Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

I am sure Lee Jones trys very hard to be a good poker writer. And that he is an honest man and a good guy. But none of that changes the fact that he is NOT a good poker writer. At least not by the standards of writers on other subjects. (Serious subjects like bridge building, or less serious subjects like chess, bridge or backgammon.)

In order to write an excellent book about a subject, it is almost certainly necessary that you either be a superb practioner of the subject and a very good thinker and explainer, or a very good practitioner and a superb thinker and explainer. This is especially true once you go beyond a beginner's book. Lee Jones, like many other poker authors, does not meet either of these standards.

The most recent example occurs in the Cardplayer article, discussed already on another thread, where he says that Dan Harrington is wrong to fold Q7 to an all in head up raise. He admits it is close but goes on to say that the game theory strategy says to call and that given the player is an unknown quantity you should stick with that game theory strategy. (I will assume for the sake of argument that the strategy he presents in the article is in fact correctly calculated. But I must add that if it was, Lee Jones almost certainly had nothing to do with those calculations and in fact would have no idea how to do them. Yet he sort of claims half credit.)

The problem is that there are at least FOUR good reasons why, in the scenario presented, you should fold hands that game theory would indicate are close calls. And Jones does not even mention them.

They are:

1. Dan is certainly the better player and will thus gain from avoiding playing big pots when the situation is close. It is true that this factor is not a big deal when the blinds are this high, especially if the opponent is aggressive, but it does count for something.

2. To make the call correct, requires that the opponent is as loose or looser than the game theory move in strategy that the article espouses. But the fact is that most players play tighter than this AS THEIR OWN ARTICLE ADMITS in the fifth paragraph. The notion that the right strategy against an unknown player is game theory strategy is DEAD WRONG. Even if this was the last hand you would ever play, the right strategy against an unknown player is a strategy based on the average playing styles of unknown opponents.

3. Even if you believed your opponent played as well as you and even if you thought he probably played approximately game theory strategy, you should still fold a close decision. Because as long as you think there is a decent chance that he is actually significantly tighter than expected, (in the situation given, remember, this is only the second hand of the head up match) your overall EV is negative if you make this call. Folding can only be a small error. Calling might be a big one.

4. The above holds true even if this is the last hand you will play. But the effect is even stronger because there are more hands to come. In other words if it turns out upon further obsetrvation that he is significantly tighter than he should be preflop, your bad call becomes that much worse because such an opponent is in terrible shape once you deduce this. To make this point clearer, suppose you both had giant stacks and a player moved in on his first hand. If there is a reasonable chance you are up against someone who plays too tightly preflop, which practically guarantees you the tournament, you should fold this first hand with anything short of aces or kings. The same principle applies here, though not as strongly.

I don't blame Lee Jones for wanting to be in the upper echelon of poker writers. And I commend him for seeking out a mathmetican to devise a strategy that seems correct even though it is annoying he sort of claims some credit for it, The fact is that the article is probably a good one. At least if he hadn't ruined it in his zeal to find a flaw in Dan's book. A zeal that only succeeded in once again highlighting that his ideas and words cannot be counted on by serious players.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

well this should be interesting....

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

I enjoy reading everyone's opinion on poker. If it is a wrong idea, I can usually pick it apart in a hurry. I think it is silly that some authors around 2+2 have launched this attack on Lee Jones. I have not read the article but the man is entitled to his own opinion. It is up to the reader to agree or disagree.

WLLH got me started in poker and made me not be a fish anymore. I thought it was an excellent book and still do today. Jones has represented nothing but class. It just seems a bit silly to attack him in my opinion.

