Lee Jones Flawed Thinking

[MicroBob]

I do think they have the right to feel irritated.
But if they want to make the poker-advice the focal point then they need to drop all that other stuff.

I'm not even sure THEY would be willing to qualify their comments as 'author-tilt'.


And I think David had far more problems with Lee's article/method besides just the personal Harrington attack. And so do I for that matter.

David correctly points out that the system is quite flawed because, more often than not, you are NOT playing somebody who plays game-theory correct heads-up poker and to assume that you are (as a default) is a bad idea.

This is especially true at the beginning of heads-up for all your chips for a minimal edge (at best).

In fact, in purposes such as that, one would be best to assume, as a default, that their opponent probably IS NOT playing game-theory correct poker in that they are likely too passive or too tight.
And that an all-in from them is not going to be as nearly as wide a range of hands as Lee claims it could be from a game-theory correct player.

[CrayZee]

[ QUOTE ]
And I think David had far more problems with Lee's article/method besides just the personal Harrington attack. And so do I for that matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. I misread David's post in that he said that the article was "probably good".

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that the article is probably a good one. At least if he hadn't ruined it in his zeal to find a flaw in Dan's book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Curiously that was about my reaction on reading it, although 'ruined' is a bit strong.

[MicroBob]

OK. I forgot or skimmed that part I guess.

But what of his 4 points of criticism of the article??

It's 'probably good' but it's also wrong?


I guess I'll have to go back and re-read but I'm kinda tired right now.

[Peter McDermott]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone seems to be saying, Mason should play nice and David should play nice, but what about Lee? Lee writes in a nationally published magazine that Dan Harrington is wrong and his book is flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I enjoy a good old fashioned no-holds-barred catfight, but I suspect that David Sklansky might get less flack from Lee Jones afficionados if he stuck to making the arguments and avoided discussions of motive and psychology.

It's less entertaining, but probably more professional and occupying the moral high ground ground lets you feel even *more* superior. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[MicroBob]

Just to be clear - not all who are giving David flack on this one are actually Lee Jones aficianados (including me).

Many have pretty much the same disagreements regarding lee's strategies as David.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is no one discussing the four issues I brought up…

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

This gave me a little chuckle. I see that it isn’t just we SMPers who (use to) do this to you.

Regards,

RJT

[Cactus Jack]

Got a question.

How can anyone writing about poker say something is definitive when, as we all know, the answer to any poker question is "it depends"?

[deacsoft]

Given that every variable for a particular hand is accounted for and reasoning is provided to support their point, yes, they can. Of course, saying something is definitive does not make it so. Writers could do all of the above and still be wrong. If their conclusion is correct and can be proven then why not say it is definitive?

[Cactus Jack]

Well, I guess if it's all that, and the planets are correctly aligned and the moon is in the seventh house, and you've played the same players 100 times, then I suppose it would be definitive.