Lee Jones Flawed Thinking

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi JCCARL:

I don't see any books by other authors/publishers that affect the sales of any of our books.

Best wishes,
Mason

[JaredL]

Mason,

You said that you don't see books by other publishers that affect the sales of your books. Are there any books of yours that affect the sales of other books? For example, did the release of SSHE affect the sale of HPFAP?

A curious economist,

Jared

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Jared:

Yes that has happened. SSH certainly hurt the sales of David's original Hold 'em Poker and the Harrington books have probably hurt the sales of Tournament Poker for Advanced Players. But these declines have not been that much.

What does appear to be happening is a shift towards good information on no limit hold 'em. But sales of the limit books are still very strong, and overall our sales have just been terrific.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Jusbe]

After reading this thread I'm really out of words. I had huge respect for Sklansky and 2+2, but now I'm not sure. I do understand why you made this thread and that you want to correct what Lee Jones wrote, but this seems to be more personal, at least this is not professional.

I think that Lee's article was completely harmless, but it just seems like you have some kind of obsession to prove that you're right and others are wrong. And even if this wouldn't be the case, why do you have to attack Lee so hard, claiming that he's not a good writer etc.

If you disagree with him, why can't you just state your opinion instead of attacking him?

[Cactus Jack]

One thing I think Jones needs to be given credit for is his writing is far more accessible to the new player. I read SSHE first, when starting, then WLLH, which was much easier to understand. My education level was raised far more after re-reading SSHE the second and third times, but that was after getting some experience.

2+2 books are great and I cherish my collection, but could not recommend them for newly-minted players, unless I wanted to drive them away from the game. They make poker seem too complicated and only for the math-able. I'm not, which means that even the biggest math-dummy can win. It just takes a lot more work.

[Piers]

I don't think it’s that the article is wrong exactly, but it is not the philosopher’s stone that the author might make out. I have not yet checked Lee’s college’s maths so I am not sure how good a model for optimal play Lee’s system is, but I suspect it is fairly good.

Knowing the correct play when both players are playing optimally is of benefit. It gives you a frame of reference for further modification.

The error is the claim that ‘this is how you should play’ rather than ‘here is how to play if both players are playing optimally, adjust as conditions require’. However completely rejecting a potential useful partial solution, just because it does not match your expectorations is just as bad.

However to those who criticise 2+2’s reaction I would say, “If you throw stones at the school bully, you really can’t complain if he comes over and belts you one.”