I would rather read Dan Harrington’s opinion on the matter.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
At least if he hadn't ruined it in his zeal to find a flaw in Dan's book. A zeal that only succeeded in once again highlighting that his ideas and words cannot be counted on by serious players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lee's zeal to find a flaw in Dan's book is only outdone by your zeal to prove that you're smarter than Lee.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

"I enjoy reading everyone's opinion on poker. If it is a wrong idea, I can usually pick it apart in a hurry. I think it is silly that some authors around 2+2 have launched this attack on Lee Jones. I have not read the article but the man is entitled to his own opinion. It is up to the reader to agree or disagree."

Excuse me? What are you talking about? Maybe you are smart enough to pick apart a wrong idea. But what about those who aren't? When people write about a subject the reader has a right to expect that the logic is correct. Why is poker an exception? Just because there are many situations that are a matter of opinion, doesn't mean that somehow it is okay for writers to be wrong about important situations and concepts that aren't. I have a problem with Lee Jones and many others because they use the fuzziness of poker as a way to fool the public into thinking that their level of expertise is as high as authors of other sujects. And it amazes me that readers who are hurt by these mediocrities come to their defense.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

I too enjoy the different points of view on things like this. I feel it promotes a better way of thinking. Not just read and recycle. It gives you multiple solutions and you must decide which is correct and which is not. I also find it beneficial to understand the reasoning behind those opinions and concepts. However, not every player is able to seperate good advice from flawed advice. I believe the main thing Mr Malmuth and Mr Sklansky are doing is trying to correct these errors or at least make people aware that these corrections need to be made. Many situations in poker are "grey". There are also several that are either "black" or "white". Right or wrong. 2+2 probably has the highest standards in the industry when it comes to the credibility and accuracy of the material they publish. Wether or not they should hold the rest of the industry to their standards is another issue. I feel they have the best intrest of the entire poker community in mind. Card Player is a highly read magazine. A large error could reach many players. I believe the heart of this matter is getting the correct information to the masses. The personal reasonings behind any of it are unfortunate, but have nothing to do with me. I will not comment on them.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

Something as subjective as poker can have many different angles. I do not think anything is black and white when it comes to poker. If we were talking about a math problem or a historical situation where the answer is correct no matter what, then I would agree with you. However, I think it is well documented that differing styles, in poker, can be successful.

I compare poker to politics. A person can read an opinion and draw conclusions rather he/she agrees with it and on what grounds. You will get readers who will believe anything that they read. However, most people are smart enough to figure out that the author is just giving his/her opinion and to take it with a grain of salt.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
Even if this was the last hand you would ever play, the right strategy against an unknown player is a strategy based on the average playing styles of unknown opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is that "average" style and where can I read about it?

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

In your post, the reason you state for thinking that Lee Jones isn't a good poker writer is that he fails to mention any of the four reasons you list why folding in the situation Jones discusses might be good strategy even if it doesn't appear to be game-theoretically correct.

I have no interest in debating the merits of Jones as a poker writer in this forum, but in your analysis you failed to consider any of several legitimate reasons why Jones may have been aware of the points you raise but not include them in his article. Off the top of my head, here are TWO:

1. As you are well aware, magazine columnists often are forced to trim worthwhile content from articles in order to meet publishers' length restrictions. Jones may have wanted to discuss at least some of these issues but was forced to trim them due to publishing constraints.

2. Jones may be aware of the issues you raise but believed that printing them in that article wasn't important compared to other things he had to say.

You mention that a writer should either be superb at his subject matter and a competent writer or be a superb writer and competent at his subject matter. Assuming you are correct in your analysis of Jones' writing, and assuming you don't actually know the reasons why Jones didn't include the information you want, you can plausibly claim that he is either not a superb writer or not a superb strategist, but it seems to me you cannot demonstrate both. Consequently, I'm unconvinced by your analysis.

Mr. Sklansky, there are many things you could do with your time that would benefit yourself and, because of your extreme talents, humanity. It would be my recommendation that spending your efforts explaining why Mr. Jones is not a good poker writer is a cause that is unworthy of you.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

Hi Nick:

[ QUOTE ]
1. As you are well aware, magazine columnists often are forced to trim worthwhile content from articles in order to meet publishers' length restrictions. Jones may have wanted to discuss at least some of these issues but was forced to trim them due to publishing constraints.


