Grade the September Magazine

[Dynasty]

The more honest feedback I get about the Internet Magazine, the better a job I will do as editor and the better future Magazines will be. So, I'd like to hear all positive and negative comments about the September issue.


I like breaking down the September issue like this:

Strategy Articles
Scoop Outs Compared to Other Outs in Omaha-8
Is it Getting Bubbly in Here?
A Critical Look at the Stop 'n' Go

General Poker
Bankroll Requirements for the Coinflip Game

Poker and Other Fields
Insights from Behavioral Game Theory: Manipulating Opponents
Poker and Finance Part II

Poker Journalism
30 Questions with Daniel Negreanu
A Few More Reviews
The Dying Days of Las Vegas 1-5 Stud

Non-poker Gambling
Betting NFL Regular Season Win Totals
Fantasy Football: Strategic Principles of Drafting

Classic Article
Modern Poker


For me, the primary strengths of the September issue were Tysen Streib's article "Is It Getting Bubbly In Here?" (which may cause a revision of HOH based on his criticism)and Frank Jerome's article "Scoop Outs Compared to Other Outs in Omaha-8". Both of these were great strategy articles.

Mason really liked both Jay McCauley's "Insights from Behavioral Game Theory: Manipulating Opponents" and William Jockusch's "Bankroll Requirements for the Coinflip Game".

I think the biggest weakness of this issue is that only three of the twelve articles are strategy articles and not one of them was for hold 'em cash games. I'd like to see at least half the articles focused on strategy. Without reaching that mark, I can't give the Magazine too high a grade.

My grade: B-

[curious123]

I'll have to give 'em all a full read before grading, but this poll is a great idea Dy.

Some quick thoughts- Tysen's stuff is primo, as I expected. The behavorial GT article looks intruiging. The bankroll article is meh, only because this stuff has been beaten to death, but I suppose those who aren't familiar may find it interesting.

Keep it up.

[Moneyline]

I graded this a "B," and then went back and read the non-strategy articles. Now I'd give it a "C."

I really liked the O8 (this had to have been written by Buzz) and bubble articles that you mentioned. I thought your article on stud was interesting, and Malmuth's book reviews are always worth reading. If I was interested in football betting I'm sure I would have found those articles helpful, but I'm not interested.

In the future I would love to see more omaha 8 articles, as there isn't a whole lot of information out on that game as the two good books on the topic are quite short. I would also like to see some discussion of some of the less well known games that have virtually nothing written on them like PLO8, Badugi, etc. Definitely more strategy articles on the whole.

As for criticisms, I think some of the pseueo-strategy articles were pretty weak. I am quite familiar with the workings of the ultimatum game, but I think equating that with getting calls at the poker table was a major stretch. I'm also not sure the magazine needs multi-part series on bankroll management. This information is already out there, and I've never seen it put in more complicated terms. That's enough complaining from me for the day, but in the future I think it would help the magazine to replace these sorts of articles with strategy articles.

Good luck with the magazine...

[uDevil]

Not finished reading, so no grade yet. The articles I've read seem great, but I'll be subtracting half a grade for minor but annoying forma9¨8§4§Tªng issues.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
The bankroll article is meh, only because this stuff has been beaten to death, but I suppose those who aren't familiar may find it interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

The obituary hasn't been written yet.

Judging from the frequent threads and the crummy replies on this topic, there are many not familiar with this topic. Of course, those people probably won't read these articles, but whatever.

I think this article is extremely well written. I look forward to the remaining articles and hope the author continues to contribute.

[Rottersod]

I gave it a B. Good content but a bit short on actual play. I liked Mason's 10 year old article on poker. That really brought a smile. Yours was a good article too and I thought it worked well with Mason's.

For the future I'd like to read some articles from players who enter tournaments and their over all experience there, including non tournament time. I'm not interested in reading about the hands, just the overall experience and some of the behind the scenes stuff.

Speaking of behind the scenes, that would make an interesting article. How about getting a Casino manager or Floor to write something up about how poker rooms are organized and run and what they think of different types of players?

Good job on this magazine.

[BluffTHIS!]

