Grade the September Magazine

[uDevil]

I suggest that in addition to 'peers', a few random Joe Schmoes also review the articles to get kind of a focus group opinion.

Another random suggestion: sticky a post in the relevant forum(s) for a couple of days at the beginning of the month so that people know there is an article in the magazine they may be interested in.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Scoop Outs started out with some fallacious math

[/ QUOTE ]flight2q - What specifically did you think was fallacious? (I'm thinking that perhaps you misread or misunderstood something).

Buzz

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
what i thought was a great article (the scooping outs in omaha piece) proves to be mathematically flawed,

[/ QUOTE ]creedofhubris - Why do you believe the article is mathematically flawed? (I'm thinking you may have misunderstood something - but possibly there's some error of which I am unaware, and if so, I'll correct the error).

The fact remains that scooping a given sized pot together with sitting out the next hand (or some of the next hand) is more than twice as good as winning half that same sized pot twice.

(I'm aware that two half pots equal one scoop in simulations. That is, you end up with the same number of chips in either event in a simulation. But the comparison I'm making is not for a fixed number of trials where you either (1)scoop, (2)win part, or (3)lose.)

Buzz

[BluffTHIS!]

Buzz,

I think he is referring to Broctoon's thread down the list with no replies as yet and his argument that the article's contention that scooping is 2.5 times as better as splitting is wrong, though it is more than 2 times better. Check that thread out in case you missed it. (I don't play O8 in any form but did read the article.)

[wonkadaddy]

overall one of the best and most varied issues i've read.

the strategy articles were excellent this month. bubble article = A+. the stop n go article could have highlighted its conclusions a bit more clearly, but i thought the topic was interesting as the results weren't overly intuitive. i don't play split-pot games, but the main point of the O8 article was an interesting one i hadn't considered.

i'd prefer if strategy made up a solid 50% of the mag, but realize that submissions are probably the limitting factor.

good mix w/the rest of the mag. a little history, a little celeb fluff (got to have a token interview), sports betting/fantasy (i wish the FF article had gone a little deeper.) usually i'm nto a huge fan of the psych articles, but i thought the behavioral game theory this issue read great, dealt w/an interesting topic and tied into poker surprisingly well. only real issue i have is w/there being 2 bankroll articles. 1 bankroll article every 3rd issue would seem more appropriate imo. there's more to bankroll management than 500BB, we get it. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] overall, very well done.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he is referring to Broctoon's thread down the list with no replies as yet and his argument that the article's contention that scooping is 2.5 times as better as splitting is wrong, though it is more than 2 times better. Check that thread out in case you missed it.

[/ QUOTE ]BluffTHIS! -Thanks. I had not looked at that response before, but now I have responded to it.

I agree with what Bocktoon wrote, and yet it is useful to be able to combine various outs, some of which are for the whole pot and others which are for part of the pot. And to do that easily under game conditions when playing a hand, using appoximations is (relatively) easy and works rather well.

Buzz

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, even though they would hold little interest for me, I can tell from browsing various forums over time including ones about forms of poker I don't play, that there is a huge interest in player stories, i.e. how various players both tourney and cash game, make their livings online, how they built and hold onto their rolls, what their playing day is like, what they do to better themselves and the like. Kind of like your own 5 years in Vegas threads and similar threads by other posters. So maybe there could be a semi-regular article in the category "making a living playing poker online" or something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely agree. This would be very valuable addition.

-g

[MeetUrTwin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what i thought was a great article (the scooping outs in omaha piece) proves to be mathematically flawed,

[/ QUOTE ]creedofhubris - Why do you believe the article is mathematically flawed? (I'm thinking you may have misunderstood something - but possibly there's some error of which I am unaware, and if so, I'll correct the error).

The fact remains that scooping a given sized pot together with sitting out the next hand (or some of the next hand) is more than twice as good as winning half that same sized pot twice.

(I'm aware that two half pots equal one scoop in simulations. That is, you end up with the same number of chips in either event in a simulation. But the comparison I'm making is not for a fixed number of trials where you either (1)scoop, (2)win part, or (3)lose.)

Buzz

[/ QUOTE ]

Buzz, do you remember this old thread?

[Mr. Orange]

Dynasty,

I've read some of your posts (particulary in the stud, Omaha and "other Poker" forums) about the magazine and it doesn't seem many in those forums are willing to share information, fearing it will make the games tougher.
What if there was an article that aimed to refute these beliefs. (this would have be done be someone that is a winning player and writes books... i.e. Sklansky or someone similiar)

While this one particular article wouldn't benefit many in the immediate short term it might be long term +EV if it would encourage more people to contribute.

[tipperdog]

Hi Dynasty,

My thoughts:

I'm surprised no one else has posted this, but I guarantee many readers thought it: There were too many math-intensive articles. King Yao (football betting) does a nice job of incorporating the math into a readable narrative, but others (Bankroll Coinflips) don't. Without establishing an actual "cap," I'd suggest that you attempt to limit the number of math-intensive pieces to 1-2 per magazine.

I also agree with your self-criticism that there wasn't enough hold 'em cash game advice. Your desire to include a broader range of content is right on, but hold 'em is what people play today and it ought to be in every mag.

Also, I like the inclusion of what you've termed "poker journalism," in particular your stud piece. These are interesting breezy pieces to read when you've got a few minutes to spare. "30 questions" was TOO breezy, however. Haven't we all seen enough interviews with Daniel to last a lifetime?

Not a fan of the "classic" article. What's it doing here? If you like this concept, I'd suggest including REAL classics...essays that introduced major new concepts or described important events in poker history.

Good luck moving forward.