One Year Review as Editor
 

Mason Malmuth, as the Publisher, is who I report to each month when publishing a new issue of the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine. However, both of us are mostly intrested in readers' opinions about the quality of the Magazine. Now that I have published a year's worth of issues, it seems a good time to get a job review.

The Two Plus Two Internet Magazine started in January of 2005. Since then, there have been three editors.

Mason Malmuth: January, 2005 to June, 2005 & August, 2006 (7 issues)
Ed Miller: July, 2005 to July, 2006 (13 issues)
Bryan Clark: September, 2006 to present (12 issues)

I've been in the position of editor long enough so that now I should get the credit for what's good about the Magazine and the blame for what's bad about it.

Those who were reading the Magazine regularly a year ago should recognize that there has been a fair amount of change including our staff of regular writers and the general emphasis of the content.

So, I've created this thread hoping readers will let loose with all their opinions of the Magazine, what's been done right and wrong over the past year, and what readers want to see going forward. You're the boss. What do you say?

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

Honestly?

Does every article have to be a serious article about poker strategy?

If you look at the mainstream poker (paper) magazines they are full of articles about a wide assortment of things, such as trip reports and whatnot.

Even the strategy articles in the 2+2 mag are predominantly covering unpopular games.

I think the whole direction of the magazine should be reconsidered.

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

I think you are doing a great job.



Off the top of my head, I'd like to see more .......

a) Limit Hold'em

b) Ray Zee

c) Sklansky (new)

d) Nolan Dalla

e) Stoxtrader


All in all, I really like the 2+2 mag.


Best Wishes

Howard

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

Let me add that I think your efforts and dedication appear to be impeccable.

But let's call a spade a spade here. You're simply not going to attract that many readers when there are a bunch of topics that nobody is really interested in, such as strategy articles on Badugi or Chinese Poker or the other unpopular games.

In my experience magazines are meant to entertain.

I think strategy articles are important, especially considering this is a 2+2 product, but at the same time I think this should only be one part of the formula.

I can think of a lot of interesting articles that don't really appear anywhere else right now, such as following some of the results of the high-stakes online cash games (there is a site that tracks these and the guy posts here as well) and following the legal landscape of online poker amongst other things.

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

Wow I love the magazine. We have so much info on the "popular games", and u guys still include articles on those too I dont understand the complaint. I think the fact that u run articles on these other games sets you apart from anything else going on in the poker world media.

I only read the draw/badugi/chinese articles right now, but they are all good and I am a poker information junkie and see myself attacking the archives on a rainy day.

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let me add that I think your efforts and dedication appear to be impeccable.

But let's call a spade a spade here. You're simply not going to attract that many readers when there are a bunch of topics that nobody is really interested in, such as strategy articles on Badugi or Chinese Poker or the other unpopular games.

In my experience magazines are meant to entertain.

I think strategy articles are important, especially considering this is a 2+2 product, but at the same time I think this should only be one part of the formula.

I can think of a lot of interesting articles that don't really appear anywhere else right now, such as following some of the results of the high-stakes online cash games (there is a site that tracks these and the guy posts here as well) and following the legal landscape of online poker amongst other things.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's all kinds of good info on the popular games. I appreciate reading about the less popular games even though I rarely play them. It helps you think about poker in a different way. There's still enough in the mag about hold em. Plus, I really like anything Yao writes on sports betting.

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

You had two press passes to the WSOP. Why no articles? You wasted a great opportunity. Also, two of the most memorable pieces from the past year were written by you.(Stud & Stardust articles) You should write more.

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

I think you are doing great job just keep it up.

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

There are a couple of issues here.

What should the magazine contain? Is Dynasty doing a good job finding authors who write the articles that 2+2 readers want?

If I wanted a magazine that was about personalities, tournament reports, and NLHE, I'd just read Card Player. I think there is a need for a solid strategy-oriented publication. I hope that's what 2+2 Publishing wanted to produce!

I like reading articles about a variety of games, because I play a variety. I can understand why NLHE-focused players don't find much of interest. But I think that top players are still going to benefit from learning a variety of games. I like the current mix a lot better than the stories and such we saw more of a year ago, even if there are particular strategy articles I thought were weak or uninformative.

(I'm surprised to see complaints about Chinese in this thread because AFAIK no article on Chinese Poker has yet appeared!)