[/ QUOTE ]

It was the feature article in the magazine, so it's unlikely in my opinion that length restrictions would be an issue like it might be with a columist.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Jones may be aware of the issues you raise but believed that printing them in that article wasn't important compared to other things he had to say.


[/ QUOTE ]

If Jones writes about the issues that David raises, then his conclusion that Harrington got it wrong and his statement about this being mathematically provable wouldn't make sense anymore.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

David and Mason, may not ever win Miss Congeniality, but if I want warm and fuzzy, I'll start reading Dr Phil.

If I was a publisher and a competitor wrote in a NATIONALLY PUBLISHED MAGAZINE, that one of my writers was wrong, then I say GAME ON! If said writer was also wrong in his criticisms, then it would be no holds barred full contact ass chewing.

I don't know Lee Jones, I own the first edition of his book and I don't read Card Player Magazine. Everyone seems to be saying, Mason should play nice and David should play nice, but what about Lee? Lee writes in a nationally published magazine that Dan Harrington is wrong and his book is flawed. You might argue that He didn't actually say that, but any reasonable man would draw that conclusion.

WTF, Why does Lee have to try and bust Dan Harrington in his article? Lee could have easily described the situation and explained his point without mentioning Dan's name or book. He jumps right out saying Dan is wrong and Mason and David are calling him down.

If you try to steal the blinds and run into AA, expect to get reraised.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

Mr. David S wrote in part:

[ QUOTE ]
Excuse me? What are you talking about? Maybe you are smart enough to pick apart a wrong idea. But what about those who aren't?

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what? I'm in this set of people who aren't that he describes, at least some of the time about some of the games. It's really important for me to read advice that I know I can take to the bank. Wrong headed ideas are expensive and honestly this statement about Q7 and game theory can be expensive. Especially to some who plays NL Hold'em SNGs IMO. I've been taking David's advice to the bank for decades. When I read a book from 2+2 I know I can rely on it's accuracy. Not so for other books from other publishers. DS has explained how a few pieces of bad advice can be expensive many times over the years.

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Something as subjective as poker can have many different angles. I do not think anything is black and white when it comes to poker. If we were talking about a math problem or a historical situation where the answer is correct no matter what, then I would agree with you. However, I think it is well documented that differing styles, in poker, can be successful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like the Jones statement about game theory and playing Q7 is a "black and white" statement to me. Poker situations are analyzed logically. This paragraph is basically a non sequiter IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
I compare poker to politics. A person can read an opinion and draw conclusions rather he/she agrees with it and on what grounds. You will get readers who will believe anything that they read. However, most people are smart enough to figure out that the author is just giving his/her opinion and to take it with a grain of salt.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF???????????????

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

Well, where were mason ed, and david when Barron Vangor Toth wrote articles in the 2+2 magazine that people like El Diablo, Daryn and Stellarwind all felt were "clearly wrong"? They tried to use a defense of "the magazine's purpose is to put new debatable topics in print" etc...

It all just seems so personal.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

Jones throws a marshmellow at 2+2 and they respond with nuclear carpet bombing.

I think 2+2 authors have inferiority complexes.

If I'm Michael Jordan and someone tells me I suck at basketball I laugh and keep walking, I don't have to "prove" anything. 2+2 authors need to have this attitude *

(except of course if someone is on a crusade to destroy/undermine them, but Lee Jones certainly is not)

Also, why do you think Jones' motivation is to appear like some sort of poker knowledge God to the public? I don't think he is, I think he's just presenting his thoughts (for better or worse) and isn't schemeing to somehow achieve a high level of notority in the poker world.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would rather read Dan Harrington’s opinion on the matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Dan Harrington has way too much class to become involved in such petty trivialities.

