2+2 and Editing: Oh, the Irony

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
While you have a valid point Nate, I think you underestimate the increase in sales (if any) that better editing would lead to. ... I am sure that Mason run his business very well here. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

In computer programming, there are books by Jesse Liberty that are extremely popular due to their lucid writing style. The books often get hammered by the "gurus" who complain about some relatively minor errors. The word spreads about books that are enjoyable and easy to read.

I've "sold" quite a few poker books to friends. And guess what? I'd never recommend HPFAP any more than I'd recommend Play Poker Like the Prose (get it?). Mason puts WAY too much emphasis on writing things that are not incorrect, which often leads to a relatively poor book. It just happens that at the time, there was no real competition.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
while the 2+2 books may not be perfect, mason tries very hard to make them that way. he is torturous in making sure the writing is well done. our new book, world class holdem is taking a ton of time longer just for that reason. he even had by mutual agreement brought in alan to edit for us. mason does demand top quality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I demand I be the best poker player in the world. Sadly, it doesn't make it so. The good 2+2 books are good when the authors write them that way. When was the last book Mason even wrote? HPFAP or essays doesn't exactly qualify Mason to be a great editor.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, poker books from other publishers aren't much better. Anybody read MoP? There's tons of errata for that - although somehow it's still an excellent book.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not just about errata. That's something that even Nate doesn't seem to completely understand.

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL, I thought Poker was the only place Donkeys challenged you to a heads up match!

[/ QUOTE ]

Steam--

Why is it any more impolite or donkey-ish to offer to bet on an editing test than to sit at a (2-handed or 9-handed) poker table?

--Nate

[econophile]

criticizing the grammar of the OP is retarded. he has a valid point, which it seems that people want to evade.

[7n7]

Nate,

I know you think I'm hating on you, but I really didn't think you were serious when you took the discussion there.

You've been around long enough to know that challenges are usually met with ridicule regardless of who makes it. And, you've been around wayyyyy long enough to know that Mason and/or David never, ever accept these things. So, there really was no point to it, dontcha' think?

And for the record, I haven't been offended by your tone at all, but then again I'm not a 2+2 author. Do I think the books could stand improvement? You bet.

Have I accepted the fact that they will be released with errors, regardless of any debate that goes on here? You bet.

Again, most of us can probably live with the the grammatical goofs and hacking of the English language as long as what's written is correct. We may prefer it the other way (perfectly written) but if the alternative is higher price and even longer delays, give it to me now and I'll make on-the-fly corrections as necessary.

The poker world is a fickle one and I want the information now b/c who knows what next month will bring? Or more importantly, who knows what next month won't bring...eg. new players.

[pete fabrizio]

2+2 is great for bringing together poker talent and developing texts that explain fairly complicated ideas in an accessible and mostly reliable way. But for the logistical side of publishing, it is clearly third-rate. The fact that your best copy-editor is a psychiatrist/poker author, instead of, say, a professional copy editor, is just one of many indications. If I were running 2+2, I would have formed some kind of relationship with a real publishing house ages ago. It's called comparative advantage. Look into it.

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL, I thought Poker was the only place Donkeys challenged you to a heads up match!


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



Steam--

Why is it any more impolite or donkey-ish to offer to bet on an editing test than to sit at a (2-handed or 9-handed) poker table?

--Nate


[/ QUOTE ]

Now, you didn't get to almost 2K posts without knowing the first thing a Donkey does is challenge you to a Heads Up match (that they have no intention of playing.)

No way you can challenge someone to a heads upmatch in the midst of a debate here on 2+2 without someone calling you down about it.

[RobertJohn]

I’ve read this post a couple times and at first was slightly amused (b/c the OP is definitely correct about grammatical errors and some awkward constructs in WITHG and other 2p2 works), but became somewhat annoyed at his insistence that he could do a better job (esp. when his posts were flawed).

As Ray Zee and Mason pointed out, writing a book that is highly technical and specialized like a poker book aimed at the highest stakes is a difficult task and would probably require a lot of time to make it effortlessly readable to a wide audience (some who might not understand the esoteric language fully).

Mason has also mentioned the balance he has to achieve between creating the best possible product and making sure he meets deadlines and releases the book at the right time.

The OP may have come off better if he hadn’t violated a key principle of argumentation anyway: he never mentioned the many passages in the book that are succinct and informative; he just attacks/trashes the book as if it is an inferior product.

As someone who has read the entire work, I can say that it is easily one of the top five poker books ever written. It’s filled with practical info and comprehensive analysis; the quizzes alone are some of the best tools for sharpening your game I’ve seen in print anywhere.

I’m like the OP in that I’ve read tons of poker books and some many times. I’m not sure if he’s read the Hands with Stox section yet, but the only thing I’ve seen similar to it is Middle Limit Hold’em Poker. Grudzien’s analysis far surpasses Ciaffone’s; he is able to explain his moves, dissect the merits of alternative moves, and back it all up with empirical/mathematical support.

The book deserves kudos foremost.

I have benefited financially from my time spent studying 2p2 books (and reviewing my own game, a book is no substitute for that), and what more should a reader ask from a poker text? I marvel at their finished product and would ask that everyone imagine undertaking such a huge task as writing a solid, thorough book on a very complex subject before they criticize a few grammatical mistakes.

It’s kind of silly to point out linguistic errors in a mathematical strategy textbook anyways. I would think of a suitable metaphor but don’t have the time.

[Conte Rules]

This is the nittiest thread this side of the FRNL forum.