Lee Jones Flawed Thinking

[David Sklansky]

I am sure Lee Jones trys very hard to be a good poker writer. And that he is an honest man and a good guy. But none of that changes the fact that he is NOT a good poker writer. At least not by the standards of writers on other subjects. (Serious subjects like bridge building, or less serious subjects like chess, bridge or backgammon.)

In order to write an excellent book about a subject, it is almost certainly necessary that you either be a superb practioner of the subject and a very good thinker and explainer, or a very good practitioner and a superb thinker and explainer. This is especially true once you go beyond a beginner's book. Lee Jones, like many other poker authors, does not meet either of these standards.

The most recent example occurs in the Cardplayer article, discussed already on another thread, where he says that Dan Harrington is wrong to fold Q7 to an all in head up raise. He admits it is close but goes on to say that the game theory strategy says to call and that given the player is an unknown quantity you should stick with that game theory strategy. (I will assume for the sake of argument that the strategy he presents in the article is in fact correctly calculated. But I must add that if it was, Lee Jones almost certainly had nothing to do with those calculations and in fact would have no idea how to do them. Yet he sort of claims half credit.)

The problem is that there are at least FOUR good reasons why, in the scenario presented, you should fold hands that game theory would indicate are close calls. And Jones does not even mention them.

They are:

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.

2. To make the call correct, requires that the opponent is as loose or looser than the game theory move in strategy that the article espouses. But the fact is that most players play tighter than this AS THEIR OWN ARTICLE ADMITS in the fifth paragraph. The notion that the right strategy against an unknown player is game theory strategy is DEAD WRONG. Even if this was the last hand you would ever play, the right strategy against an unknown player is a strategy based on the average playing styles of unknown opponents.

3. Even if you believed your opponent played as well as you and even if you thought he probably played approximately game theory strategy, you should still fold a close decision. Because as long as you think there is a decent chance that he is actually significantly tighter than expected, (in the situation given, remember, this is only the second hand of the head up match) your overall EV is negative if you make this call. Folding can only be a small error. Calling might be a big one.

4. The above holds true even if this is the last hand you will play. But the effect is even stronger because there are more hands to come. In other words if it turns out upon further obsetrvation that he is significantly tighter than he should be preflop, your bad call becomes that much worse because such an opponent is in terrible shape once you deduce this. To make this point clearer, suppose you both had giant stacks and a player moved in on his first hand. If there is a reasonable chance you are up against someone who plays too tightly preflop, which practically guarantees you the tournament, you should fold this first hand with anything short of aces or kings. The same principle applies here, though not as strongly.

I don't blame Lee Jones for wanting to be in the upper echelon of poker writers. And I commend him for seeking out a mathmetican to devise a strategy that seems correct even though it is annoying he sort of claims some credit for it, 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. A zeal that only succeeded in once again highlighting that his ideas and words cannot be counted on by serious players.

[MicroBob]

well this should be interesting....

[Brice]

I enjoy reading everyone's opinion on poker. If it is a wrong idea, I can usually pick it apart in a hurry. I think it is silly that some authors around 2+2 have launched this attack on Lee Jones. I have not read the article but the man is entitled to his own opinion. It is up to the reader to agree or disagree.

WLLH got me started in poker and made me not be a fish anymore. I thought it was an excellent book and still do today. Jones has represented nothing but class. It just seems a bit silly to attack him in my opinion.

I would rather read Dan Harrington’s opinion on the matter.

[David Sklansky]

"I enjoy reading everyone's opinion on poker. If it is a wrong idea, I can usually pick it apart in a hurry. I think it is silly that some authors around 2+2 have launched this attack on Lee Jones. I have not read the article but the man is entitled to his own opinion. It is up to the reader to agree or disagree."

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? When people write about a subject the reader has a right to expect that the logic is correct. Why is poker an exception? Just because there are many situations that are a matter of opinion, doesn't mean that somehow it is okay for writers to be wrong about important situations and concepts that aren't. I have a problem with Lee Jones and many others because they use the fuzziness of poker as a way to fool the public into thinking that their level of expertise is as high as authors of other sujects. And it amazes me that readers who are hurt by these mediocrities come to their defense.

[Brice]

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.

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.

[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???????????????

[Matt Ruff]

[ 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 ]

They're forced to use other, more subtle clues to decide whom to trust.

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you are smart enough to pick apart a wrong idea. But what about those who aren't?

[/ QUOTE ]

As one who all too often is not smart enough to pick apart every wrong idea and yet knows that they come a dime a dozen, I am so happy when someone else notices what I may not have and brings it to light. Most of us are simply going to read it and maybe think 'okay, yeh'...and then keep reading and then go about our daily lives.

Besides, I love it when a good 'bitch-fest' errups.... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Thanks,
Leavenfish

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because there are many situations that are a matter of opinion, doesn't mean that somehow it is okay for writers to be wrong about important situations and concepts that aren't.

[/ QUOTE ]

No matter the topic, there is always some guy that feels it's necessary at some point to say something like "everyone has the right to an opinion." These people should shut up.

I read the Lee Jones article, and I thought it was incorrect. I also don't care what language David feels is appropriate to discuss Lee's article. I can buy a lot of books on good etiquette with the money that Sklansky makes me. The purpose of him writing is not to get a good samaritan badge from his fairy godmother.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
The purpose of him writing is not to get a good samaritan badge from his fairy godmother.

[/ QUOTE ]

Johnny,

He wants you to sweep the leg. Do you have a problem with that?