Lee Jones Flawed Thinking

[Smokey98]

Mr. Skalansky,

I think that you are the authority in NLHE and I am proud that I have purchased most of your HE books; however I must say that I have lost some respect for you after reading only the first couple of sentences of your OP. I didn't even read the whole thing. I just wanted to say that I am disappointed in your approach. I am a business owner and I don't bad mouth my competition. That is bad business. I do understand where you are going with your "theory" and I happen to agree with it as well, but you could have handled that a little differently.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a business owner and I don't bad mouth my competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Smoke:

We don't bad mouth our competition either. Of course we don't have any competition so that makes this area easy.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Assani:

That's real nice but that's not what happened here. Jones didn't say "Here's a Game Theory computation and here's Harrington's advice which is slightly different." He said: "This information is correct, and provably so. Yet, even Dan Harrington got one of his examples wrong."

So shouldn't your criticism be directed at Jones?

Best wishes,
Mason

[deacsoft]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am a business owner and I don't bad mouth my competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Smoke:

We don't bad mouth our competition either. Of course we don't have any competition so that makes this area easy.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]


PWN3D!!!

[Tony_P]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am a business owner and I don't bad mouth my competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Smoke:

We don't bad mouth our competition either. Of course we don't have any competition so that makes this area easy.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,

It's posts like this that make me unnaturally happy to be a part of the 2+2 community.

[Smokey98]

lol...guess you're right.

[Mason Malmuth]

That's fine. But you need to understand that I have yet to see a book which as far as we can tell has any impact on the sales of any of our books. So when someone puts up a post that implies that we take certain actions due to some sort of competitive pressure, I correct them.

MM

[Smokey98]

It just sounds "holier than thou". That's all...it's unbecoming.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Assani:

That's real nice but that's not what happened here. Jones didn't say "Here's a Game Theory computation and here's Harrington's advice which is slightly different." He said: "This information is correct, and provably so. Yet, even Dan Harrington got one of his examples wrong."

So shouldn't your criticism be directed at Jones?

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but I'm not sure which one of my posts you're referencing here, and I didn't realize that I was critisizing anyone at all. Mason, don't get me wrong, you can make bread look like a sammich. Icy pots always.

[grandgnu]

I haven't read through the entire thread, but I did read the first few pages.

At first I was shocked at the title and the attitude of the higher-ups at 2+2, since I've only heard good things about Lee Jones as far as PokerStars goes.

Still, when I look more at the situation (and this is without having read the article in CardPlayer), I can see why the guys at 2+2 would be upset.

CardPlayer is an extremely popular and well-known poker publication. The HOH series is an excellent resource for players (I know it helped take my game to the next level, and then from there I tweaked it myself to apply a more LAG type style and switch it up).

But, the HOH series also has to contend with a veritable sea of poker publications trying to earn the mighty dollar of budding poker players everywhere.

If Lee's article is indeed wrong (and given my respect for Harringtons work and the skills of the 2+2 honcho's, it very likely is), then having it in CardPlayer is terrible for book sales of HOH and any additional books in that series or other books published by 2+2.

That type of negative exposure, especially if in error, is awful for 2+2. Not that I'm a fan of educating other players to play better, but many look at anything published in this regard as gospel (and they likely believe everything they read on the internet as well).

Their mentality will be "well, I saw it in CardPlayer, it must be true!" And for a majority of players out there, it's not hard to believe that they will believe everything they see in any poker publication, whether it's 2+2, Bluff Magazine or a Tom McEvoy republication of the same material with a different title to sell more books.

In the end, in my belief, there are a lot of variables to consider that should affect your decision making process in various scenerios. There isn't always an (if opponent does "x" then you do "y") answer for every situation.