I gave it a B, which I think is solid without being exceptional. I don't think there should be 2 sports betting or tourney strategy articles in that same issue, in order to have a little more balance. Even though I don't play O8 but only PLO & NL, I thought that was a very good piece of strategic analysis. The game theory articles are always good. All 3 of the journalism articles including yours were good. In fact since you labled Mason's article a "classic" articles, I think you might consider having that be a regular feature with articles not just from the 2+2 writers, but also previous articles in the magazine no longer availabe for which people make requests later if the author is willing to have it put up again. So overall good first effort in editing.

I realize having made that comment about there being 2 tourney and 2 sports betting articles, topics which I admit don't personally interest me, that you are dependant on what is submitted to you. But I would encourage you to try to "commission" some articles like magazines often do by asking some of the best posters in the various forums to write about either a topic of their choosing or maybe some topics that have been requested (There could be ongoing threads here for posters to make their requests either of specific posters or for various narrow enough topics).

Also, even though they would hold little interest for me, I can tell from browsing various forums over time including ones about forms of poker I don't play, that there is a huge interest in player stories, i.e. how various players both tourney and cash game, make their livings online, how they built and hold onto their rolls, what their playing day is like, what they do to better themselves and the like. Kind of like your own 5 years in Vegas threads and similar threads by other posters. So maybe there could be a semi-regular article in the category "making a living playing poker online" or something like that.

[flight2q]

Add me to the choir wanting more poker play articles, especially a balance of games and structures. Is limit hold'em officially dead?

Quite a few formatting problems, such as saying "x2" meaning "x squared", and ": spade :" for "/images/graemlins/spade.gif".

Scoop Outs started out with some fallacious math, so I just skimmed the rest of it. Nothing that isn't obvious.

Getting Bubbly and Bankroll Requirements were articles beating a dead horse.

Stop 'n' Go is tired too. But things like this should have big warning signs about how narrow their application is, so the article is reasonable to have. Another example would be raising to drive out opposition when you are sure you are behind to a made hand.

I don't like the Behavioral Game Theory articles, but this one is a little better.

Poker and Finance has nothing in it.

30 Questions was meh. This seems more appropriate to a glossy print mag. It's not like any of the interviewees have ever said anything deep for these pieces.

Book Reviews are fine. I like that there is an explanation of why a book gets a good review, so I can ignore it if it doesn't apply to me.

The 1-5 stud and Modern Poker articles are good material to lend variety.

The two non-poker gambling articles are good to have as well. Yao really puts a nice effort into each sports betting article.

[dtemp]

I really like the Modern Poker article. I've always been a fan of Mason's essays and wouldn't mind seeing more.

[creedofhubris]

i gave it a c+, mostly due to the fact that what i thought was a great article (the scooping outs in omaha piece) proves to be mathematically flawed, there's nothing here for cash games, and "poker journalism" is not interesting to me as a category.

the poker/investments piece is underdeveloped and it's impossible for this layman to figure out how to apply the concepts the author describes. the negreanu interview was rife with typos.

[chumsferd]

I thought this issue was quite good. I gave it a B.

I'll give this thread an A. It's a great idea. I suspect you will find that responses will be all over the place, which in some sense is desirable for a publication such as this. Different people will find value in different articles, which should expand readership and keep people coming back for more, which is good for the long term health of the magazine. It also provides an opportunity to re-vitalize/advertise some of the less popular games.

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I really enjoyed the poker and finance article. Perhaps it is difficult for the layperson to apply the concepts, but a good magazine should have macro concepts as well is very practical micro concepts. Thinking about the game of poker is as valuable as looking at tactics. Take ToP, for instance. The book is universally thought of amongst real poker players one of the top books if not THE top book on poker, yet in the hands of a novice it is of limited practical value. A total beginner has difficulty understanding the FTP and is more interested in starting hands, etc. It is only after acquiring sufficient playing experience that the genius of Theory of Poker is revealed.

[Leavenfish]

A+ because of the variety.

---Leavenfish

[2/325Falcon]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the biggest weakness of this issue is that only three of the twelve articles are strategy articles and not one of them was for hold 'em cash games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the variety in this issue. There are 11 sub-forums under Texas Hold'em on the website plus MTT and STT. I don't think anyone can say Hold'em strategy is underrepresented on 2+2. The magazine is the perfect place to give some exposure to other games like Razz or 2-7 TD.

