try to eliminate the blinds. You don’t get the big pairs too often, so try to make the most out of it.

More strange advice: With KK you should only call in late position, but with AKs you should always cap it; then he tells you KQs “is almost as good as AK suited” (which is wrong, by the way. Does that mean you should also cap it with KQs?) and to only call with AK offsuit. I could go on and on but will stop here.

In his chapter about bluffing Warren tells you that the most favorable time to bluff is when you have AK. “If you raised before the flop and played the hand strongly from the beginning, your opponents will give you credit for a good hand. They may think you have AKs, AA or AK, or whatever two cards it takes to make a completed hand. If you don’t make a great hand, a bluff attempt on the river may still work, because they don’t realize you’re bluffing.” This is extremely bad advice and a typically suckers play I see all the time. In my experience the easiest way to find out how good a player is, is to look how he plays AK. Let’s look at the typical scenario Warren describes. You raise with AK before the flop, only one of the blinds call, you bet all the way but can’t catch an ace or king. At the river the sucker now thinks: “Oh my god, before the flop I had such a good hand, now I have nothing, how unfair is that. My opponent called me all the way so he must have beaten me. There is a lot of money in the pot, how can I win that? Because I have nothing I have to bluff. Yes, a bluff might work; I bet all the way and showed a lot of strength. Maybe my opponent lays down his hand.” After a thought process like he goes ahead and bets his AK at the end.

This play which Warren advocates shows that such a player doesn’t understand the situation properly. Why? Because the bet at the end has a negative EV (expected value), that means he will only be called (or raised) by a better hand (maybe once in a blue moon someone with Ax might call). Imagine, if someone with e. g. pocket deuces called you on the turn, do you think he will throw away his deuces because you bet at the end? No way. Or someone who had a draw and now pairs one of his hole cards, will he throw away his hand for a single bet at the end? Very unlikely. The most likely hand somebody puts you on when you raised before the flop is AK. That means everybody who can beat AK at the end will usually call. That’s why an expert in this situation always checks AK. If doesn’t matter if you are first or last to speak at the end. If your opponent is behind you and you couldn’t catch anything with AK you check it too. Two good things can happen when you check your AK at the end. A better hand may check behind you, saving you a big bet or a worse hand might run a bluff, winning you an additional bet you wouldn’t have won had be bet yourself.

Another weakness of this book is that it’s poorly structured with 34 chapters are arranged in no apparent order. After being told how to play before the flop the reader has to wait 13 chapters until Warren continues with “Playing on the flop”. In-between are chapters about “Choosing a game and a seat”, “The science of tells”, “Spread-limit”, “Jackpots” and “Overcalling”. Between flop and turn play there are two chapters about “Outs” and “Pot odds”. Don’t look for a chapter about how to play on the river because there is none.

What should I say in summary about this book? I’m disappointed and I’m amazed. Disappointed because this book is only marginally better than the previous hold’em book by the same author. The older book is better structured but contains more flaws. Amazed because there are a lot of good hold’em books on the market but there are still new hold’em books being published that give you advice that’s clearly wrong. For low-limit players the Lee Jones book remains the first choice.

(Tristan Steiger)

Buy the book!