Lee Jones Flawed Thinking

[etizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

(Not to mention what I wrote in my first year of poker writing -- 2005 -- was far more beneficial to players than WLLH 1st edition, and it's not close.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you are actually being serious, right?

[/ QUOTE ]


heh i was gonna say the same thing.

[Elevens]

I know it won't ever happen, but I'd be curious what a new revision of the book would like like if Ed Miller were involved in it.

[amulet]

david,

i think your personal dislike is showing, in your discussion of writing standards is incorrect. i am qualified on a few subjects. backgammon that you mention is one of those subjects. others include, the motion picture business and the making of motion pictures, molecular biology particularly when it applies to certain types of cancer research, and big game fishing. i find that a great deal of what i read is either incorrect, poorly written, or both.

i will use backgammon as an example because many 2+2'ers play backgammon. bill robertie won 2 world championships, and decided to write about backgammon. many other expert players had also written backgammon books. what has made robertie's books so good is exactly what you mentioned "that you either be a superb practitioner of the subject and a very good thinker and explainer, or a very good practitioner and a superb thinker and explainer." in robertie's case he is a superb practitioner and an excellent explainer, but this is unusual. many of the other world class player's backgammon books were not good, and many of the other writers backgammon books were also not good. it is unusual to write excellent books. however, many of the non excellent books on a subject still are helpful. in a perfect world they might not exist. but they still educate the non expert. again, some of the information is not as good as would exist in the prefect world, but is helpful. here is an example from my recent past. i read a series of articles on marlin fishing by a poor writer, and an ok fishing captain. i discounted a great deal of what he wrote. but in these articles where a few interesting ideas. i then went to brazil to marlin fish, and on a slow day, tried one of his ideas. we tagged and released an 800lb plus marlin. over the next few weeks, we used this one idea to tag and release several other large marlin.

i think the feud between 2+2 and lee jones is useless, and now making you and mason look bad. i have no idea how it started, but i do know you that both of should stop continuing it. lee jones did not start this thread, and if you and mason were just correcting his ideas in the article, that would be ok. but you both clearly single out jones every chance you get, and you are both acting foolish.

harrington and robertie wrote 2 great books. i doubt anyone can affect the sales. and i really don't believe that was jones intention. he has praised their book on multiple occasions. you and mason need to see beyond your personal dislike.

furthermore, low limit hold em vol 3 is a decent book. a book that will help the players it was written for. i am not saying it is the best book for said players, but they will improve a lot.

two plus two clearly has the best poker books. the information in the 2+2 book is unrivaled. however, some of the writers are not great at clearly explaining what they are writing about. some are terrific at explaining. it varies considerably even within 2+2.

when i make a motion picture, i sometimes think, "this could make a superb picture", and i sometimes think "this is a good piece of business" - rarely do i think both about the same picture. and i never think "this could make a superb picture, but no one will go to see it". it is the same in most of the publishing world. i speak with editors and heads of major publishing houses daily. they are in business to make money. art and information have become secondary to commerce within the publishing business. 2 +2 is only slightly unique in that i assume mason has passed on books that did not meet his standers, but he thought would sell. mason is doing that to make money in the long term - because he is protecting the brand.

most of the poker books being published are pieces of business to the publisher; the editors and publishers have no real idea if they are good poker books. that is the country we live in. and low limit hold em vol 3, is far better them most of the books published on poker.

i apologize if the rambled. but i am on my way to the airport and therefore dictated this. i am tired of the venom that exists on 2+2 -- which should be a place to learn and share ideas. a friendly helpful place.

it would be nice to see you respond to more posts with your expertise.

(dictated but not read).

[_2000Flushes]

[ 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 ]

David-

I agree that bridge building is important, and I think it should be emphasized in our public schools. But chess, bridge and backgammon shouldn't be neglected as they are staples of any healthy social development. I'd also like to add Magic to that list.

Of course, there are almost certainly other subjects that can make or break a person's self-esteem. Poker, bridge burning, and chess are just a few good examples.

-2kF

[Tony_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Outsiders and novices who act like they know what they are talking about is not unique to poker (as has been mentioned earlier in one of the threads on this).

My Dad was pretty knowledgeable in his field (PhD in BioChemistry). He can watch a TV story where they interview some idiot doctor about some topic and my dad can KNOW that 95% or more of the 'real' scientific community completely disagrees with what is being said (or that they don't like how he is twisting the laguage and the logic to suit his own needs) and that it's not even close.