What's the lead time for articles in the magazine? August had an explosion of HORSE games on the internet when PokerStars began offering these games. I would have liked to see an article on mixed games like HORSE or HOSE or even BOT.

I also like the non-poker gambling articles. The NFL sports betting article was timely. It would be nice to see the same with regards to the NBA/NHL/NCAA Basketball seasons upcoming. More non-poker gambling articles about backgammon/billiards/cribbage/darts/etc. would also be interesting. Overall good job.

[Beavis68]

well, at first look, this is a huge improvement.

[jfk]

The magazine can't be all things to all people. You'll drive yourself nuts trying to please us.

The variety of the articles is a strong suit. Several of the articles are of little use or appeal to me but that doesn't reflect badly on the magazine. In past months I've enjoyed or found useful several of articles which were widely panned and disliked some of the serial pieces which seem to have a heavy readership.

Perhaps growing the magazine would be a worthy aim. If there are contributing authors who are producing quality work, make a home for them. Twenty quality articles would make for a better read than eleven quality articles.

Your readership has widely varying abilities and interests. The best way to draw readership is to offer a similarly wide array of offerings.

You might even consider a "best of" type series of articles. I don't read all the sub-forums and know that I'm missing some true gold out there. Members like Bruce Z, Aaron Brown and Andy Fox come to mind who regularly make posts which are of a quality to make the magazine. Many regular readers here may miss these posts and it may make sense to pick the best two or three from a previous month to be featured.

Given threads could be edited and rewritten. Inclusion in the magazine would give the thoughts included wider exposure. Additional benefits might be a building of the regular readership in the subforum in which the thread/article originated. The authors get rewarded for the regular quality of their forum contributions and the less regular forum member gets exposed to ideas outside his or her area of interest.

Congratulations on taking over the magazine. While I didn't assign a letter grade (its too early for that) there's no reason to believe that the magazine won't continue to evolve and improve.

[Jay P McCauley]

2+2 might consider incorporating some kind of peer review into the publication process. A few extra eyes on each article -- seeking clarification, probing for implications, challenging analysis -- could only lead to a higher quality magazine.

One possibility would be to have a forum hidden from the view of the general public in which, say, 2+2 moderators can discuss articles submitted for publication. Mason and Bryan might even post a survey in each article thread asking for a rating of the article along with a binary vote to publish or not. If an article is deemed worthy of publication (Bryan/Mason would obviously retain final say), then Bryan might forward comments to the article author and ask for a small revision before publication. I think that this process might also reduce Bryan's workload (or at the very least it should not change by much).

I would have really welcomed such outside advice before my own articles were published. It can be hard to get useful and honest feedback from friends and acquaintances, who are often motivated to be supportive rather than critical.

[JaredL]

[ QUOTE ]
2+2 might consider incorporating some kind of peer review into the publication process. A few extra eyes on each article -- seeking clarification, probing for implications, challenging analysis -- could only lead to a higher quality magazine.

One possibility would be to have a forum hidden from the view of the general public in which, say, 2+2 moderators can discuss articles submitted for publication. Mason and Bryan might even post a survey in each article thread asking for a rating of the article along with a binary vote to publish or not. If an article is deemed worthy of publication (Bryan/Mason would obviously retain final say), then Bryan might forward comments to the article author and ask for a small revision before publication. I think that this process might also reduce Bryan's workload (or at the very least it should not change by much).

I would have really welcomed such outside advice before my own articles were published. It can be hard to get useful and honest feedback from friends and acquaintances, who are often motivated to be supportive rather than critical.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an author (though I didn't get an article in for this one) I would support it. I would further be willing to be on some sort of peer review group for let's say double my mod salary.

edited to add: I haven't had the chance to read your article yet, but judging by the title and a very brief skim we have similar backrounds and write several articles. I'd be happy to read yours if you wish.

[jfk]

[ QUOTE ]
One possibility would be to have a forum hidden from the view of the general public in which, say, 2+2 moderators can discuss articles submitted for publication. Mason and Bryan might even post a survey in each article thread asking for a rating of the article along with a binary vote to publish or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be a great idea if your audience was purely moderators and hard core junkies of this site. While there's a place for articles which meet this criteria, it is very important to have offering which don't appeal primarily to this group.

