His characters are hilarious and not uncommon in my experience in the bond business in the 70's and 80's. There is a lot of color in the bond side which is lacking on the equity sude and the author did a good job of bring this out. Good job.

The novel is one of the best that I have read in quite sometime. McConnell's Gsrnish speaks with a clarity that I have actually seen in some alcoholics. I'm not trying to be funny, but this novel does use a lot of adjectives but somehow it works. Ray Carver once wrote that once he saw Gimmicks he would run for cover, but it just somw how works; similarly to a Charles Bukowski story. Keep on writing Brother because this novel rules!

Wong has charted unexplored territory here in his study of Pai Gow. This is probably the only book in print that exhaustively explains the correct optimal strategy for player and banker in every hand scenario. I can't fault the content, yet there is some additional information I wish Wong had provided to make this book more practical.

1) While the optimal strategy is indeed powerful, it was devised (as Wong explains) to be the best possible response to the best possible pai gow strategies. In other words, the best response to the Wong strategy is to play the Wong Strategy. This is what makes it optimal. However, real casinos do not play the Wong strategy, they play a much simpler strategy known as the house way. (and even this strategy differs from casino to casino) What would be most useful to a reader would be an optimal player strategy to counter the house way. The banker strategy would also need to be refined - once for heads up play against the dealer, and again for play against a full table.

2) To this end, the book would have needed to provide current "house way" policies in Nevada and elsewhere, and updated stats on house edge and bankers edge with the new strategies.

3) I hoped that Wong could have condensed his optimal strategy even further than he does in chapter 4, providing a simple page of rules for the casual player, and then explaining what the house edge is if the player employs the simple condensed strategy.

But these reservations aside, you can't find a better book on pai gow poker. His prose is very readable and straightforward, and you'll surely be impressed by all the research in the book.

This was recommended by the American MENSA Guide to Casino Gambling book, and rightfully so. Pretty much all angles are covered in this book, and the price is right.

It's quite thorough for anyone who wants to play Pai-Gow poker at casino-level stakes. However, due to its thoroughness, it can be confusing to the novice (or the very tired). I recommend skimming the details chapter, then concentrating on "An Approximate Strategy". This arms you with a great strategy to set your hand the best way possible.

The math presented is good as well ... Isn't it interesting to guesstimate that you'll win 50% of the time if you have a pair of jacks and A-8?

For knowledge synthesis, one great part of the book is approximately 20 pages of practice hands. The optimal results are shown, and the number of the sub-chapter to review if you didn't agree with the answer.

Buy it and read for yourself ... Good luck!

I had never even heard of Bret Harte before I read this story, and I really enjoyed it. I loved the way that he used language and imagery to vividly portray the people of Poker Flat. The way that John Oakhurst's (the gambler) thoughts are described, as everything relating to a game of cards, was interesting. It really made me feel like I could see all these people- they seem like very real, everyday characters that could be encountered in anyone's life. Harte obviously knows people, and knows how to tell a good story. I would love to read other stories that he's written.

tnIn my opinion Uncle billy truly steals the scene. It was true inspiration to me. I couldnt wait tot see how it ended . I recommend it to anyone

While experts won't get much from this title, I wholly recommend it for any player with a basic understanding of the game, as well as for more experienced poker players who haven't yet tried hold 'em. The author is thorough and easy to understand for the most part, offering plenty of helpful exercises and examples to help build good hold 'em strategy. I wish I could give this four and a half stars, because it is great with one exception- the claim "updated for today's double blind structure" means a few footnotes added to the text that don't offer much insight. A warning to beginners: you won't get rich against strong players simply by reading this book once (after reading it the first time I managed to break even over a weekend in a tough $5-$10 casino game), but you should bust up a relaxed Thursday night game without much trouble. To sum up, pay attention to the lessons in this book, and you'll be several steps ahead of the average poker player. Good luck!

I'm writing this review from a background of undergraduate-level knowledge in mathematical theory, specifically, Game Theory.

I've been playing Hold 'Em for about six months now. When I started playing, I immediately decided I'd like to try casino poker. Considering I don't turn 21 until about a year from now, I thought I'd do the best I can in learning about the game. Besides playing almost every day, I decided to get a couple of Sklansky's books, recommended to me by a professional player. I'm glad I took his advice.

