Lee Jones Flawed Thinking

[Matt Ruff]

[ QUOTE ]
Excuse me? What are you talking about? Maybe you are smart enough to pick apart a wrong idea. But what about those who aren't?

[/ QUOTE ]

They're forced to use other, more subtle clues to decide whom to trust.

[mike3076]

I know this sounds very sarcastic, but after he admitted to having flaws in his advice in the first printing of low limit holdem, i just assume he sticks to scuba diving.
i mean, if he has not been able to put these theories to actual use, (himself) with pos results. why should we?
also against robotic players this theory may apply.
BUT IN THE REAL WORLD, YOU MUST KNOW YOUR OPPONENT,
before making any decisions, even including pot odds.

[Matt Ruff]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, we have to straighten out this line of thought. If I walk up to Michael jodan and tell him, he sucks at basketball, it has absolutely no impact on his cash flow or reputation. If a a well known poker author writes in a feature article in a nationally published magazine that a poker book is wrong, that has a negative impact on sales of that book and the reputation of the writer and publisher.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might, if the well-known poker author said that the book in question was significantly flawed.

But if, as appears to be the case here, he said the book was terrific, he just happened to disagree with a single point that its author had made, I'd expect the overall impact on sales (if any) to be positive.

[mike3076]

[ QUOTE ]
"Just walk away and laugh - why do you guys care about what someone else thinks."

Mason's issues are slightly different than mine. What I care about is getting people to realize that the subject of poker allows people to portray an expertise they don't have. (Because mildly flawed thinking ability does not always doom a player to be a loser. It only makes his chances of success a lot smaller.)

Competent writers in other fields know that the charlatans will be quickly "outed" and in fact most of these mediocrites won't even attempt to enter the field. Not so in poker. It amazes me that all readers who are trying to win money are not avidly interested in knowing whose writngs are usually trustworthy and whose aren't.

[/ QUOTE ]

LEE JONES. NEVER played to support himself.
WROTE a flawed book on low limit holdem (which he tried to re-do)
SHOULD DEFINITELY stick to scuba diving.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is no one discussing the four issues I brought up? I would think that is a lot more important than whether I should be polite to mediocre writers.

[/ QUOTE ]



I think your points are correct.
you are saying more articulately what I had been thinking before. Something along the lines that a 51-49 advantage on a push in this situation isn't worth it if we can assume that we play better than the opponent....and that on the 2nd hand of heads-up we shouldn't be making assumptions that is playing ideally (because he probably isn't).


I think there would have been more discussion about these aspects if you hadn't done some of the Lee-bashing in the thread.


You want to talk about the specific points?
Then lets just stick to the specific points in the first place.
Be polite about it and move forward.

The best way to show the rest of the community the flaws in Lee's thinking is to be professional about it and JUST stick to those flaws.

Bringing up ideas about how Lee is supposedly attacking 2+2 or that he just isn't very smart in the first place just makes 2+2 appear to be defensive.


There is little doubt in my mind that David and Mason's thoughts about the article are correct.

i think many more would be able to see that if they weren't so distracted by some of the defensiveness.

[-Skeme-]

[ QUOTE ]
What I care about is getting people to realize that the subject of poker allows people to portray an expertise they don't have.

[/ QUOTE ]

But not you?

[JWB885]

Sorry David but.....
I have enjoyed your books, but you have crossed the line here. Since you start with the qualifications to be a writer....you can't be serious! Your books are the first that I have ever bought (and yes I have them all), that apologizes for grammar and spelling at the beginning of the book. Part of being a good writer also includes being able to write to your audience. Your books are full of the best poker knowledge available, but I think most would admit the reader really has to work to get it out.

Never brought this up before, because I figured this was just the accepted level in the poker arena. So climb down off your high-horse.


jwb885

[AJFenix]

Here is one of the threads, started by Mason, that Diablo is referencing.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...page=&vc=1

[dogsballs]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is one of the threads, started by Mason, that Diablo is referencing.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...page=&vc=1

[/ QUOTE ]


good man, I was thinking about searching.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Josh:

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, I'd bet lots of money that Lee's system isn't aimed at improving Dan Harrington's sit N go game, but rather at lesser players' game.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this statement is that if "lesser players" were to call at the frequency that SAGE suggests, they will do not as well as they should if they take into account that most of their opponents will not be playing as aggressively as SAGE assumes.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you could write such a painfully obvious contradiction in the same post where you criticize other professional writers is comical.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a statistical concept that is important in many aspects of poker (and other gambling). You need to understand that not all errors are created equal. In terminology that I used years ago, this is "self-weighting" thinking. (See my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics.)

Best wishes,
Mason