For instance, in the March(?) issue there was an article about the basics of a good desktop setup for internet play. The author covered both the hardware and software basics. The article was badly received on the forum.

As a long time brick and mortar player who was looking to make the long delayed transition I found the article (I believe there was a series) extremely useful. Yes, I could've slogged through countless pages on the software, computer and internet forums and cobbled together the same info, but it was very convenient to have it all laid out in one place and in one well researched voice.

Any regular reader of the those sub-forums would've been bored to tears with the article but to me it was perhaps the most useful article of the year.

You can strive for excellence in the magazine but remember that your audience has wider needs and wants than might be found within a moderator peer group.

[BluffTHIS!]

I'm glad the peer review recommendation was made, because I previously discussed it via PM with a couple of the site people. Obviously it would be a burden if someone had to review several articles a month, especially checking for math errors in more involved articles. But having a group of posters on tap to review articles in different categories would be the easiest way to go. If there is a LHE article, then 4 or 5 posters would be available to preview that, and the same for different areas, so as to spread the review work. In fact with a enough reviewers, the same ones wouldn't even have to review every article in their area of specialty as that could be rotated. And the stakes level of a given form of poker matter as well as different stakes play differently.

2+2 putting up a magazine article is different than a poster writing a post, and so I am sure everyone would agree a higher standard is called for, and the editor can't be expected to be knowledgeable about all forms or more intricate mathematical subjects. So I hope this idea gets some support both from the editor and site and enough posters in different areas willing to help out.

[Jay P McCauley]

[ QUOTE ]
This would be a great idea if your audience was purely moderators and hard core junkies of this site. While there's a place for articles which meet this criteria, it is very important to have offering which don't appeal primarily to this group.

[/ QUOTE ]

Currently, one or two people see the articles and then make decisions about what gets published (which is how magazines often work). Peer review along the lines that I suggest would provide a broader perspective of those who help keep the gate.

I should add that it does not seem to me that having a broader team decide what gets published is or should be the main goal of peer review. A single individual -- the editor -- is certainly capable of guiding the magazine so that the interests of a diverse audience are collectively served well. However, an editor is probably NOT capable of knowing everything about every topic -- some quite technical -- and of providing detailed, meaningful, and diverse feedback to all of the authors who publish in 2+2 mag.

Finally, my suggestion to allow (but not require or expect) the moderators to see articles ahead of time and provide comments to the editor and authors was just the first idea that came to me. There could certainly be other ways to accomplish peer review at low cost/disruption.

[uDevil]

I suggest that in addition to 'peers', a few random Joe Schmoes also review the articles to get kind of a focus group opinion.

Another random suggestion: sticky a post in the relevant forum(s) for a couple of days at the beginning of the month so that people know there is an article in the magazine they may be interested in.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Scoop Outs started out with some fallacious math

[/ QUOTE ]flight2q - What specifically did you think was fallacious? (I'm thinking that perhaps you misread or misunderstood something).

Buzz

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
what i thought was a great article (the scooping outs in omaha piece) proves to be mathematically flawed,

[/ QUOTE ]creedofhubris - Why do you believe the article is mathematically flawed? (I'm thinking you may have misunderstood something - but possibly there's some error of which I am unaware, and if so, I'll correct the error).

The fact remains that scooping a given sized pot together with sitting out the next hand (or some of the next hand) is more than twice as good as winning half that same sized pot twice.

(I'm aware that two half pots equal one scoop in simulations. That is, you end up with the same number of chips in either event in a simulation. But the comparison I'm making is not for a fixed number of trials where you either (1)scoop, (2)win part, or (3)lose.)

Buzz

[BluffTHIS!]

Buzz,

I think he is referring to Broctoon's thread down the list with no replies as yet and his argument that the article's contention that scooping is 2.5 times as better as splitting is wrong, though it is more than 2 times better. Check that thread out in case you missed it. (I don't play O8 in any form but did read the article.)

