Lee Jones Flawed Thinking

[PokerHorse]

Although I agree with you Micro, i do believe that Davids point that authors in this field seem to feel that they can get away with publishing theory without really understanding fully what they are writing about, is correct and there really is no middle ground.
Over the years reading this forum I have found myself feeling like you do as to how Mason and sometimes David respond to situations, but its easy to feel this way ,since we are simply the ones benefitting from their hard work.
I have come full circle in my feelings about these guys.
We have to feel lucky that they are in our corner making sure that we get correct information. I used to think that it was just them trying to protect their own profits, but i'm convinced that it is not the case.
they have worked very hard to make sure that the material that they publish is correct, and i can see how frustrating it can be for a "Scientist", to see other people posing as scientists making false claims with incorrect logic.
If you have read any of my posts, you know Im not a kiss ass to these guys, b ut as abrasive as they seem sometimes we should realize what they have done for poker.
lee jones has no business writing about poker, as well as my child hood friend johnny Vorhaus, and others.
Thats why I just had to post something about Kill phill because its basically the ONLY BOOK OUTSIDE OF 2PLUS2 that is any good. and its very good. good luck

[MicroBob]

Nice post...and I do understand your points.


Here are some of my disagreements (nit-picks):
A couple other books outside of 2+2 that I think are worthwhile include Weighing the Odds in Holdem, Ace on the River by Greenstein (Mason rated this a 10 which is higher than I would rate it) and a couple others.
Kill Phil certainly qualfies too though...but I don't think is the ONLY one.


-----------------


Outsiders and novices who act like they know what they are talking about is not unique to poker (as has been mentioned earlier in one of the threads on this).

My Dad was pretty knowledgeable in his field (PhD in BioChemistry). He can watch a TV story where they interview some idiot doctor about some topic and my dad can KNOW that 95% or more of the 'real' scientific community completely disagrees with what is being said (or that they don't like how he is twisting the laguage and the logic to suit his own needs) and that it's not even close.


Some of those guys are regulars on one network or another and are generally considered to be morons by those in the know.
But most of the country sees him on TV...sees that he's a doctor...and thinks, "Well...he's on TV so he must be smart."



Lets say I'm extremely knowledgeable in stock-trading or investing or real estate.
In order to survive I need to be okay with the idea that over 90% of the books and TV stories and infomercials on my field of expertise will be absolute crap...produced by people who claim to really know what they are talking about.


Additionally, if I really am knowledgeable and am somewhat well-known for it...then without a doubt some of these unintelligent folks will be directly comparing their system to mine and trying to show how theirs is so much better.


Lee Jones isn't the only one doing something resembling this in poker. And the way he was trying to compare his system to Harrington's seemed mostly respectful to me.

And Poker is not the only field where stuff like this takes place all the time.

[BradleyT]

Hey was the SAGE thread deleted?

[Yeti]

[ QUOTE ]

(Not to mention what I wrote in my first year of poker writing -- 2005 -- was far more beneficial to players than WLLH 1st edition, and it's not close.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you are actually being serious, right?

[Rob-L]

For some reason these two threads about Lee Jones' article remind me of the Simpson's episode where the professor is addressing a bunch of scientists, but the scientists are arguing amongst themselves. The professor cannot get them to stop arguinig so he yells <font color="red">"Pi is EXACTLY three".</font> And, of course, all the scientists gasp, become very quiet and give him their full attention. Then the professor says "I'm sorry it had to come to that."

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

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Dan is certainly the better player and will thus gain from avoiding playing big pots when the situation is close. It is true that this factor is not a big deal when the blinds are this high, especially if the opponent is aggressive, but it does count for something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm missing something of the context (having read neither the article in question nor reread the passage in Harrington's book), but isn't Jones critiquing Harrington's advice to players who are not themselves Dan Harrington?

[Jcrew]

[ QUOTE ]
the right strategy against an unknown player is a strategy based on the average playing styles of unknown opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bit off/incomplete and may be nitpicking. First, playing style distribution should be conditioned on the probability of a player making it to that point with a particular style.

