Lee Jones Flawed Thinking - Page 9

Mason Malmuth · #81 01-31-2006, 09:16 PM

Hi Jack:

Nice try but you really shouldn't twist thngs in quite that way. All our books are copyrighted and for you or someone to reprint parts of them you need to receive our permission and state that what appears does so with our permission. That's standard industry practice.

As for the Suzuki book, when it came out almost 8 years ago it was clearly the best book on tournaments. Today that's obviously not the case. In the current printing the quote from David that you cite no lomger appears on the book.

On the other hand, you don't see us trademarking expressions. How about if we announce that "Non-Self Weighting Strategies" or "The Gap Concept" are now registered trademarks of Two Plus Two Publishing LLC. However, you do have permission to say these things but any money that you make from these expressions belongs to us.

best wishes,
Mason

New York Jet · #82 01-31-2006, 11:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How about if we announce that "Non-Self Weighting Strategies" or "The Gap Concept" are now registered trademarks of Two Plus Two Publishing LLC. However, you do have permission to say these things but any money that you make from these expressions belongs to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only I had a dime for each time I used "The Gap Concept". I think you would be better served getting a copyright on "Do you see why?".
Do you see why?

Matt Ruff · #83 01-31-2006, 11:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you seriously questioning the harm that WLLH 1st edition did? I am positive I would've made X thousands more if I'd never had read it

[/ QUOTE ]

How much is that in non-variable dollars?

mattw · #84 02-01-2006, 02:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

raise 3rd pair!

MicroBob · #85 02-01-2006, 03:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see the point here and don't see what it proves.
I have no problem with Lee making this clear.

This does not seem to contradict anything that benfranklin said imo.

Robertie · #86 02-01-2006, 10:26 AM

Danny and I looked over Lee Jones' article and reread our original problem analysis, and we're sticking with our original assessment. (That is, folding the Q-7 in this situation.) Jones' point is that calling with the Q-7 is slightly correct if you know your opponent is playing an optimal game-theoretic strategy. Since this is just the second hand of the session, and players who could correctly implement a game-theoretic strategy are presumably rare, it would be a blunder to conclude at this point that your opponent is one of those folks and play accordingly. A more reasonable assumption is simply that you don't know enough about your opponent yet to call an all-in with a very marginal hand. A few more hands into the session, you might have enough evidence, but not now, so fold.

steamboatin · #87 02-01-2006, 10:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
A more reasonable assumption is simply that you don't know enough about your opponent yet to call an all-in with a very marginal hand. A few more hands into the session, you might have enough evidence, but not now, so fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

There you go using reason and common sense. What are you trying to do, kill a perfectly good flame war? You need to be saying something like "The other guys are ugly and their mom dresses them funny." Or "I bet their dad always wanted a girl."

All this level headed thnking is going to mess up all our fun.

KaneKungFu123 · #88 02-01-2006, 10:57 AM

"I don't blame Lee Jones for wanting to be in the upper echelon of poker writers."

Slansky,

You are the nuts.

KaneKungFu123 · #89 02-01-2006, 11:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, you don't see us trademarking expressions. How about if we announce that "Non-Self Weighting Strategies" or "The Gap Concept" are now registered trademarks of Two Plus Two Publishing LLC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget about the "NL Short Stack Theory" that was invented by Ed Miller.

laurentia · #90 02-01-2006, 06:59 PM

Even without reading LJ's article I don't find your argument too convincing. You can obviously list some point that he didn't consider. So what. That's the nature of research. More and more details are added and neither LJ nor you will ever have the last word.
Even if he were wrong here I find his writing generally more colorful then yours. While you wrestle trying to get your points through he is able to put his ideas into perspective and while talking about poker relates it to the world around it.