[wonkadaddy]

overall one of the best and most varied issues i've read.

the strategy articles were excellent this month. bubble article = A+. the stop n go article could have highlighted its conclusions a bit more clearly, but i thought the topic was interesting as the results weren't overly intuitive. i don't play split-pot games, but the main point of the O8 article was an interesting one i hadn't considered.

i'd prefer if strategy made up a solid 50% of the mag, but realize that submissions are probably the limitting factor.

good mix w/the rest of the mag. a little history, a little celeb fluff (got to have a token interview), sports betting/fantasy (i wish the FF article had gone a little deeper.) usually i'm nto a huge fan of the psych articles, but i thought the behavioral game theory this issue read great, dealt w/an interesting topic and tied into poker surprisingly well. only real issue i have is w/there being 2 bankroll articles. 1 bankroll article every 3rd issue would seem more appropriate imo. there's more to bankroll management than 500BB, we get it. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif overall, very well done.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he is referring to Broctoon's thread down the list with no replies as yet and his argument that the article's contention that scooping is 2.5 times as better as splitting is wrong, though it is more than 2 times better. Check that thread out in case you missed it.

[/ QUOTE ]BluffTHIS! -Thanks. I had not looked at that response before, but now I have responded to it.

I agree with what Bocktoon wrote, and yet it is useful to be able to combine various outs, some of which are for the whole pot and others which are for part of the pot. And to do that easily under game conditions when playing a hand, using appoximations is (relatively) easy and works rather well.

Buzz

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, even though they would hold little interest for me, I can tell from browsing various forums over time including ones about forms of poker I don't play, that there is a huge interest in player stories, i.e. how various players both tourney and cash game, make their livings online, how they built and hold onto their rolls, what their playing day is like, what they do to better themselves and the like. Kind of like your own 5 years in Vegas threads and similar threads by other posters. So maybe there could be a semi-regular article in the category "making a living playing poker online" or something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely agree. This would be very valuable addition.

-g

[MeetUrTwin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what i thought was a great article (the scooping outs in omaha piece) proves to be mathematically flawed,

[/ QUOTE ]creedofhubris - Why do you believe the article is mathematically flawed? (I'm thinking you may have misunderstood something - but possibly there's some error of which I am unaware, and if so, I'll correct the error).

The fact remains that scooping a given sized pot together with sitting out the next hand (or some of the next hand) is more than twice as good as winning half that same sized pot twice.

(I'm aware that two half pots equal one scoop in simulations. That is, you end up with the same number of chips in either event in a simulation. But the comparison I'm making is not for a fixed number of trials where you either (1)scoop, (2)win part, or (3)lose.)

Buzz

[/ QUOTE ]

Buzz, do you remember this old thread? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=3967982&page=0&fpart=all &vc=1)

[Mr. Orange]

Dynasty,

I've read some of your posts (particulary in the stud, Omaha and "other Poker" forums) about the magazine and it doesn't seem many in those forums are willing to share information, fearing it will make the games tougher.
What if there was an article that aimed to refute these beliefs. (this would have be done be someone that is a winning player and writes books... i.e. Sklansky or someone similiar)

While this one particular article wouldn't benefit many in the immediate short term it might be long term +EV if it would encourage more people to contribute.

[tipperdog]

Hi Dynasty,

My thoughts:

I'm surprised no one else has posted this, but I guarantee many readers thought it: There were too many math-intensive articles. King Yao (football betting) does a nice job of incorporating the math into a readable narrative, but others (Bankroll Coinflips) don't. Without establishing an actual "cap," I'd suggest that you attempt to limit the number of math-intensive pieces to 1-2 per magazine.

I also agree with your self-criticism that there wasn't enough hold 'em cash game advice. Your desire to include a broader range of content is right on, but hold 'em is what people play today and it ought to be in every mag.

Also, I like the inclusion of what you've termed "poker journalism," in particular your stud piece. These are interesting breezy pieces to read when you've got a few minutes to spare. "30 questions" was TOO breezy, however. Haven't we all seen enough interviews with Daniel to last a lifetime?

Not a fan of the "classic" article. What's it doing here? If you like this concept, I'd suggest including REAL classics...essays that introduced major new concepts or described important events in poker history.

Good luck moving forward.