Second, the strategy should not be based off strictly the average playing style of the unknown player, but the max weighted EV of the expected playing style distribution. A simple example: Suppose the distribution of players making it to that point can have two discrete strategies that can be quantitized as A and B distributed at 49/49/2 with 2 being all strategies other than A and B. Counter strategy to A gives an equity edge of +5 and Counter strategy to B gives an equity edge of +6 but the the counter strategy to the average gives you +1. Lets assume that if you pick the wrong strategy, you have have a -1 edge. Clearly it is wrong in this scenario to use the average as the basis of the counter strategy. Generalized, you want the strategy that produces the highest equity when integrated along an equity curve of the expected strategies with a probability weighting.

You may say that those numbers are arbitrary, and that in a poker scenario picking the wrong strategy gives a higher negative edge. That is irrelevant, the point being is that there could be scenarios where you do not want to simply play off the average.

At a poker table, this type of analysis would probably be too excessive, but a case could be made to play as you would play to maximize your edge against the most frequent type of expected strategy rather than the average.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

(Not to mention what I wrote in my first year of poker writing -- 2005 -- was far more beneficial to players than WLLH 1st edition, and it's not close.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you are actually being serious, right?

[/ QUOTE ]


Are you seriously questioning the harm that WLLH 1st edition did? I am positive I would've made X thousands more if I'd never had read it -- and it sold how many copies...? (Do the math.) Regardless, my random aside wasn't meant to be a hijack, so you're welcome to follow up personally with me in a PM if you want further clarification.

[12AX7]

OK Dave,
After having bought and read many of your materials in print over an 8 year period, I have to call you down on "competent writing", as separated from "competent knowledge".

So let me say a few things first.

1) My degree is in Comp. Sci. So I am educated.
2) I spent years explaining IBM "concepts" to people as a Level 2 Support rep. Or arguing the customer's points to Developers when they were too arrogant to realize that if a customer had trouble using it, it often *was* a problem, not that the customers were "dumb".

So I believe I have some experience in deciding whether writing on difficult topics is clear to both Technical and Non-Technical audiences.

Now, I sat down with copies of WLLH 2d. and HPFAP 21st edition last night. The motivation? I built my bankroll up over several months and got whacked this week. LOL! Time for some remedial study!

Not having read either in a long time, something jumped out at me.

Lee's writing style kicks yours in the butt. In one read you can usually get his ideas.

Now this is different from "correct", and I realize that. And perhaps his concepts are not as technically deep, I also realize that.

But seriously Dave, next time you rewrite one of your books. Think about how to make the "concepts", which you often don't even name, clear on one reading huh? Or at most two?

Geez, I found myself rolling out of bed this morning to continue my trek to pro-dom saying to myself, "Geezus, there's all these great ideas in HPFAP... but to really get them down I'm going to have freakin sit there and outline the book paragraph by paragraph." (I once met a Stud Player in the Mirage from Hawaii. Hidden in a Walgreen's Pharmacy bag at the table was his 7CSFAP... we talked after the game... He said the same thing and pulled the book out... page after page of highlights and margin notes. "You have to study this book like a text, over and over and over again.")

Stop using phrases and examples that begin, "Hands like xx". for one. *Name* the conditions. "Suited connectors above xx", "Pairs above TT". Whatever the relevent characteristic of the hand is, OK? The same for other "concepts". (Consider the fact that you named "The Free Card" play. Since it has a name people grab it quickly.)

***Name the concept, explain it, *then* give examples. Rather than intertwining all three. ***

If one can't explain the heart of the concept in a few sentances, it probably isn't clear enough. To wit, I think most folks here could explain the "Free Card Concept" in a few sentances.

Ed M. seems to have caught a case of this in the Post Flop sections of SSHE, though his preflop sections are clear.

Both Hilger and Jones are clearer in thier post flop writings than you guys. To wit, I believe Hilger mentions he had his books gone over by a non-player to assess thier clarity.

OK, you books are labeled "Advanced", but I still stand by my critique having read many many IBM tech manuals from several eras. So I've seen a lot of technical writing, good and bad, and know what gives readers problems. More than most people would in several lifetimes. I often believe this is why some of Ed's work is well stuctured. He's former Microsoft.

Anyway, I'll stop there, but despite the correctness of your writings, thier accessibility is sometimes a questionable.

All due respect intended. I appreciate all you've done since Super System and make these critiques in the spirit of the quality that 2+2 represents.

[ QUOTE ]

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 ]

[David Sklansky]

Correct. But my comments were not about the specific situation but rather about how to play an unknown player.