The book presents concepts in a such a clear-cut way. Not to say that the book can be skimmed through and understood easily, for it takes an amount of disciplined study to completely grasp these concepts, but that the book presents these concepts in brutal honesty, revealing both the theories behind the concepts and the results of the practice of these theories.

Sklansky is both a brilliant mathematician and poker player and presents this book from both backgrounds, although he sometimes holds back on expressing himself mathematically.

All in all, I'm amazed by the book. I don't know what more to say.

This is a book for beginners, respectively. It can only be concluded that he or she who posted the "confusing" review is either one who has not grasped a basic grounding in poker theory him- or her- self or is illiterate.

Notwithstanding the fact that this is the first book ever to be written on hold'em, and thus can be expected to be slightly outdated, it is still a book no serious poker player I know is without. I strongly recommend it to be the first text read on the subject for the aspiring hold'em expert.

Just reading it once through will not be enough. You'll find that this book can be studied over and over. Fom Sklansky's famous hand rankings to the concept of the free cards, this text gives the reader something to look forward to. I definitely recommend it.

When first learning about hold-em poker I bought this book along with a few others. This book is definitely geared towards someone who has little or no knowledge of hold-em poker at all. If you have played, know the rules, and the very basics of play, then this book probably won't add much. I've found the 1st Sklansky book on hold-em poker to be the best starter book. It's compact, but the ideas presented are immediately applicable and usefull. It provides basics of strategy on plays you can make, and also makes you aware of plays your opponent might be making on you. The Jones book is more basic, guiding someone through the first steps of the rules of hold em and playing at a table. Good for an absolute beginner, but for someone who has played even a little, probably not enough new info.

I had never played hold 'em until playing one night with some friends, who later referred me to an internet poker site. I played the play money tables for a while there but felt this wasn't as realistic since virtually everyone stayed in & raised excessively at the play money game.

My first experience with internet poker for real money resulted in my losing ($$$)in two different sessions (I made two separate ($$$) deposits last for approximately 20-25 hours playing time at the .50-$1 tables).

Then, after reading Jones' book & following the advice therein - I have now turned ($$$) into ($$$) & am still playing on that. (...) Three months prior I had never even played hold 'em. Hopefully, I'm on my way to establishing a reasonable bankroll & will be "cashing out" not "depositing in" from here on out, but I know I have a ways to go before reaching the higher levels.

Jones explains many of the fundamental hold 'em & poker concepts very well and I really liked the way he organized the sections of the book. I feel I now have a more solid foundation for future learning & a more sensible approach to advance in the game.

I highly recommend this book to all hold em players who have never done anything but just "wing it" before.

Lee hits the nail on the head for Northern California low limit Hold'em games, of course that's where he's from. This book is great for a beginner or an experienced player alike. Some $6-$12 games and up are too tight for some of Lee's ideas, but some loose games up to $10-$20 fit his strategies well. As usual, it depends on the players. Most other poker books teach you how to beat higher limit, tigher games. Those strategies don't work as well in the low limit games. Great book!

The authors of WITTGENSTEIN'S POKER, David Edmonds and John Eidinow, are both BBC journalists, and that background makes them ideal for explaining what most casual observers would view as an obscure conflict, unworthy of great curiosity. The subject of the book is an argument between Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein, two great philosophers who probably wouldn't be considered household names (although I'm pleased to note that "Wittgenstein" is indeed present in my spellchecker). Legend has it that on October 25, 1946, a debate in a Cambridge conference room became so heated that Wittgenstein grabbed a red-hot poker from the fireplace and waved it in Popper's face. Legend also claims that despite his advantage in weaponry, Wittgenstein retreated after a particularly cutting remark from Popper. But is legend correct? And if so, why would two respected philosophers resort to taunting and the threat of physical violence? In 1998, the battle was the subject of renewed debate in the letters page of the Times Literary Supplement, where neither side could agree on what had actually occurred. The question piqued the interest of the two journalists and they attempted to uncover the truth.

The poker is to the authors as Rosebud was to the newspapermen in CITIZEN KANE. It is the impetus that allows Edmonds and Eidinow to begin their journey through a scattershot look at this portion of philosophy's history. They provide a fairly decent biography of both men, leaving out many unnecessary specifics, but giving enough information for the reader to understand both men's place in the world of philosophy. Along the way we see the similarities apparent in the lives of the two men. Both were Austrian philosophers. Both fled their homelands during the Second World War because of their Jewish heritage. Both men were fierce arguers and were both convinced of their inherent correctness. That said, they were not identical. Wittgenstein's family was one of the richest in the region, while Popper came from a fairly well-to-do family that had fallen on very rough times after the First World War.

