Re: Comparing WLLH 3rd edition to 2nd edition
Hi binions:
I won't get into many specifics but I do disagree with much of this. Here's one example:
[ QUOTE ]
In early position unraised pots, he now says to fold QJs, JTs, A9s and 88/77
[/ QUOTE ]
As we have pointed out for years, WLLH is targeted for low limit games which usually feature many players who play too many hands and go too far with them. I can't see how any of these hands won't show a profit in games like this when you can initially come in for a limp.
But I have another problem with all of this that i want to address here. From what I read Edition Two needed a lot of fixing. From The Intelligent Gambler:
[ QUOTE ]
I asked Barry [Tannebaum] to grab a copy of WLLH and a pen and start marking. And mark he did, leaving red ink on most of the pages. ... And in some cases: "I hate this -- it produces leaks." I listened, contemplated, argued, and (usually) eventually agreed with his recommendations.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now I remember Jones over the years getting pretty upset with me because I said this book had a lot of errors, and I remember Jones getting even more upset with Ed Miller for being very specific about much of the advice in Edition 2.
Now Lee, you can't have it both ways. You need to admit that we were right and your book needed a lot of fixing. I haven't read the third edition yet, but I hope you realize that I was absolutely correct in not publishing your first edition years ago. I also hope that your third edition is now finally a top notch guide to the new player, but I will withhold any judgement until I have read it thoroughly (and it will be a while before I can get to it).
Best wishes,
Mason
|