"Dead Man's Hand" review, part 2

What, you don't remember reading a part 1 of this series? Well, I didn't exactly call it that, but see http://pokergrump.blogspot.com/2008/01/johnny-moneymaker.html. I read the second story in the collection last night, and it became apparent to me that I can't wait until I finish the book to write a review, or it will be way too long for anybody to bother reading. Furthermore, I'll forget the details that I need to grouse about.

I don't know whether I'll review each story separately, or maybe two or three at a time. It all depends on what I find. So this serial review may end up with three parts or thirty. We'll see. However it works out, you'll be able to get them all on your screen at once by clicking on the "Penzler" label at the end of the post, or in the lower left-hand corner of the page layout.

But for now, I've got to tell you about the story "Bump," by Jeffrey Deaver. One of my complaints about this book is that there is no introduction to the authors. I've read very little crime fiction, and I only recognize two names here: Michael Connelly and Joyce Carol Oates. As far as I know, Jeffrey Deaver may be a god in the crime genre, but he's an unknown to me. I trust that, sooner or later, Short-Stacked Shamus over at Hard-Boiled Poker (http://hardboiledpoker.blogspot.com/) will post his own review, and he's as well-situated as anybody to describe how this book fits into the larger world of crime writing. I can't do that. But I can tell you about the poker in the stories.

To start with, I'll venture this guess about Jeffrey Deaver: He's never played a hand of poker in his life.

But first let me tell you that Deaver had a great idea for a poker/crime genre mashup. Imagine that GSN's "High Stakes Poker" were played on live TV, rather than being taped and edited. Then imagine that somebody decided to try to rob it. How would it go down? That's the premise here, and it's a dandy. The story is well told--except for the poker.

Alarm about the author's grasp of the game is first raised with this description of how Texas Hold'em works: "[P]layers use their two hole cards plus any three of the five faceup board cards to make the best hand they can." Hmmm. Well, not quite, but I was willing to dismiss this as an oversimplification, rather than an outright misunderstanding. But then later Deaver shows that he really does think this is how it works. Our protagonist gets dealt the proverbial worst starting hand in hold'em, deuce-seven offsuit. He bemoans the bad cards, because "You can't make a straight--you're allowed only three cards from the board--and there was no chance of a flush."

Uh, no, that's not how it works.

But wait, it gets worse.

In one big hand, we are told that the final "community cards were the jack of spades, king of diamonds, three of clubs, seven of clubs, six of hearts." One player moves all in, another calls. We are then told that one has made a full house with a jack and ten in the hole, while the other loses with a spade flush.

Huh????? With that board, it's obviously impossible for any player to have either a flush or a full house.

This is so far off that I think it can't be attributed just to the author's ignorance of the game. Rather, I suspect that it's a mistake introduced in editing. I think that initially there were two different hands being described, and then, perhaps for reasons of space, they sort of got combined into one, without anybody noticing that the board described is not consistent with the outcome.

Deaver also doesn't understand how the blinds work. At one point, we're told that the player in the small blind "chose" $25,000 as the amount to put in--as if one can select any arbitrary quantity.

There are peculiar betting patterns in evidence. In one hand, our hero is dealt the A-J of spades in three-handed play. Here's how Deaver describes the pre-flop action: "The betting began. O'Connor played it cautious, though, checking at first, then matching the other bets or raising slightly." (The next sentence describes the flop and subsequent betting.)

Again, huh???? The only way he would be able to check is if he were in the big blind, with no raise having been put in before him. But if that were the case, then his check would end the pre-flop betting, and he wouldn't be able to call or raise the "other bets." Just how many times did they go around, calling and raising, in this hand? The description makes no sense. You might think that the "matching the other bets or raising slightly" might be describing, in advance, the entire hand, but it isn't--he details every post-flop bet as the hand unfolds.

Deaver also can't add. Each of six players buys in for $250,000. But at the end of the first session of play, three have been eliminated, and we're informed that the remaining three have, respectively, $490,000, $505,000, and $515,000. An extra $10,000 came out of nowhere. It then disappears again the next time we get an updated tally.

The last poker detail that Deaver screws up is referring to the discard pile as the "mush," rather than the "muck."

This author just plain doesn't know poker. And, apparently, neither does the editor. I cannot imagine why they didn't hire somebody who understands how poker works to read through the manuscript and highlight technical problems with the game play. How much could it possibly have cost the publisher to do that? By not doing so, they basically ruin the reading experience for poker players, who presumably constitute their target audience! It's crazy. And it's very disappointing.

Howard Lederer wrote an introduction to the volume. I wonder if he read the stories before submitting his piece. (He makes no mention of any of them, so maybe all he knew was the general idea for the collection.) It would be strange indeed if he did read them and either didn't notice or didn't point out to the editor the kinds of problems I spotted. I didn't go looking for them; they jumped out at me, as they would to anybody who plays the game even recreationally.

Maybe the Deaver contribution will be the exception, and the other authors either know poker or on their own had somebody knowledgeable check their work for problems before submitting it. I sure hope so, because, much as I enjoy complaining about things, I'd really prefer to be able to sit back and enjoy the tales, rather than being constantly distracted by problems caused by writers not knowing their subject matter.