[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

Lee Jones makes himself out to be at the same level of poker intelect as David, Mason, Dan and Bill,

[/ QUOTE ]

No one has provided any evidence to support that statement. I have read Lee's book and many of his articles. I have never gotten the impression that he considers himself to be an original thinker or theoretician.

I believe that he is a student of the game, and feels that he can provide a service to players by popularizing the work of others. He gives full credit in his work to people like Sklansky for their original work. In the latest edition of his book, he credits Barry Tanenbaum for the improvements to the strategy in the book.

[ QUOTE ]
I have limited knowlege of Lee or his writings, but based on what I have read on 2+2 over time I would assume that David is right, and that his criticisms are justified.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, good. Another poster offers an opinion about a book he didn't read. Not even Sklansky was presumptuous enough to go that far.

David delineated his concept of a "poker writer", and said that Jones was not one. By David's standards, Jones is not a poker writer. No one, including David, has presented any evidence that Jones considers himself to be a "poker writer" on the level of Sklansky.

When David says something about poker strategy, it pays to listen to him. When he starts defining word usage or offering subjective opinions about the attitudes and motives of others, I'll wait and make up my own mind.