[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Masked Man:

There's a very big difference.

Let's look at a hypothetical article that gets published in our magazine that turns out to be inaccurate. What happens is that there is instant feedback on our magazine forum that there is a problem with this article. Therefore, our readers are very quickly informed of this and what the possible problems are. Also, if an article does appear in our magazine that is badly flawed, we do have the option to take it down (even though we have not yet chosen to do this).

Taking this a step further, you in particular are known to quickly point out these type of errors and you don't let up. That's fine with us by the way, and even though at times some may find your approach a little irritating, I for one applaud it even when I happen to be on the receiving end because of the long run good that it actually does.

Now consider when something gets published in a hard copy magazine like Card Player. There will be no counter discussions showing its flaws, and no option to the publisher to remove it. Many readers of the magazine will just think that it must be correct and in this case, since Card Player claims to be the poker authority, they will just assume that Harrington isn't so good after all. That sort of thing, especially if it gets picked up by posters and chatters on the Internet can be long term damaging to Dan (and Bill Robertie) and we're not real fond of it either.

Now let's get a little more specific. This article of Jones not only is badly flawed and very inaccurate, but he went a step further to prove Dan Harrington wrong on something that Dan got absolutely correct.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]



Although David started this thread with the intention of discussing, as he later questioned why was not being done, the points he made showing the flaws in Jones' article, I think that this post of Mason's that I quote is really the issue here, because David's points are almost obviously correct once you read them.

But this issue that Mason has pointed out, of the difference between the magazine here where any errors will quickly be pointed out and corrected versus any hardcopy publications, isn't even really about the defects of Jones and his co-author's strategic advice, as it is about the editors at Cardplayer. 2+2 as pointed out here and in the other thread, has an internal self-correcting mechanism whereby the other 2+2 authors review each other's work prior to publication, or the posters here do regarding various concepts that might be floated prior to being put in written form. But Cardplayer, which purports to be the "go to" source for all that is poker, and is run and edited by supposedly knowledgeable poker players, and also has a stable of regular writers, simply lacks either the true poker brainpower, or the willingness, to implement such a system.

Now one could say that the SAGE system is highly technical in some repsects perhaps, but if the editors there can't understand it to the degree of being able to identify errors, then the only thing they are really editing for is style. Whereas 2+2 has always been lacking in the style department, but always given in its printed works correct advice with the exceptions of typos as far as I have seen, or perhaps minor errors in their consequences.

And this is another point that David often alludes to in postings here and in his writings, that all errors aren't created equal. Any good poker player is supposed to realize that an error that loses a bet or fraction of a bet, isn't nearly as serious as one that loses a pot. But the error of a decision of folding or not, which might be close in equity terms played against a random hand, can indeed be a large one as David points out when one doesn't consider how the opponent is actually playing. Thus Cardplayer rates often in the writings of its various authors to give advice that is very costly in losing pots or stacks.

As I said in the other thread, I don't believe in any way that Lee Jones had the intention of attacking 2+2 or Dan Harrington, and that his mistake was an honest one (although he still might not see it as a mistake and if so honestly believes that). But Jones as a writer at Cardplayer is part of a publishing team there, and the team captains there can't be counted on to give correct strategic and mathematical coaching when necessary to its writer team members. And to me, that is the bottom line of this situation.