Lee Jones Flawed Thinking

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]
There was a post by someone (either in this thread or the other one) saying if they were Michael Jordon and someone said you sucked, that they would just walk away laughing. Just walk away and laugh - why do you guys care about what someone else thinks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, we have to straighten out this line of thought. If I walk up to Michael jodan and tell him, he sucks at basketball, it has absolutely no impact on his cash flow or reputation. If a a well known poker author writes in a feature article in a nationally published magazine that a poker book is wrong, that has a negative impact on sales of that book and the reputation of the writer and publisher.

Micahel Jordan can shrug it off because it doesn't matter, it makes no difference what I think or say about his game. Let someone that has some influence in sports cut on him, someone that can influence his sponsers and cost him an endorsement and see if he rolls over and takes it.

Compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, please.

Who was the athlete that got in huge trouble for talking bad about his teamates? I think he got fired, traded or suspended or something. I don't folow sports but please don't use spoiled rotten, dope head professional athletes as models of professional behavior.

Professional athletes make David and Mason look like angels.

[npc]

[ QUOTE ]
What I care about is getting people to realize that the subject of poker allows people to portray an expertise they don't have.

[/ QUOTE ]

This a true statement, but it's also true of a large number of fields. Poker isn't exclusive in this regard. I know you know this as well. Poker isn't even rare in this regard.

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this. The world of sports reporting, IMHO, is primarily occupied by charlatans. Business writing is filled with idiots who appear to be experts but really know very little. Even a "harder" field such as information technology is filled with methods and advice that is demonstrably wrong. Very rarely are the people who say silly things in these fields called on it in situations that matter much more than this Jones example.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

I feel the same sense of confusion as you, and I also feel the same way about the other fields that I mentioned. This is human nature. I applaud your efforts to educate the public. I have no argument with the substance of your response. I think you would do your cause and personal reputation some good if you were to write your response using a different tone. Maybe you don't care about this stuff, but the audience you're trying to reach does. The best educators take this into account.

[El Diablo]

David,

It would have been nice to see you jump in the discussions I was having when articles with very bad advice were printed in the 2+2 magazine (I pointed out the errors in two of the articles, one of which turned into an incredibly long thread) or in the very long NL thread where Mason and I were arguing about the EV of AQ v. JJ in a certain situation. In all of these cases, the 2+2-endorsed advice was clearly shown to be wrong, but none of the other 2+2 authors chimed in to take a position.

It is disappointing to see such a lack of discussion around 2+2 errors, while you guys are so quick to jump on Lee's alleged (I haven't read the article at issue here) errors.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
David,

It would have been nice to see you jump in the discussions I was having when articles with very bad advice were printed in the 2+2 magazine (I pointed out the errors in two of the articles, one of which turned into an incredibly long thread) or in the very long NL thread where Mason and I were arguing about the EV of AQ v. JJ in a certain situation. In all of these cases, the 2+2-endorsed advice was clearly shown to be wrong, but none of the other 2+2 authors chimed in to take a position.

It is disappointing to see such a lack of discussion around 2+2 errors, while you guys are so quick to jump on Lee's alleged (I haven't read the article at issue here) errors.

[/ QUOTE ]

El D -

You must have missed what Mason said in the parallel thread...

"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"

Surely, you must be mistaking, el D.

Josh

[Josh W]

David -

You asked somebody to comment on your four 'points'. Here is my initial gut reaction.

[ QUOTE ]


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.



[/ QUOTE ]

I believe (haven't read the article in question or HoH) that Lee asserts his 'system' is applicable only when blinds are high. He said in a NVG thread that:

"1. We specifically said that if the stack:blind ratios are large, you can't employ a fold/jam strategy without getting killed. Our strategy shows +EV for the small blind when the ratio of the smallest stack to the large blind (after the blinds are posted) is smaller than 7:1. Note that this is almost always true in S&Gs. It is also almost never true in major large buyin tournaments."

So, to your "point" #1 (which you finish with "this factor is not a big deal when the blinds are this high"), you've already negated the relevance of. I don't see why you want others to do this, too.

But more importantly, you say "Dan is certainly the better player and will thus gain from avoiding big pots when the situation is close". I'm pretty sure that Dan didn't write his book for him. He probably wrote his book for lesser players, who aspire to be like him. Moreover, I'd bet lots of money that Lee's system isn't aimed at improving Dan Harrington's sit N go game, but rather at lesser players' game. So, again, your point has no relevance.

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I agree.

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

WHAT? This 'point' only has relevance if:
a.) We think our opponent is as good as us.
b.) We think our opponent uses good game theory.
c.) We think our opponent is "significantly tighter than expected"

The fact that you could write such a painfully obvious contradiction in the same post where you criticize other professional writers is comical.

[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree (not withstanding the "above holds true" comment).

Josh

[Elevens]

I'm not going to try and understand the points that David was trying to make, because it's a subject I'm not too familiar with, however...

I think he has every right to defend his publications against attacks by others.

[deacsoft]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is no one discussing the four issues I brought up? I would think that is a lot more important than whether I should be polite to mediocre writers.

[/ QUOTE ]

To me there is no place for discussion. I believe 100% that you and Mr. Malmuth are correct. Again, it's unfortunate that all these matters of personal issues have become the focus of these threads.

[Yeti]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is no one discussing the four issues I brought up? I would think that is a lot more important than whether I should be polite to mediocre writers.

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

I would love to comment on the four points you brought up but I am having a lot of trouble with the printer right now. I will let others elaborate.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]



WHAT? This 'point' only has relevance if:
a.) We think our opponent is as good as us.
b.) We think our opponent uses good game theory.
c.) We think our opponent is "significantly tighter than expected"

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no, no, no that's not his point. His point is that thee's at least some chance that your judgment about the particular player is wrong.


a.) We think our opponent is as good as us.
b.) We think our opponent uses good game theory.
c.) Most players play significantly tighter than this though. There is at least some chance that the assesment about the opponent is wrong i.e. there is an X% chance the beliefs that the opponent being as good as we are and making their plays using sound game theory analysis is wrong.

Therefore since our assessment of our opponent may be wrong it makes more sense to fold when the decision is close if there was a 100% chance our assesment is right.

[adios]

Didn't Jones come on this forum and complain about some of the comments Ed Miller made about WLLH? I mean all authors are sensitive to what they feel are erroneous criticism of their work from what I've seen. I can tell you that Mason and DS take the accuracy of their work very seriously. When someone makes an erroneous statement about something that is literally worth millions to them I don't find it unusual at all for them to defend the content of their books vigorously.