Dynasty has said he'd like to see more LHE submissions. I know from personal experience Dynasty is willing to go out and aggressively recruit articles. Maybe more creative solutions are required to get those articles, but I admit I don't have any brilliant ideas.

How has Dynasty performed his editorial duties? Are the articles of high quality and well-presented?

My #1 complaint, as an author, is that it hasn't been clear to me whether an article was accepted or not, until it shows up.

There have been some formatting issues (font changes within an article on some browsers, etc.) which I think have now been fixed.

I think there have been several articles (including my own) that could benefit from some revision/editing. I don't expect a formal peer-review (this is not an academic publication, after all) but I think Dynasty could do more to ensure that articles are well-written, accurate, and readable.

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

[ QUOTE ]

If I wanted a magazine that was about personalities, tournament reports, and NLHE, I'd just read Card Player. I think there is a need for a solid strategy-oriented publication. I hope that's what 2+2 Publishing wanted to produce!

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly.

[ QUOTE ]
I like reading articles about a variety of games, because I play a variety. I can understand why NLHE-focused players don't find much of interest. But I think that top players are still going to benefit from learning a variety of games. I like the current mix a lot better than the stories and such we saw more of a year ago, even if there are particular strategy articles I thought were weak or uninformative.


[/ QUOTE ]

typically i enjoy the content very much. diversity of subject matter is good. i may not play badugi, for instance, but i'm aware of it and also aware of it's growing popularity. it seems to me that writing strategy articles for such a game is progressive and cutting edge, and not at all a waste of space.

keep up the good work, Dynasty.

oh, and more STT stuff please!

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

I think strategy articles about lesser-known games are outstanding additions to the 2+2 magazine. Rigorous analysis of +EV opportunities is what 2+2 is all about.

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

I would not spend too much time listening to the people that are complaining about not liking one or two of the articles that appear each month. One advantage to a magazine which contains numerous articles is that you can skip the ones you don't like and read and re-read the articles that appeal to you. When I read through a copy of Forbes I may typically read from begining to end 30% of the articles, skim through 50% and skip the other 20% based on topic or the headline. I would be surprised if any publication expects that all readers will read every word written.

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

I don't know how it happened, but the magazine no longer publishes Barron Vangor Toth. Bravo!

edit: Dynasty, do you have stats on which articles get the most hits?

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

I like the new format. Like many I like the variety of contents. Personally my biggest missing feature is archives of older magazines. I know the contract is 3 months, and that is fine, but a table of contents listing the article title and author name for past issues at a minimum would be very useful. It is hard to know to contact an author when there is no easily findable history. And I'm sure that while some authors are very glad for the 3 month only (Yao has said he wouldn't do it otherwise), I'm sure others wouldn't mind sharing their articles past the 3 months.

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly?

Does every article have to be a serious article about poker strategy?

If you look at the mainstream poker (paper) magazines they are full of articles about a wide assortment of things, such as trip reports and whatnot.

Even the strategy articles in the 2+2 mag are predominantly covering unpopular games.

I think the whole direction of the magazine should be reconsidered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm I think the magazine would be more popular if there were an NVG element to it. But I don't know if the goal of the magazine is necessarily to be popular. I know 2+2 has it's standards on things, and if that's the case, I think the magazine is very good as it is.

In practice, I wonder why I don't read it more. I guess I get my fill of strat from the strat forums. The articles definitely have their place in that they have the math that would be overkill for an everyday strat post, and it would suck if there weren't a place for those who want to do rigorous math. And there always seem to be a couple of articles with good insight on a game I play. So I definitely think the magazine is a good thing to have that rounds out this website, regardless. It is something more than its individual views. For instance, this wonderful post is oddly out of place in a strat forum, it got 12 replies in 18 hours and none for the next day and half now. It's what we say we want, but once we get it we don't want to read through it.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...=2#Post11803050

I also wonder if, on a subconscious level, I'd read it more if there were more pictures and graphics? Presentation seems to be blah.

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

In General I really like the magazine, but I would like some more practical Acrticles where a hand is discussed from all angles to give Players the chance to see how many factors come into the decision making of a really good player.

More STT and MTT stuff please [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

a good thing about the magazine is that it contains articles about lots of different gambling scenarios. each month it may have varied thoughts to interest all the different types of readers. after reading for a few months a person should gain many new ideas to think about and certainly learn some new tricks to help one make more money..