In fact, this much ado about nothing probably embarrasses him.

You never see Ray Zee get involved in this spiteful tripe.

[Oops, phone ringing...hello? Ray? Mason here...we NEED your help. I got David to chime in, and even though you don't know anything about game theory, we desperately need you to jump on board. Step up to the plate and take one for the team, Ray. I mean can you imagine? Lee Jones actualy trying to say he authored an article about game theory? This is BLASPHEMY! Help us, Ray, please.

Uh, Mason...[censored] you.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

Why is no one discussing the four issues I brought up? I would think that is a lot more important than whether I should be polite to mediocre writers.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is no one discussing the four issues I brought up? I would think that is a lot more important than whether I should be polite to mediocre writers.

[/ QUOTE ]


Hahahahaha. That sounds pathetic. The majority of the posts that I have read in this thread and the other one started by Mason, all have been trying to point out that the two of you should be a lot more professional in your responses and have some class.

The two of you sound like you got your feelings hurt over this whole situation, its so pathetic. It's like crying over someone who went runner runner against your flopped set of Aces.

There was a post by someone (either in this thread or the other one) saying if they were Michael Jordon and someone said you sucked, that they would just walk away laughing. Just walk away and laugh - why do you guys care about what someone else thinks.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]

WTF, Why does Lee have to try and bust Dan Harrington in his article? Lee could have easily described the situation and explained his point without mentioning Dan's name or book. He jumps right out saying Dan is wrong and Mason and David are calling him down.


[/ QUOTE ]

When I read the article, the sense I got was of "See, this is such a common mistake that even the best players in the world make it!"

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

"Just walk away and laugh - why do you guys care about what someone else thinks."

Mason's issues are slightly different than mine. What I care about is getting people to realize that the subject of poker allows people to portray an expertise they don't have. (Because mildly flawed thinking ability does not always doom a player to be a loser. It only makes his chances of success a lot smaller.)

Competent writers in other fields know that the charlatans will be quickly "outed" and in fact most of these mediocrites won't even attempt to enter the field. Not so in poker. It amazes me that all readers who are trying to win money are not avidly interested in knowing whose writngs are usually trustworthy and whose aren't.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

Interesting point and well put. I see that with the opinions and comments made by people at the poker table as they discuss their hands amongst themselves. I especially like it when I see people who think their skills are great based on being results oriented - everyone thinks they are a great poker player.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
There was a post by someone (either in this thread or the other one) saying if they were Michael Jordon and someone said you sucked, that they would just walk away laughing. Just walk away and laugh - why do you guys care about what someone else thinks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, we have to straighten out this line of thought. If I walk up to Michael jodan and tell him, he sucks at basketball, it has absolutely no impact on his cash flow or reputation. If a a well known poker author writes in a feature article in a nationally published magazine that a poker book is wrong, that has a negative impact on sales of that book and the reputation of the writer and publisher.

Micahel Jordan can shrug it off because it doesn't matter, it makes no difference what I think or say about his game. Let someone that has some influence in sports cut on him, someone that can influence his sponsers and cost him an endorsement and see if he rolls over and takes it.

Compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, please.

Who was the athlete that got in huge trouble for talking bad about his teamates? I think he got fired, traded or suspended or something. I don't folow sports but please don't use spoiled rotten, dope head professional athletes as models of professional behavior.

Professional athletes make David and Mason look like angels.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
What I care about is getting people to realize that the subject of poker allows people to portray an expertise they don't have.

[/ QUOTE ]

This a true statement, but it's also true of a large number of fields. Poker isn't exclusive in this regard. I know you know this as well. Poker isn't even rare in this regard.

[ QUOTE ]

Competent writers in other fields know that the charlatans will be quickly "outed" and in fact most of these mediocrites won't even attempt to enter the field.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this. The world of sports reporting, IMHO, is primarily occupied by charlatans. Business writing is filled with idiots who appear to be experts but really know very little. Even a "harder" field such as information technology is filled with methods and advice that is demonstrably wrong. Very rarely are the people who say silly things in these fields called on it in situations that matter much more than this Jones example.

