Cowboys Full: The Story of Poker

For some reason I had a really negative reaction to the first 30 or so pages of the book. Random flipping of the rest of the book convinced me to read on though. The issues with the beginning is that it goes a little too long into comparing Presidents Obama & Bush and how Obama is a poker player

Show More

whereas Bush is not and how it might have affected their policies. Couple that with a weak (although occasionally humorous) section on "pre-history" of games and gambling and it quickly becomes the worse part of the book by far.

However, once the author actually starts getting into the history of poker the book gets far more interesting. The descriptions of card sharks, gamblers and the Mississippi especially comes off well. The book has a lot of research behind it and covers a lot of ground.

The style and topics are a bit diverse and loosely structured This doesn't bother me, but it might bother others. The book probably could have used a bit heavier of a hand of an editor, particularly the first section.

So if you like games, poker, or American history I'd recommend the book. Just be warned, you might find yourself skimming ahead during certain parts of the book

Show Less

When I recommend this book to my poker buddies, I inevitably give them a warning regarding "having to endure the first couple of chapters". But once McManus gets rolling, it is a very good read. You can't really compare it to his "Positively Fifth Street" because they're two different styles, with

Show More

this one leaning much more toward factual data support rather than simple story-telling. Nonetheless, a fun and interesting read.

If you're a poker buff and enjoy the fascination and growth of the game over the past decade, you'll find this worth your while.

Show Less

As other reviewers did, I found the introductory chapters to be rather patience trying. The evolutionary psychology (we are hard wired to gamble! Proof? And even that granted, so what? There are so very many books where genetics and EP get used as distracting explanatory crutches!) he uses is both

Show More

weak and fails to fully address the really interesting evolutionary issues (bluff as an evolutionary strategy for instance). He attempts to get at this through his treatment of Presidential poker playing--competition is less fighting than elaborate signaling and strategic stakes raising/folding--but doesn't quite do the job of focussing our attention properly, which is what the introductory chapters are supposedly here for.

But once we arrive at real poker in antebellum America, we arrive at the books virtues--it is very well-researched and McManus knows how to tell a story. Even if he isn't so adept at distilling its significance for us, the story is more than worthwhile in and of itself.

Show Less