Lee Jones Flawed Thinking

[steamboatin]

David and Mason, may not ever win Miss Congeniality, but if I want warm and fuzzy, I'll start reading Dr Phil.

If I was a publisher and a competitor wrote in a NATIONALLY PUBLISHED MAGAZINE, that one of my writers was wrong, then I say GAME ON! If said writer was also wrong in his criticisms, then it would be no holds barred full contact ass chewing.

I don't know Lee Jones, I own the first edition of his book and I don't read Card Player Magazine. 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. You might argue that He didn't actually say that, but any reasonable man would draw that conclusion.

WTF, Why does Lee have to try and bust Dan Harrington in his article? Lee could have easily described the situation and explained his point without mentioning Dan's name or book. He jumps right out saying Dan is wrong and Mason and David are calling him down.

If you try to steal the blinds and run into AA, expect to get reraised.

[adios]

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.

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Something as subjective as poker can have many different angles. I do not think anything is black and white when it comes to poker. If we were talking about a math problem or a historical situation where the answer is correct no matter what, then I would agree with you. However, I think it is well documented that differing styles, in poker, can be successful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like the Jones statement about game theory and playing Q7 is a "black and white" statement to me. Poker situations are analyzed logically. This paragraph is basically a non sequiter IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
I compare poker to politics. A person can read an opinion and draw conclusions rather he/she agrees with it and on what grounds. You will get readers who will believe anything that they read. However, most people are smart enough to figure out that the author is just giving his/her opinion and to take it with a grain of salt.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF???????????????

[BeerMoney]

Well, where were mason ed, and david when Barron Vangor Toth wrote articles in the 2+2 magazine that people like El Diablo, Daryn and Stellarwind all felt were "clearly wrong"? They tried to use a defense of "the magazine's purpose is to put new debatable topics in print" etc...

It all just seems so personal.

[UATrewqaz]

Jones throws a marshmellow at 2+2 and they respond with nuclear carpet bombing.

I think 2+2 authors have inferiority complexes.

If I'm Michael Jordan and someone tells me I suck at basketball I laugh and keep walking, I don't have to "prove" anything. 2+2 authors need to have this attitude *

(except of course if someone is on a crusade to destroy/undermine them, but Lee Jones certainly is not)

Also, why do you think Jones' motivation is to appear like some sort of poker knowledge God to the public? I don't think he is, I think he's just presenting his thoughts (for better or worse) and isn't schemeing to somehow achieve a high level of notority in the poker world.

[Timer]

[ 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.

[David Sklansky]

Why is no one discussing the four issues I brought up? I would think that is a lot more important than whether I should be polite to mediocre writers.

[Wada]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is no one discussing the four issues I brought up? I would think that is a lot more important than whether I should be polite to mediocre writers.

[/ QUOTE ]


Hahahahaha. That sounds pathetic. The majority of the posts that I have read in this thread and the other one started by Mason, all have been trying to point out that the two of you should be a lot more professional in your responses and have some class.

The two of you sound like you got your feelings hurt over this whole situation, its so pathetic. It's like crying over someone who went runner runner against your flopped set of Aces.

There was a post by someone (either in this thread or the other one) saying if they were Michael Jordon and someone said you sucked, that they would just walk away laughing. Just walk away and laugh - why do you guys care about what someone else thinks.

[wmspringer]

[ QUOTE ]

WTF, Why does Lee have to try and bust Dan Harrington in his article? Lee could have easily described the situation and explained his point without mentioning Dan's name or book. He jumps right out saying Dan is wrong and Mason and David are calling him down.


[/ QUOTE ]

When I read the article, the sense I got was of "See, this is such a common mistake that even the best players in the world make it!"

[David Sklansky]

"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.

[Wada]

Interesting point and well put. I see that with the opinions and comments made by people at the poker table as they discuss their hands amongst themselves. I especially like it when I see people who think their skills are great based on being results oriented - everyone thinks they are a great poker player.