[ QUOTE ]
Not so in poker. It amazes me that all readers who are trying to win money are not avidly interested in knowing whose writngs are usually trustworthy and whose aren't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel the same sense of confusion as you, and I also feel the same way about the other fields that I mentioned. This is human nature. I applaud your efforts to educate the public. I have no argument with the substance of your response. I think you would do your cause and personal reputation some good if you were to write your response using a different tone. Maybe you don't care about this stuff, but the audience you're trying to reach does. The best educators take this into account.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

David,

It would have been nice to see you jump in the discussions I was having when articles with very bad advice were printed in the 2+2 magazine (I pointed out the errors in two of the articles, one of which turned into an incredibly long thread) or in the very long NL thread where Mason and I were arguing about the EV of AQ v. JJ in a certain situation. In all of these cases, the 2+2-endorsed advice was clearly shown to be wrong, but none of the other 2+2 authors chimed in to take a position.

It is disappointing to see such a lack of discussion around 2+2 errors, while you guys are so quick to jump on Lee's alleged (I haven't read the article at issue here) errors.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
David,

It would have been nice to see you jump in the discussions I was having when articles with very bad advice were printed in the 2+2 magazine (I pointed out the errors in two of the articles, one of which turned into an incredibly long thread) or in the very long NL thread where Mason and I were arguing about the EV of AQ v. JJ in a certain situation. In all of these cases, the 2+2-endorsed advice was clearly shown to be wrong, but none of the other 2+2 authors chimed in to take a position.

It is disappointing to see such a lack of discussion around 2+2 errors, while you guys are so quick to jump on Lee's alleged (I haven't read the article at issue here) errors.

[/ QUOTE ]

El D -

You must have missed what Mason said in the parallel thread...

"When someone is correct that one of us is wrong we acknowledge it and make the correction as soon as we can.

Best wishes,
Mason"

Surely, you must be mistaking, el D.

Josh

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

David -

You asked somebody to comment on your four 'points'. Here is my initial gut reaction.

[ QUOTE ]


1. Dan is certainly the better player and will thus gain from avoiding playing big pots when the situation is close. It is true that this factor is not a big deal when the blinds are this high, especially if the opponent is aggressive, but it does count for something.



[/ QUOTE ]

I believe (haven't read the article in question or HoH) that Lee asserts his 'system' is applicable only when blinds are high. He said in a NVG thread that:

"1. We specifically said that if the stack:blind ratios are large, you can't employ a fold/jam strategy without getting killed. Our strategy shows +EV for the small blind when the ratio of the smallest stack to the large blind (after the blinds are posted) is smaller than 7:1. Note that this is almost always true in S&Gs. It is also almost never true in major large buyin tournaments."

So, to your "point" #1 (which you finish with "this factor is not a big deal when the blinds are this high"), you've already negated the relevance of. I don't see why you want others to do this, too.

But more importantly, you say "Dan is certainly the better player and will thus gain from avoiding big pots when the situation is close". I'm pretty sure that Dan didn't write his book for him. He probably wrote his book for lesser players, who aspire to be like him. Moreover, I'd bet lots of money that Lee's system isn't aimed at improving Dan Harrington's sit N go game, but rather at lesser players' game. So, again, your point has no relevance.

[ QUOTE ]

2. To make the call correct, requires that the opponent is as loose or looser than the game theory move in strategy that the article espouses. But the fact is that most players play tighter than this AS THEIR OWN ARTICLE ADMITS in the fifth paragraph. The notion that the right strategy against an unknown player is game theory strategy is DEAD WRONG. Even if this was the last hand you would ever play, the right strategy against an unknown player is a strategy based on the average playing styles of unknown opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I agree.