In philosophy, they were diametrically opposed. Wittgenstein in his later years declared there were no fundamental philosophical problems, merely puzzles based on linguistics, tricks of language intrinsically bound to how human beings defined certain terms. The so-called problems came not from the real world, but from quirks in definitions. Popper, through his background in the philosophy of science, venomous disagreed. Philosophy progressed as other schools of thought progressed. We affirm or disregard theories, and we learn something about the universe every time that happens.

The authors spend more time detailing the background to the conflict than they do on the argument itself. However, while going through the lives of the two main characters, they oftentimes related some event in the past that would directly influence the argument. As for the way they handle the poker-waving incident itself, they are careful to provide as much information as possible. They reproduce the committee minutes of the encounter, they interview those attendees who are still alive today, and they pore through the records and memoirs written in the months and years after the event. After giving us the facts, they then cut down on those items that would appear to be most at odds with the rest. It's guesswork, they are quick to point out, determining which set of hazy remembrances is the most accurate.

The depth of background that the authors provide colors the way in which we view the eventual argument. Wittgenstein would often be agitated at meetings, and had in the past waved a poker, not to threaten a trembling rival, but to help emphasis positions he was taking. Popper was ruthless when it came to arguments, and would attempt to bury the opposition in a flurry of logic. It's easy to see how these two men might view each other on this afternoon, the point of their first and only meeting. A lot of the ambiguity and confusion seems to come down to the regular oddities in Wittgenstein's own behavior. Was he waving the poker in anger, or from unconscious habit? Did he storm off in disgust and humiliation, or was his hasty departure consistent with his custom of leaving discussions at seemingly random times? The authors don't give us direct answers, but give us more than enough information to make up our own minds.

Perhaps the authors provided us with an over-abundance of details, maybe more than we really needed to know. While the four chapters relating the story of the two men's separate escapes from the clutches of Nazi Germany made for occasionally fascinating reading, I was at a loss to see their relevance. On the other hand, while I'm not sure that I really needed to know that Wittgenstein munched on tomato sandwiches the morning of the poker-wave, those little factoids made this book more enjoyable to read. Hardcore Wittgenstein fans who want to know as much as possible about the actual fight will find the latter sections invaluable, though they might be a bored during the earlier, biographical parts. Anyone looking to further their knowledge of these two philosophers and their confrontation on that fateful October day should pick up this book immediately.

Notes: In addition to the main text, this book also includes some extras: a chronology of major events starting with the birth of Ludwig Wittgenstein on 26 April 1889 through to the death of Karl Popper on 17 September 1994; and an appendix including the series of seven letters from 1998 in the Times Literary Supplement (four of which are between Professor Peter Geach who was present at the conflict, and Professor John Watkins who wrote a memoir of Karl Popper which supported Popper's revisionist view of what had occurred) that initially sparked the interest of the authors.

Karl Popper, the distinguished philosopher of science, and Ludwig Wittgenstein met only once, for perhaps ten minutes, in a tense confrontation over their diametrically-opposed views of what philosophy was for. Always excitable, Wittgenstein brandished a poker, then put it down. Soon he left the room. Did he threaten Popper with the poker? Did he storm out of the room in response to a clever quip of Popper's? Eyewitness accounts vary.

"There was a delightful irony in the conflicting testimonies. They had arisen between people all professionally concerned with theories of epistemology..., understanding, and truth. Yet they concerned a sequence of events where those who disagreed were eyewitnesses on crucial questions of fact."(p4)

The authors use this rather well-known (to academic philosophers) but murky incident as a focus for a book that takes us back to the Vienna of the Hapsburgs, where the extremely wealthy Wittgensteins moved in the highest echelons of culture and social life, and the more modest Poppers also enjoyed the wide and deep intellectual life of this city of coffeehouses and tolerance. Later (but before the storm) there was the Vienna Circle, which courted Wittgenstein and excluded Popper. (Or did he exclude himself?)

