Lee Jones Flawed Thinking

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Masked Man:

I understand your position and as you point out I don't agree at all.

The Jones article is about a betting system that may have merit in some heads up tournament situations (when only two players are left). If you're a serious tournament player, it's probably worth knowing. But it has nothing to do with what Dan Harrington and Bill Robertie wrote in their book, and showing that Harrington got it wrong (as Jones claims)neither adds to or takes away from the SAGE System.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Josh:

No I'm not, and here's why.

I had my first article published on gambling way back in 1983, and my first poker article was also published that year. From the very beginning I have constantly been told that I either have it wrong and are impossible to deal with. I suspect that you and many others are probably quite happy that my attitude has been consistent all these years.

By the way, I'm also totally convinced that I could have done much better in the short run years ago and had much smoother sailing (so to speak). But I'm glad that I stuck to my ideals of insisting on only being associated with a top quality product and refusing to deal with people who wouldn't make the extra effort that a top quality product requires.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

That's great. I mean that sincerely. You may be almost as stubborn as me!

But you've made two statements:

1.) I'm stubborn and will not admit it when I'm wrong
and

2.)[ QUOTE ]
When someone is correct that one of us is wrong we acknowledge it and make the correction as soon as we can.

Best wishes,
Mason


[/ QUOTE ]

Which is it?

I bust your chops a lot. I know I do. And, even though I had about 12 people ask me yesterday if I enjoy it, I really don't find some sick pleasure in it. If you just came out and say "I'll never admit when I'm wrong, and previous statements by me saying otherwise were outright lies", I'd quit expecting you to act mature and adultlike.

Which is it?

Curiously,

Josh

[Mason Malmuth]

My book Blackjack Essays was written many years ago. Arnold Snyder who probably knows more about blackjack than almost anyone else was kind enough to write the forword. Here's an excerpt:

[ QUOTE ]
Another of Mason’s big blunders is that he sometimes admits in print that he has made a mistake! He’s actually willing to examine contrary opinions and analyses, and to change his mind! The guy has no shame.

[/ QUOTE ]

MM

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Masked Man:

There's a very big difference.

Let's look at a hypothetical article that gets published in our magazine that turns out to be inaccurate. What happens is that there is instant feedback on our magazine forum that there is a problem with this article. Therefore, our readers are very quickly informed of this and what the possible problems are. Also, if an article does appear in our magazine that is badly flawed, we do have the option to take it down (even though we have not yet chosen to do this).

Taking this a step further, you in particular are known to quickly point out these type of errors and you don't let up. That's fine with us by the way, and even though at times some may find your approach a little irritating, I for one applaud it even when I happen to be on the receiving end because of the long run good that it actually does.

Now consider when something gets published in a hard copy magazine like Card Player. There will be no counter discussions showing its flaws, and no option to the publisher to remove it. Many readers of the magazine will just think that it must be correct and in this case, since Card Player claims to be the poker authority, they will just assume that Harrington isn't so good after all. That sort of thing, especially if it gets picked up by posters and chatters on the Internet can be long term damaging to Dan (and Bill Robertie) and we're not real fond of it either.

Now let's get a little more specific. This article of Jones not only is badly flawed and very inaccurate, but he went a step further to prove Dan Harrington wrong on something that Dan got absolutely correct.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]



Although David started this thread with the intention of discussing, as he later questioned why was not being done, the points he made showing the flaws in Jones' article, I think that this post of Mason's that I quote is really the issue here, because David's points are almost obviously correct once you read them.

But this issue that Mason has pointed out, of the difference between the magazine here where any errors will quickly be pointed out and corrected versus any hardcopy publications, isn't even really about the defects of Jones and his co-author's strategic advice, as it is about the editors at Cardplayer. 2+2 as pointed out here and in the other thread, has an internal self-correcting mechanism whereby the other 2+2 authors review each other's work prior to publication, or the posters here do regarding various concepts that might be floated prior to being put in written form. But Cardplayer, which purports to be the "go to" source for all that is poker, and is run and edited by supposedly knowledgeable poker players, and also has a stable of regular writers, simply lacks either the true poker brainpower, or the willingness, to implement such a system.

Now one could say that the SAGE system is highly technical in some repsects perhaps, but if the editors there can't understand it to the degree of being able to identify errors, then the only thing they are really editing for is style. Whereas 2+2 has always been lacking in the style department, but always given in its printed works correct advice with the exceptions of typos as far as I have seen, or perhaps minor errors in their consequences.

And this is another point that David often alludes to in postings here and in his writings, that all errors aren't created equal. Any good poker player is supposed to realize that an error that loses a bet or fraction of a bet, isn't nearly as serious as one that loses a pot. But the error of a decision of folding or not, which might be close in equity terms played against a random hand, can indeed be a large one as David points out when one doesn't consider how the opponent is actually playing. Thus Cardplayer rates often in the writings of its various authors to give advice that is very costly in losing pots or stacks.

As I said in the other thread, I don't believe in any way that Lee Jones had the intention of attacking 2+2 or Dan Harrington, and that his mistake was an honest one (although he still might not see it as a mistake and if so honestly believes that). But Jones as a writer at Cardplayer is part of a publishing team there, and the team captains there can't be counted on to give correct strategic and mathematical coaching when necessary to its writer team members. And to me, that is the bottom line of this situation.

[Shandrax]

[ 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 ]

It is amazing, indeed. If outing the charlatans is in fact such a noble cause, why did you wait until Jones crossed the line? Who is going to tell the public that Hellmuth's advice is not trustworthy? Steve Danneman?

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]



Hopefully we see the difference between:

El Diablo criticizing me

and

Lee Jones criticizing Dan Harrington

(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.)

If you look at the material in context, I saw very little written against me that I thought was mean-spirited (at least by the folks you mentioned) -- but if you think Lee doesn't have an ax to grind against 2+2 (something El Diablo doesn't have with me), I think you've definitely gotten your perspective skewed.

As with many things in life, motivations and agendas are paramount to understanding the meaning.

[Warren Whitmore]

Question on point #2. My game theory understanding is a bit weak. Where game theory is based on a linear progression of prize money as in say a ring game. Would that mean where Tourneyments pay out as a 2nd degree polynomial that one would need to be a little more conservative for calling an unknown player?

(2)

I know that in small stakes poker (Limit) you folks advocate raising with say AT suited in late position with >5 active players because you can assume that the other players are playing hands they should not be. Sometimes I will do this as well in a nl tourneyment at the begaining when there are a lot of weak players present. Heads up at the end though cant I assume that the opponant I am against is considerably better than an average player? If this person dosent know me and I dont know him wouldent I be better off playing conservativly at first with the thought that he probably has Q7 off beat?

[Komodo]

Which page in HOH2 are we talking about?
Any link to the Lee Jones article?

[Wacken]

Wow, 2 seperate threads to burn the guy.

You guys don't seem to like Lee Jones.

Or are you a little frustrated and do you feel that you are not getting the recognition you deserve ?

Jumping an another author like this will not increase the recognition you get. At least not as a mature person.

[amulet]

i think this points out something that is missing at 2+2. and that is that the 2+2 authors don't respond often. it would be nice to see the authors join in some of the more interesting (and sometimes heated) discussions.