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

i love what you've done Dyn.

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

I think the magazine has been great.

The editing could be better. It seems like there are 2-3 spelling or grammatical errors in every article.

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

I read the magazine more now than I did before you took over editing duties. I find the articles to be, in general, more useful to me. That includes the non-HE content, even though I play NLHE pretty much exclusively.

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

I have two 2+2 articles under my belt now, and hope they are of some interest. Personally, I enjoy most of the magazine each month, and the stuff I don't find interesting I can see how someone else might. I also think the standard of writing is high. Bravo.

I have no interest in seeing fluff pieces and hope the focus remains on excellent analysis of poker and other gambling.

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

I think Dynasty has done a fantastic job.

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

It has been a very solid year.

The magazine has incubated several writers whose efforts have been turned into remarkable books (Moshman, Yao, Streib) and has had outstanding serial contributions from others who are natural candidates (Frank Jerome, Mark Gritter, Jeffage, Nate Meyvis, and I'm sure someone is getting accidentally overlooked) for producing their own titles.

The variety of strategy articles has been a major strength.

The only thing I'd change is to minimize or eliminate the "personality" type features (like the Tony G or Phil Laak pieces). The magazine doesn't have to be pure strategy, the Vegas history type contributions have been fitting, but steer away from the areas which Card Player and the other traditional magazines have oversaturated.

Really the only disappointment is that the magazine is so often overlooked as an incubator for discussion. Finding a way to stimulate discussion of the many fine articles would be a major improvement.

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

[ QUOTE ]
Really the only disappointment is that the magazine is so often overlooked as an incubator for discussion. Finding a way to stimulate discussion of the many fine articles would be a major improvement.

[/ QUOTE ]

In addition to the discussion forum here, perhaps ifthe article author's started a "Discuss and review: Article XXXX" thread in the appropriate strategy forum, that would help. There's usually good discussions for books when that happens.

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

[ QUOTE ]


In addition to the discussion forum here, perhaps if the article author's started a "Discuss and review: Article XXXX" thread in the appropriate strategy forum, that would help. There's usually good discussions for books when that happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps this could be done automatically, with a mini thread appearing under each article in the magazine.

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really the only disappointment is that the magazine is so often overlooked as an incubator for discussion. Finding a way to stimulate discussion of the many fine articles would be a major improvement.

[/ QUOTE ]

In addition to the discussion forum here, perhaps ifthe article author's started a "Discuss and review: Article XXXX" thread in the appropriate strategy forum, that would help. There's usually good discussions for books when that happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be best if the discussion could happen here in the magazine forum rather than in the strat forums. Perhaps this could be done for a while with stickies (understanding that the mods have a general distaste for stickies).

The Magazine and the Magazine forum probably get a decent amount of lurker traffic. This traffic may or may not venture to the strat. forums as often as the read the magazine. The strat. forums can be implicitly unwelcoming to casual readers or lurkers as they're filled with a lot of insider type banter, jargon and low content replies.

The Magazine and Mag. forum have always struck me as being more information rich, more helpful and lower in fluff. The Mag. forum strikes me as a natural gateway to bring in other poker strategy oriented 2+2 members.

Should most of the magazine get discussed in strat forums it seems like some continuity is lost and the discussion can fall under the sway of some of the less attractive features of the 2+2 community.

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

I love the magazine.

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

[ QUOTE ]
Should most of the magazine get discussed in strat forums it seems like some continuity is lost and the discussion can fall under the sway of some of the less attractive features of the 2+2 community.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps. I can certainly see where you're coming from. I take a more wholistic view, though. I see the magazine as an entry point into the broader 2+2 strategy discussions. One of the benefits of it to the overall site is to hook new readers and convert them into regular visitors and participants. That in turn grows the membership of the site, fosters more discussion of topics, and increases hits, thereby generating revenue.

That is, I don't view the Magazine in isolation, but rather as a key component in recruiting new site participants. It's a content-rich advertisement for the strategy discussion that can be found here.

Re: One Year Review as Editor
 

As an author of 3 articles, I like the way I've been edited. All three articles were vastly improved after Dynasty got his paws on them.

As a reader, I like that the magazine covers the less popular games as well as the popular games. I would like to see, perhaps, one non-strategy (profile / news / interview)type article per issue.