[npc]

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.