Some of those guys are regulars on one network or another and are generally considered to be morons by those in the know.
But most of the country sees him on TV...sees that he's a doctor...and thinks, "Well...he's on TV so he must be smart."



Lets say I'm extremely knowledgeable in stock-trading or investing or real estate.
In order to survive I need to be okay with the idea that over 90% of the books and TV stories and infomercials on my field of expertise will be absolute crap...produced by people who claim to really know what they are talking about.


Additionally, if I really am knowledgeable and am somewhat well-known for it...then without a doubt some of these unintelligent folks will be directly comparing their system to mine and trying to show how theirs is so much better.


Lee Jones isn't the only one doing something resembling this in poker. And the way he was trying to compare his system to Harrington's seemed mostly respectful to me.

And Poker is not the only field where stuff like this takes]place all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]


Bob,

I agree with you to an extent, but I think you are failing to consider that there are often distinctly different audiences for information of a particulat subject. In your example, the hack-scientist on TV is speaking to an audience of people who are mostly ignorant of the subject at hand. Anyone in the scientific communitiy would presumably recognize the difference between a 5:00 news regular and a respected lecturer/author in the field.

Similarly, there are 2 distict, albeit overlapping, markets for poker books. Books like Mike Sextons's Shuffle Up & Deal are Ken Warren's Winner's Guide to Texas Hold'Em Poker are clearly target at a different audience than HOH, HPFAP, and the majority of the 2+2 library.

If David & Mason started attacking Ken Warren about his book, it would be akin to Stephen Hawking criticising the guy who wrote "Idiot's Guide to Physics" (That may be a little bit of a stretch, but I couln't think of a better analogy)

The difference here, though, is that Lee Jones makes himself out to be at the same level of poker intelect as David, Mason, Dan and Bill, and David clearly stated in his OP that he does not beleive this to be the case. 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.

[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.

[Leavenfish]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

As one who all too often is not smart enough to pick apart every wrong idea and yet knows that they come a dime a dozen, I am so happy when someone else notices what I may not have and brings it to light. Most of us are simply going to read it and maybe think 'okay, yeh'...and then keep reading and then go about our daily lives.

Besides, I love it when a good 'bitch-fest' errups.... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Thanks,
Leavenfish

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Ben:

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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.


[/ QUOTE ]

At the end of the article Jones writes:

[ QUOTE ]
Please note that the SAGE System is Copyright © 2005 by James Kittock and Lee Jones, and the terms SAGE System and "Are you Sage?" are trademarks. You have our permission (indeed, our encouragement) to use it. But you can't take credit for it and you can't sell it.

[/ QUOTE ]

QED

Best wishes,
Mason

[JackCase]

[ QUOTE ]

At the end of the article Jones writes:

[ QUOTE ]
Please note that the SAGE System is Copyright © 2005 by James Kittock and Lee Jones, and the terms SAGE System and "Are you Sage?" are trademarks. You have our permission (indeed, our encouragement) to use it. But you can't take credit for it and you can't sell it.

[/ QUOTE ]

QED

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Copyrighting an article is a claim of genius? Sorry, but that is a bit of a stretch. By that standard, these guys must be veritable Einsteins:

[ QUOTE ]
From PokerFarce and PokerTruth, by Ray Michael B. ©1999 by Ray Michael B. This material appears with the express permission of the author and Two Plus Two Publishing.

[/ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]
From Poker Tournament Stategies by Sylvester Suzuki. ©1998 by Two Plus Two Publishing. This material appears with the express permission of Two Plus Two Publishing.

[/ QUOTE ]

David says of Suzuki:

[ QUOTE ]
The best book by far on poker tournaments yet published. Many new good ideas, especially for the smaller rebuy tournaments. --David Sklansky

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we to therefore assume that Suzuki is "...a superb practioner of the subject and a very good thinker and explainer, or a very good practitioner and a superb thinker and explainer."

This whole topic has turned into a tempest in a teapot. Too many folks here are over-reacting and taking comments personally.

[disjunction]

If Lee Jones is Ralph Macchio, and Twoplustwo is the Cobra Kai, and David Sklansky is John Kreese, who does that make Mr. Miyagi?