Big Problems with Ed Miller

[govman6767]

Did anyone ask Nelly of his opinion on the Sklansky/Snyder debate ?????

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see where Brunson talks about stealing blinds. Stealing blinds is common late in no limit tournaments, when the play is very tight and there are blinds and antes.

Brunson talks about stealing small pots, not stealing blinds.

I don't think either Brunson or Sklansky and Miller emphasize stealing blinds. There books are primarily about cash game play, where blind stealing is not important.

[/ QUOTE ]

There were antes in the game when brunson wrote SS. Arnold should know that.

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
IF NLTAP wasnt written then alot of the Staples of a proper NL stradegy would not be understood.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying there is an easy button?

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NLTAP>>>>>>>>>>>& gt;>>>>>>>>>>>&gt ;>>>>>>>>>>>Any other nl cash book.


[/ QUOTE ]

In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed is king.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I always thought that quote did a very bad job of capturing the point that was usually being made. Because in truth, the difference between the blind and the one eyed man is monumentally large and the difference between a one eyed man and a two eyed man, relatively speaking, would be tiny. In this particular case though, the analogy works well.

[Gelford]

Nice reply David ... You're a class act [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
We have dozens of players contacting us weekly for advice because they are consistently losing in these games with the principles in Miller's book. There are good reasons why these players are losing. Because these players are losing, and because they've shown up here for advice, we are not going to let misleading posts like yours stand without rebuttal, whether they are written with good will or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the same type of "problem" they, or at least Radar, demonstrated in their first attack on 2+2.

The first time, they claimed that they compared players using S&M to players using their tournament strategy and concluded that their strategy was superior (and then went on to explain why). First, I have serious doubts that Snyder or Radar understand S&M as well as they think they do. Second, I have more serious doubts that the players in their study understand as well as "S&R". I suspect many had no chance in any game. Coaching bad players, even by a sub-par “expert”, will improve their results. Finally, I have doubts that even if their players demonstrated the necessary skill level, S&R lacked a large enough sample size for their study to have any meaning. I challenged Radar twice to post the results of their study and both times she ignored the challenge (she responded to other posts, so she probably saw the challenge).

In the above quote, I also have serious doubts that the players who are complaining they are losing with "little S&M" (Sklansky & Miller) understand what they are doing. They may have read the book, but do they really understand? Most players who read any book don’t understand fully what they are reading. Using these players to prove or disprove the value of the book is silly. And like with the above situation, a player winning or losing with various strategies is not enough proof either way. The sample size is probably too small.

Snyder should understand this. He should also understand that while his "crew" over on his site may be well meaning and some may even be good players (and maybe even great guys and gals), they probably pale in comparison to the better players over here. But it seems that he plays to his audience, perhaps because they're loyal, or perhaps because they drive his sales. But he really should be more honest with them, imo. He’s too results-oriented for poker, especially if his results come from sub-par talent.