[ QUOTE ]

3. Even if you believed your opponent played as well as you and even if you thought he probably played approximately game theory strategy, you should still fold a close decision. Because as long as you think there is a decent chance that he is actually significantly tighter than expected, (in the situation given, remember, this is only the second hand of the head up match) your overall EV is negative if you make this call. Folding can only be a small error. Calling might be a big one.

[/ QUOTE ]

WHAT? This 'point' only has relevance if:
a.) We think our opponent is as good as us.
b.) We think our opponent uses good game theory.
c.) We think our opponent is "significantly tighter than expected"

The fact that you could write such a painfully obvious contradiction in the same post where you criticize other professional writers is comical.

[ QUOTE ]

4. The above holds true even if this is the last hand you will play. But the effect is even stronger because there are more hands to come. In other words if it turns out upon further obsetrvation that he is significantly tighter than he should be preflop, your bad call becomes that much worse because such an opponent is in terrible shape once you deduce this. To make this point clearer, suppose you both had giant stacks and a player moved in on his first hand. If there is a reasonable chance you are up against someone who plays too tightly preflop, which practically guarantees you the tournament, you should fold this first hand with anything short of aces or kings. The same principle applies here, though not as strongly.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree (not withstanding the "above holds true" comment).

Josh

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

I'm not going to try and understand the points that David was trying to make, because it's a subject I'm not too familiar with, however...

I think he has every right to defend his publications against attacks by others.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is no one discussing the four issues I brought up? I would think that is a lot more important than whether I should be polite to mediocre writers.

[/ QUOTE ]

To me there is no place for discussion. I believe 100% that you and Mr. Malmuth are correct. Again, it's unfortunate that all these matters of personal issues have become the focus of these threads.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is no one discussing the four issues I brought up? I would think that is a lot more important than whether I should be polite to mediocre writers.

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

I would love to comment on the four points you brought up but I am having a lot of trouble with the printer right now. I will let others elaborate.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

3. Even if you believed your opponent played as well as you and even if you thought he probably played approximately game theory strategy, you should still fold a close decision. Because as long as you think there is a decent chance that he is actually significantly tighter than expected, (in the situation given, remember, this is only the second hand of the head up match) your overall EV is negative if you make this call. Folding can only be a small error. Calling might be a big one.

[/ QUOTE ]



WHAT? This 'point' only has relevance if:
a.) We think our opponent is as good as us.
b.) We think our opponent uses good game theory.
c.) We think our opponent is "significantly tighter than expected"

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no, no, no that's not his point. His point is that thee's at least some chance that your judgment about the particular player is wrong.


a.) We think our opponent is as good as us.
b.) We think our opponent uses good game theory.
c.) Most players play significantly tighter than this though. There is at least some chance that the assesment about the opponent is wrong i.e. there is an X% chance the beliefs that the opponent being as good as we are and making their plays using sound game theory analysis is wrong.

Therefore since our assessment of our opponent may be wrong it makes more sense to fold when the decision is close if there was a 100% chance our assesment is right.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

Didn't Jones come on this forum and complain about some of the comments Ed Miller made about WLLH? I mean all authors are sensitive to what they feel are erroneous criticism of their work from what I've seen. I can tell you that Mason and DS take the accuracy of their work very seriously. When someone makes an erroneous statement about something that is literally worth millions to them I don't find it unusual at all for them to defend the content of their books vigorously.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
Excuse me? What are you talking about? Maybe you are smart enough to pick apart a wrong idea. But what about those who aren't?