This is a book about two great men who were both Viennese, intense, egotistical, brilliant, and contentious to a degree rarely seen. To each, every discussion bearing on philosophy became a contest that each had to win, and almost invariably did. Ironically, they never met until that night in 1946, in Cambridge, England, of all places. So it is also a book about philosophy in the 20th century that brings in G.E. Moore and Bertrand Russell (who was there that night), Moritz Schlick (the founder of the Vienna Circle), Rudolph Carnap, Stephen Toulmin, and a host of smaller fry.

The writing is fast-paced, as befits two journalists, and the philosophy is mostly honored in the breach, as befits a popular history. Yet we get a good feel for the issues in play on that night in Cambridge. Those of you who have struggled with Wittgenstein will find nothing here to change your view of him as a charismatic genius (but possibly totally wrong!), but the less-well-known Popper emerges as a driven man that had to win on this most esoteric of playing fields. What impressed me most about this tale was that for these men philosophy was not redemptive or illuminating. They seemed not "philosophical" in the old Socratic sense, but possessed by skewed needs that this strange cloistered university atmosphere salved, because they could show their strange skills to advantage here. Anyway, this is a delightful look at an intellectual milieu that is mostly gone, but was wonderful and strange while it lasted.

As much as I was enjoying this book, about two thirds of the way through I decided it was real trash. Then I came to the philosophical part and my opinion changed significantly. This is what I had been going to say in my review:

When an abstruse issue in science captures the public imagination it is often considered a good idea to make it more accessible by writing about the personalities involved. This 'humanizes' the issue, in other words replaces actual scientific knowledge (which is technical and hard to understand)with gossip. "Wittgenstein's Poker" takes this approach to philosophy. It is about a debate between two of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century (Wittgenstein and Popper)on the subject of whether philosophers deal with problems or merely puzzles. The authors do not take sides explicitly, but whenever they refer to a philosophical issue or idea they state it very briefly and give no indication at all as to why anyone should care about such an apparently trivial matter or bother with such banal or (seemingly) obviously false ideas. Philosophy, we are led to believe, is a complete waste of time. And philosophers are losers. Wittgenstein is presented as a callous weirdo, Popper as a resentful egomaniac. The entire philosophy faculty of Cambridge University in 1946 is also written off. If ever anyone had an unkind word to say about these men then it is quoted here, with little or nothing to offset it by way of praise or even neutral description. You can see why the book is fun to read. But it's a little odd in a book aimed presumably at those with an interest in philosphy. Or perhaps it's not so odd. Maybe pseudo-intellectuals want nothing more than an invitation to sneer at the real intelligentsia. That's what I had been going to write.

But then I came to the chapter that actually explains some of the issues (induction, probability, etc.) that concerned Popper and Bertrand Russell, and what they thought about them. This was interesting and well done. There is some real meat here for those unfamiliar with philosophy, albeit a cutlet rather than a roast. You won't learn much about Wittgenstein, though, except about his life and personality. Why anyone should care exactly what happened with the poker is beyond me, but this is a fun book and might even be an effective introduction to philosophy for some people.

At one point in POKER NATION, Andy Bellin describes the myriad ways a small-time poker professional tries to distract himself from the boredom of the game ultimately giving in to a life of drugs. "That's why there are no good poker movies," the pro says.

POKER NATION attempts, but ultimately fails, to bring out the excitement of playing the game.

Andy Bellin gives us a detailed tour of the world of poker. He takes us through his own experiences at the table, the world of the big-time and the small-time poker professionaly, a brief overview of poker strategy, running both legal and illegal card clubs, and interesting studies of the shady characters always looking for an edge.

Andy's brisk, simple, and descriptive writing paints the picture of a likable, somewhat shady, guide to the most American of games. The book kept me entertained during the two nights I read it.

Unfortunately, the details of life in the Poker Nation don't live up to the romance, and I left the book feeling sorry for its citizens. Once you start playing the game 40+ hours a week, it becomes just a job.

And who wants to read about the details of anyone's job?

Dav's Rating System:
5 stars - Loved it, and kept it on my bookshelf.
4 stars - Liked it, and gave it to a friend.
3 stars - OK, finished it and gave it to the library.
2 stars - Not good, finished it, but felt guilty and/or cheated by it.
1 star - I want my hour back! Didn't finish the book.

