Lee Jones Flawed Thinking

[Splossy]

As a beginning student of poker and buyer of poker books I don't like these sorts of threads. It seems the 2+2 writers won't have anyone reading anyone elses books, that there is one One Poker Theory (theirs) and other writers are idiots and if you read their books you will lose money. They often read kind of egotistical too.

Personally I find it all a bit offputting.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems the 2+2 writers won't have anyone reading anyone elses books

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Mason and David are often unreasonable and unpleasant, but they offer the best advice about how to gamble well.

Sometimes that advice is to read other good gambling books. Some non-2+2 books that have gotten positive reviews from Mason include Phil Gordon's NL book, Greenstein's book, King Yao's hold'em book, and Ciaffone and Reuben's NL book.

[ QUOTE ]
other writers are idiots and if you read their books you will lose money.

[/ QUOTE ]

For most non-2+2 gambling writers, this is true.

[SenecaJim]

See,

I guess it's all in the eyes of the beholder. Personally, I find a conscientous concern with politeness over bluntness and false modesty to be offputting.

I don't mean this in an offensive or unwelcoming way, but seriously, if you are offput by heated discusiions by people who take this game seriously you probably should look around for a more warm-fuzzy website.

Maybe I'm not overly bright, but I like things laid out the way they are. If I liked circling issues and hidden meanings I would have gone into management of some type.

[Splossy]

Well it does come over as unwelcoming as it happens but I'm not here to make online friends with you, just to discuss poker.

I'm not put off reading this site, just put off the authors.

[Tony_P]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if you misread my post of if I just suck at writing, but it was intended as a compliment.

edit: Lookling back, my post was poory worded, I was tired and made a weird unfunny attempt at humor.

[ThePimpulator]

Yawn yawn yawn.

I'd be amazed if LJ was right and DS was wrong regarding the poker content here. I'm not about to contradict DS on that stuff.

But, despite the poker content, the motivation for this whole topic has nothing to do with poker, nothing to do with DS's publishing or financial interests, nothing to do with 2p2, nothing to do with LJ or CardPlayer, and nothing to do with selflessly helping poker players everywhere make more money. It has everything to do with DS's lack of feelings of self worth. It comes across often in his books and on the forums. He is not the only author around here to display this. Nor the only poster. It comes across with many on the WSOP too. I wonder if it is something about poker that attracts people with these issues?

People should simply absorb the poker content here, discard the packaging it came in, and move on.

See ya.

[FreakDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously haven't read the forum much. This happens a lot unfortunately. The psychological reasons of why it occurs I can only guess, but won't.

If you do disagree with an author’s view of a poker situation, I think it's a bit more professional and proper to just state your disagreement and your reasons for your disagreement. No need to put someone down, even if you happen to be correct.

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]
If you publish an article in a national magazine falsely accusing on of my authors of being incorrect. I think it's perfectly acceptable to defend your author against fasle amd misleading statements state your disagreement and your reasons for your disagreement. If someone intentionally tries to discredit one of your authors, it is okay to take it to the next level because they asked for the gloves to be removed.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[MicroBob]

I agree with freakdaddy's assessment and don't believe it accomplishes anything to 'take it to the next level'.


More people will accept David and Mason's defense of HOH if the specific criticism of HOH is all that is addressed.



We have seen from other comments that adding anything of a 'personal attack' nature just distracts from the discussion.


It has also put doubts in some readers' minds that David and Mason are just being overly critical of Lee's analysis simply because they don't like him.


I truly believe that David and Mason have analyzed Lee's system objectively and found it to be as flawed as they say it is...and then they also happened to volunteer 'other' stuff about his intelligence, his past claims, his motives, etc.


But many people will come away with the idea that perhaps David and Mason would have been less criticial of this system if it weren't for their personal dislike of him and their perception of his motives.


In other words, if David and Mason are bothered that people actually ARE listening to Lee's ideas then they would be best advised to just show how wrong his ideas are without ANY distractions such as their own personal thoughts of anything else about him.

[CrayZee]

Yeah, but Mason and David have the right to feel irritated. Sure, objective analysis is good without the baggage, but people have emotions, too. How about scratching some of their comments/reactions to "author tilt"? No one is a perfect, rational robot.

Besides, Mason and David are generally rational even if the situation is a bit annoying. David did say that the article in question was good asside from the "Harrington attack." If anything, this should demonstrate the high integrity of 2+2 publishing.

The drama may be interesting, but the poker advice should be the focal point...not the feelings of the authors in question.

Walter