Lee Jones Flawed Thinking

[sarsen]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check out the other thread started by Mason. Whether we agree or disagree with the tone of David's or Mason's post, I think they made their point that Lee's assertion (that Dan Harrington was wrong) was a bit of a stretch. There were a couple of articles regarding game theory in the Jan. and Feb. 2+2 magazine that shed more light on this subject.

As I see it Lee Jones and his partner MAY (since I'm no game theory expert) have based their argument that Dan was wrong based on false assumptions. Those are that your opponent is 1)rational and 2)plays an optimum strategy. As Dan's example describes a situation early in HU, we would have no way to judge this.

[SenecaJim]

To all attackers and those of the " tempest in a teapot " defense of Lee Jones , let me state the following:

First of all, if you refer to someone else's name and work ,especially those considered experts(in this case Dan Harrington) when stating your opinion/solution to a situation I can only deduce two reasons to do this:

1. Self promotion. Elevating your own status by the unspoken inference you are an equal in the field by pointing out and correcting mistakes in their claims or calculations.

Now, if that is the case and it may not be, Lee needs to be ready for some smack to come down on him. Especially on this site. I believe Lee is a serious student of the game and has learned alot about poker, but he AIN'T NO DAN HARRINGTON. That's not smack, that's a fact.

Reason 2. You honestly feel the author has made a mistake and you, as a professional in the interest of the game and those trying to learn from authors to improve their game, need to have the record straight.

Now, if that is the case, and you yourself are an author it should not be any big surprise that is going to come your way too.

So, a lot of thin skin out there guys.

Lee's rebuffs have been nothing to a scientist trying to present a falliable theory to a congregation of his peers. Wheeeew. Lion's Den.

The stuff ahtletes put up with, and movie stars, everybody says, hey, that goes with the territory. Well , you make written comments that are published and put your name to it, hey, it goes with the territory.

And my final word is, I'm not blindly loyal to anything, but I chose 2+2 bout 3 years ago when I had the time to get serious about the game. I am not planning on getting rich or anything, but I have definite monetary goals I am well on my way to achieving. I take the game serious. I have fun when I play cause I love it, but I am dead serious about working and getting better at the game. And I don't want Bogus claims with possibly back-alley mathematics behind them out there floating around, at least without not being identified as inaccurrate by EXPERTS I have chosen. I want to learn from their collectivley vast knowledge and experience. I use it to guide my approach to game and my interpeting what is happening in the heat of battle. If they step on a few toes making that course as true as they can, HEY, they're my guys. And i'm getting best-thought best-tested strategies available.

People visit this site, but memebers are 2+2er's in my book. I want unsound theories and strategies shot down and their propagators rebuffed. I, for one, appreciate their efforts. I dont' want to take the time to read all that "other stuff" and try to evaluate it on my own. I rather spend it studying books i have found to be right and to have worked extremely well on the battlefield.

Dave, Mason, and the boy'z (ie.Ed). Go get them my Einstein Warriors. I count on you to keep my journey free from perils and pitfalls when possible. Save not the ego of false prophets at the expense of your loyal band.

And if I ever see anyone counterfeiting Sklansky Dollars, well, I won't bust their kneecaps or anything, but I am going to say things and make them feel really, really bad.

I will always have you guys's backs. Peace Out.

Ps. David, I did not address your 4 nubmered comments because I read them more than once and they seem so logical, i really have nothing to say...thanks, I guess.

[Sand]

[ QUOTE ]

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 ]

I guess instead of pitching a fit here, is it possible to offer a published rebuttal in Card Player?

(Or maybe I am just out in the weeds since I am used to the relative ease with which these things can happen in scientific journals).

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because there are many situations that are a matter of opinion, doesn't mean that somehow it is okay for writers to be wrong about important situations and concepts that aren't.

[/ QUOTE ]

No matter the topic, there is always some guy that feels it's necessary at some point to say something like "everyone has the right to an opinion." These people should shut up.

I read the Lee Jones article, and I thought it was incorrect. I also don't care what language David feels is appropriate to discuss Lee's article. I can buy a lot of books on good etiquette with the money that Sklansky makes me. The purpose of him writing is not to get a good samaritan badge from his fairy godmother.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
The purpose of him writing is not to get a good samaritan badge from his fairy godmother.

[/ QUOTE ]

Johnny,

He wants you to sweep the leg. Do you have a problem with that?

[benkahuna]

It seems to me...

Given Lee Jones's assumptions, he is correct.

Sklansky is attacking Lee Jones's assumptions more than conclusions he has made based on Jones assumptions (This would make Sklansky's argument a straw man fallacy)

Lee Jones assumptions appear incredibly unrealistic.

Lee Jones also made a straw man argument because he didn't consider Dan's advice in context and is really arguing about slightly different (but discernably so) situations.

[sarsen]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me...

Given Lee Jones's assumptions, he is correct.

Sklansky is attacking Lee Jones's assumptions more than conclusions he has made based on Jones assumptions (This would make Sklansky's argument a straw man fallacy)

Lee Jones assumptions appear incredibly unrealistic.

Lee Jones also made a straw man argument because he didn't consider Dan's advice in context and is really arguing about slightly different (but discernably so) situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

To paraphrase (aristotle I think, but then again I could be totally FOS), 'If the assumptions are wrong, the conclusions do not follow.'

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. David S wrote in part:

[ 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 ]

You know what? I'm in this set of people who aren't that he describes, at least some of the time about some of the games. It's really important for me to read advice that I know I can take to the bank. Wrong headed ideas are expensive and honestly this statement about Q7 and game theory can be expensive. Especially to some who plays NL Hold'em SNGs IMO. I've been taking David's advice to the bank for decades. When I read a book from 2+2 I know I can rely on it's accuracy. Not so for other books from other publishers. DS has explained how a few pieces of bad advice can be expensive many times over the years.


[/ QUOTE ]

JMHO, but with anything, yet alone something with as much "grey area" as poker, I don't think we should read a book trusting that its content is true. I think knowledge comes from reading/hearing/seeing different viewpoints and analyzing them ourselves rather than simply trusting them. The only book that I've ever believed without questioning it would be The Last of the Really Great Whangdoodles by Julie Edwards.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would rather read Dan Harrington’s opinion on the matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Dan Harrington has way too much class to become involved in such petty trivialities.

In fact, this much ado about nothing probably embarrasses him.

You never see Ray Zee get involved in this spiteful tripe.

[Oops, phone ringing...hello? Ray? Mason here...we NEED your help. I got David to chime in, and even though you don't know anything about game theory, we desperately need you to jump on board. Step up to the plate and take one for the team, Ray. I mean can you imagine? Lee Jones actualy trying to say he authored an article about game theory? This is BLASPHEMY! Help us, Ray, please.

Uh, Mason...[censored] you.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

nice posting.

[Assani Fisher]

[ 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 ]

For me, I care more about a writer that makes me think than a writer who is correct 99.99% of the time because I will never blindly accept anyone's writings. A writer can write a book that is totally wrong, and it can still influence me greatly if it causes me to think over certain concepts and expand my own thoughts. Icy pots, David. Icy pots.