[/ QUOTE ]

They're forced to use other, more subtle clues to decide whom to trust.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

I know this sounds very sarcastic, but after he admitted to having flaws in his advice in the first printing of low limit holdem, i just assume he sticks to scuba diving.
i mean, if he has not been able to put these theories to actual use, (himself) with pos results. why should we?
also against robotic players this theory may apply.
BUT IN THE REAL WORLD, YOU MUST KNOW YOUR OPPONENT,
before making any decisions, even including pot odds.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, we have to straighten out this line of thought. If I walk up to Michael jodan and tell him, he sucks at basketball, it has absolutely no impact on his cash flow or reputation. If a a well known poker author writes in a feature article in a nationally published magazine that a poker book is wrong, that has a negative impact on sales of that book and the reputation of the writer and publisher.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might, if the well-known poker author said that the book in question was significantly flawed.

But if, as appears to be the case here, he said the book was terrific, he just happened to disagree with a single point that its author had made, I'd expect the overall impact on sales (if any) to be positive.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Just walk away and laugh - why do you guys care about what someone else thinks."

Mason's issues are slightly different than mine. What I care about is getting people to realize that the subject of poker allows people to portray an expertise they don't have. (Because mildly flawed thinking ability does not always doom a player to be a loser. It only makes his chances of success a lot smaller.)

Competent writers in other fields know that the charlatans will be quickly "outed" and in fact most of these mediocrites won't even attempt to enter the field. Not so in poker. It amazes me that all readers who are trying to win money are not avidly interested in knowing whose writngs are usually trustworthy and whose aren't.

[/ QUOTE ]

LEE JONES. NEVER played to support himself.
WROTE a flawed book on low limit holdem (which he tried to re-do)
SHOULD DEFINITELY stick to scuba diving.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is no one discussing the four issues I brought up? I would think that is a lot more important than whether I should be polite to mediocre writers.

[/ QUOTE ]



I think your points are correct.
you are saying more articulately what I had been thinking before. Something along the lines that a 51-49 advantage on a push in this situation isn't worth it if we can assume that we play better than the opponent....and that on the 2nd hand of heads-up we shouldn't be making assumptions that is playing ideally (because he probably isn't).


I think there would have been more discussion about these aspects if you hadn't done some of the Lee-bashing in the thread.


You want to talk about the specific points?
Then lets just stick to the specific points in the first place.
Be polite about it and move forward.

The best way to show the rest of the community the flaws in Lee's thinking is to be professional about it and JUST stick to those flaws.

Bringing up ideas about how Lee is supposedly attacking 2+2 or that he just isn't very smart in the first place just makes 2+2 appear to be defensive.


There is little doubt in my mind that David and Mason's thoughts about the article are correct.

i think many more would be able to see that if they weren't so distracted by some of the defensiveness.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
What I care about is getting people to realize that the subject of poker allows people to portray an expertise they don't have.

[/ QUOTE ]

But not you?

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

Sorry David but.....
I have enjoyed your books, but you have crossed the line here. Since you start with the qualifications to be a writer....you can't be serious! Your books are the first that I have ever bought (and yes I have them all), that apologizes for grammar and spelling at the beginning of the book. Part of being a good writer also includes being able to write to your audience. Your books are full of the best poker knowledge available, but I think most would admit the reader really has to work to get it out.

Never brought this up before, because I figured this was just the accepted level in the poker arena. So climb down off your high-horse.


jwb885

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

Here is one of the threads, started by Mason, that Diablo is referencing.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...page=&vc=1

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here is one of the threads, started by Mason, that Diablo is referencing.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...page=&vc=1

[/ QUOTE ]


good man, I was thinking about searching.

Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
 

Hi Josh:

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, I'd bet lots of money that Lee's system isn't aimed at improving Dan Harrington's sit N go game, but rather at lesser players' game.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this statement is that if "lesser players" were to call at the frequency that SAGE suggests, they will do not as well as they should if they take into account that most of their opponents will not be playing as aggressively as SAGE assumes.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you could write such a painfully obvious contradiction in the same post where you criticize other professional writers is comical.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a statistical concept that is important in many aspects of poker (and other gambling). You need to understand that not all errors are created equal. In terminology that I used years ago, this is "self-weighting" thinking. (See my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics.)

Best wishes,
Mason