I loved the hell out of this book. There's hundreds of books about poker out there (and I've read a lot of them) but this is not a how to book. This is more of a travelogue through a parellel world filled with unique characters and a memoir of an interesting person with interesting tales to tell. Yes, you'll learn something about the game of poker, some things not to do, others to watch for. But what makes this a great book is that you would enjoy it even if you had never played a game of poker before in your life. Andy Bellin is a great writer, and a great writer can write well on any subject. This is a book that stands on its own terms for its humor and economy of style. I think most readers will have a hard time putting it down.

I am not an unbiased reviewer of this book. The author is my friend. But he is also the guy who taught me to play Texas Hold 'Em and other criminally fun poker games. So I can honestly report that this book captures all the energy of a poker table.
This is a special book. Part "how-to" manual, part history book, part road trip and part joke compendium, POKER NATION weaves the many tangled threads of a great game. Impressively, it's all these things without ever trying too hard. Bellin writes with such an easy, conversational style that the book feels like an old pal is telling stories. Meanwhile, he still manages to slip in painless little lessons and probability problems. By the end of the book, the reader is not only immensely entertained, but is a better poker player.
POKER NATION provides all of the action, thrill and brain rigor of a 10-hour visit to the Taj, without the secondhand smoke. Highly, enthusiastically recommended.

As a beginner/intermediate player, I found the pace just right. It was an easy read that CLEARLY left me a better player - and isn't that what it's all about? The book is a seminar condensed to text form. Caro uses "billboards" in the book just like he would on a chalk board at one of his seminars to emphasize clean points. By the time you're done reading this, you'll understand that winning poker is all about knowing which way to go on "borderline" decisions. There is also a small, but interesting section on "tells" that brings an awareness to the novice about what other players at the table might be thinking. Clearly for the beginner or intermediate player, it will be a good review for some, and nothing short of an eye-opener for many others. For a beginner, it takes away that naked feeling of walking into a game with great uncertainty - a game that feels like mostly luck and gut feelings. For an intermediate player, it should clarify some decisions while giving them an overall edge they may have lacked. Even the intermediate player should have a more cohesive plan and play with more authority to "own" his table. I wanted to give this 5 stars, but I felt it should have had some kind of a test or review (ie, sample hands, fill-in or mult choice decision questions, etc.) Nonethless, if you want to improve your game, you shouldn't pass this one up. I review the book occasionally in just a few minutes to keep myself grounded and focused on the task of playing WINNING poker.

Mike Caro clearly goes over winning tactics for poker in general as well as specific games. The information in this book would not serve an expert well at all, but for a beginner I would recommend it.

Before I leave my house for one of the local card rooms, I always flip through this book. Caro presents all of his thoughts in a vary concise manner while highlighting all of the important points. If you read all of the highlighted text before stepping out the door, your game will improve. Also, unlike other books, I was surprised at how well his thoughts apply to all forms of poker, not just Hold Em or Stud. I think that this is a book that should belong in every serious poker player's library.

This book has its strengths, and I'm not sorry I bought it, but a few days later I had to buy another, more straightforward one to clear up some basic questions. That is not a strong selling point for a "Dummies" book.

I have two main criticisms (aside from the fact that it barely mentions draw poker at all): First, a complete and easy to find glossary is a must in a book for beginners, and the one in this book is neither (you'll need it for chapter 2, where you are unexectedly thrown into the deep end of the jargon pool). Second, the examples were few and somewhat hard for me to follow. I need to be led by the hand for a few games, so I can apply that slowly but thoroughly acquired knowledge at my own pace. I don't feel that "Poker For Dummies" offers me that opportunity.

A very useful thing I did get from this book was their recommendation of wilsonsw.com, whose software (with free demos) allows you to participate in thousands of hands of certain variants of the game in a pretty realistic manner...not tutorial exactly, but very helpful.

America has given the world Freedom, Bourbon, Hollywood, Baseball and Poker.

Unfortunately we've also given the world "How To" books. And their most recent obnoxious incarnations, the "Zen in the Art of---" and the "---For Dummies" series.

However this one's not bad at all. I wish some of the reviewers who disliked it could name a better beginner's book--though I concede that if you play for money against some pros following the instructions given you might conclude you should have bought "Poker for Morons" instead.

