Re: Lee Jones Flawed Thinking
I think that many many articles in card-player attempt to 'prove' many 2+2 theories incorrect just by advocating an alternate (re: flawed) way of playing.
So Lee is not unique in this regard.
However, in this situation he specifically sited HOH and thought that he had proved one of the concepts incorrect.
There isn't much stuff out there for him to compare his system to and he chose an example from HOH where he would have played differently (and somehow believes it shouldn't be considered a close decision).
Big deal.
He was wrong.
On cardplayer I read flawed strategies all the time and this seems to happen quite a bit so I'm not that bothered by it.
What if in the article he had used language such as, "Harrington says to fold Q7 here...and with the SAGE system we FEEL (or BELIEVE) that we have proved that this is incorrect."
Would using such language have made it better?
It certainly would have been more accurate because I believe that just pushing the SAGE system as the 'best' way (and bordering on being, 'the only good way') is incorrect.
I don't necessarily think the language shows that they are all hyper about a flaw in Harrington's methods.
They are so excited about their SAGE system that they think they have developed a new way of doing things that actually IS a bit different than how Harrington would do it.
And they claim it to be better.
There are lots of other people out there who will tell you to not bother with the 2+2 stuff and instead to read Krieger or Hellmuth's limit advice or whoever.
So Jones is just another person who has some flawed (or horribly wrong) advice in my mind.
I do believe it was mistaken for them to simply assert that this new SAGE system is obviously correct (has it even been implemented in actual play over a reasonable sample size?)
But I find that cardplayer does this a lot with other situations too. Just pushing some not-so-great way of playing and the writer insisting it is the best.
So really, it seems that the big issue here is that he directly compared his system with a 2+2 work and made the mistake of thinking that he was right.
|