(Do not despair. The real morons are playing Baccarat following amazing systems that enable them to count to 9 )

If, after reading Lou, you decide to keep on and take the plunge might I also suggest Lee Jones 'Winning Low Limit Hold 'Em '--a book which gives strict advice on the most popular form of Poker nowdays and which cannot possibly work because everyone has read it and feels obliged to deviate from it because they know everyone else has read it too, consequently, it does work. (did you folow that?)

Also consider buying Slansky's 'The Theory of Poker' regarded as 'The Bible' especially if you're a math-geek who can already discourse on the difference between probability and odds.

Otherwise just consider it but don't buy it. Carson's 'The Complete Book of Hold 'Em Poker' should also keep you busy for a few months, as well as anything written by Ciaffone, and by then you should be ready to enter the World Series of Poker.

Well, soon enough, anyway.

Seriously, if you can break even after playing cardroom poker in your first year, you're doing great. (If you can get a bunch of rich dolts to come over to your place on Friday nights and play Anaconda or a sillier variation you're doing even better but don't count on it.)

Lou's book is a good overview and he does list up to date internet groups which provide links to discussions and articles which will keep you addicted forever.

Just remember that over the long run, it's all about skill, not hunches. Besides, it's bad luck to be superstitious.

I had never played poker in a casino before, just some nickel games with some friends while I was drinking. This book showed me how to play and showed me that if I'm willing to practice and willing to be patient I can be a competent player and maybe win some money. I've bought several books since then and played quite a few hours at nearby casinos and this is the book that I review on the way. If you know how to play well this is a handy reference if you aren't able to play frequently.

WHAT A DISAPPOINTMENT. I heard about this book and thought it would be really great. As it is marketed, it's an intriguing story. At first glance. Unfortunately, it takes forever to get to the story. First, Mr McManus engages in a lengthy and melodramatic rundown of the murder of a casino heir, Ted Binion, then tries to transition into his own story. While it's relevant background info since the World Series of Poker takes place at Binion's Horseshoe, JUST TELL ONE STORY, MAN! Even worse, McManus takes great liberties with some of the actual events related to the murder of Binion. He admits this. And then he cannot resist referring to himself and his dark side throughout the book as Good Jim and Bad Jim. A flourish I could have done without.

Perhaps McManus or his editor or publisher lost their nerve in regards to publishing a book JUST about his experiences in The World Series of Poker. Perhaps that was never their intention. HOWEVER, that's the only interesting stuff in the book. The stuff about the death of Binion is, for the most part, [annoying]. Particularly annoying is the clunky manner in which it is bolted on. And it's nowhere near as enchanting as the thought of a writer for Harper's going to Vegas, exchanging his expense money for chips, and then somehow making it all the way to fifth place. Plus, there is some really interesting information about professional poker players.

I thought this book had a lot of potential. A real bummer to not exercise more restraint, and focus on one story.

First, let me say that the story McManus tells is fascinating; a no-name in the world of poker making it big on the game's biggest stage is compelling for even the non-card player. You become addicted to his progress in the tournament and the words don't come quickly enough at times.
It is when McManus wanders from this story that I began to dislike the book; needless and sometimes annoying time is spent on his wife and their fantastic lovelife; awkward attempts to tie in the Binion trial; it all seems like forced filler that nevers gels smoothly with the main story. I would have stopped reading had I not been so intrigued by his Word Series of Poker run...
I congratulate the author on his incredible run in the WSOP but can only recommend this book to those readers with more than a passing interest in gambling.

James McManus went to the World Series of Poker to write a story and ended up at the final table, slinging cards with the best players in the world. Along the way, tidbits of how to play certain hands, the computer simulations the circuit players use to build their skills and the murder of Ted Binion are explored.

The world and rules of poker are a bit confusing to me. Then again I certainly did not inheirit the family gambling gene. I was still able to follow McManus's explanations of the game and the hands dealt.

The contrast between McManus's life in the casino during the World Series and his regular life with wife Jennifer is conveyed in their phone calls to each other. McManus is buzzing with excitement and the sheer amount of money being betted with each hand while Jennifer cares for their two small daughters.

But through out the hands dealt and the quirky players, the accused murders of Ted Binion get their day in court. The story of the casino heir with everything and the stripper is an interesting one.

To anyone who has played a hand of poker, visited Las Vegas or is a true crime fan, "Positively Fifth Street" is a fascinating look into another world.