Lee Jones Flawed Thinking

[David Sklansky]

I am sure Lee Jones trys very hard to be a good poker writer. And that he is an honest man and a good guy. But none of that changes the fact that he is NOT a good poker writer. At least not by the standards of writers on other subjects. (Serious subjects like bridge building, or less serious subjects like chess, bridge or backgammon.)

In order to write an excellent book about a subject, it is almost certainly necessary that you either be a superb practioner of the subject and a very good thinker and explainer, or a very good practitioner and a superb thinker and explainer. This is especially true once you go beyond a beginner's book. Lee Jones, like many other poker authors, does not meet either of these standards.

The most recent example occurs in the Cardplayer article, discussed already on another thread, where he says that Dan Harrington is wrong to fold Q7 to an all in head up raise. He admits it is close but goes on to say that the game theory strategy says to call and that given the player is an unknown quantity you should stick with that game theory strategy. (I will assume for the sake of argument that the strategy he presents in the article is in fact correctly calculated. But I must add that if it was, Lee Jones almost certainly had nothing to do with those calculations and in fact would have no idea how to do them. Yet he sort of claims half credit.)

The problem is that there are at least FOUR good reasons why, in the scenario presented, you should fold hands that game theory would indicate are close calls. And Jones does not even mention them.

They are:

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't blame Lee Jones for wanting to be in the upper echelon of poker writers. And I commend him for seeking out a mathmetican to devise a strategy that seems correct even though it is annoying he sort of claims some credit for it, The fact is that the article is probably a good one. At least if he hadn't ruined it in his zeal to find a flaw in Dan's book. A zeal that only succeeded in once again highlighting that his ideas and words cannot be counted on by serious players.

[MicroBob]

well this should be interesting....

[Brice]

I enjoy reading everyone's opinion on poker. If it is a wrong idea, I can usually pick it apart in a hurry. I think it is silly that some authors around 2+2 have launched this attack on Lee Jones. I have not read the article but the man is entitled to his own opinion. It is up to the reader to agree or disagree.

WLLH got me started in poker and made me not be a fish anymore. I thought it was an excellent book and still do today. Jones has represented nothing but class. It just seems a bit silly to attack him in my opinion.

I would rather read Dan Harrington’s opinion on the matter.

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
At least if he hadn't ruined it in his zeal to find a flaw in Dan's book. A zeal that only succeeded in once again highlighting that his ideas and words cannot be counted on by serious players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lee's zeal to find a flaw in Dan's book is only outdone by your zeal to prove that you're smarter than Lee.

[David Sklansky]

"I enjoy reading everyone's opinion on poker. If it is a wrong idea, I can usually pick it apart in a hurry. I think it is silly that some authors around 2+2 have launched this attack on Lee Jones. I have not read the article but the man is entitled to his own opinion. It is up to the reader to agree or disagree."

Excuse me? What are you talking about? Maybe you are smart enough to pick apart a wrong idea. But what about those who aren't? When people write about a subject the reader has a right to expect that the logic is correct. Why is poker an exception? Just because there are many situations that are a matter of opinion, doesn't mean that somehow it is okay for writers to be wrong about important situations and concepts that aren't. I have a problem with Lee Jones and many others because they use the fuzziness of poker as a way to fool the public into thinking that their level of expertise is as high as authors of other sujects. And it amazes me that readers who are hurt by these mediocrities come to their defense.

[deacsoft]

I too enjoy the different points of view on things like this. I feel it promotes a better way of thinking. Not just read and recycle. It gives you multiple solutions and you must decide which is correct and which is not. I also find it beneficial to understand the reasoning behind those opinions and concepts. However, not every player is able to seperate good advice from flawed advice. I believe the main thing Mr Malmuth and Mr Sklansky are doing is trying to correct these errors or at least make people aware that these corrections need to be made. Many situations in poker are "grey". There are also several that are either "black" or "white". Right or wrong. 2+2 probably has the highest standards in the industry when it comes to the credibility and accuracy of the material they publish. Wether or not they should hold the rest of the industry to their standards is another issue. I feel they have the best intrest of the entire poker community in mind. Card Player is a highly read magazine. A large error could reach many players. I believe the heart of this matter is getting the correct information to the masses. The personal reasonings behind any of it are unfortunate, but have nothing to do with me. I will not comment on them.

[Brice]

Something as subjective as poker can have many different angles. I do not think anything is black and white when it comes to poker. If we were talking about a math problem or a historical situation where the answer is correct no matter what, then I would agree with you. However, I think it is well documented that differing styles, in poker, can be successful.

I compare poker to politics. A person can read an opinion and draw conclusions rather he/she agrees with it and on what grounds. You will get readers who will believe anything that they read. However, most people are smart enough to figure out that the author is just giving his/her opinion and to take it with a grain of salt.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

What is that "average" style and where can I read about it?

[npc]

In your post, the reason you state for thinking that Lee Jones isn't a good poker writer is that he fails to mention any of the four reasons you list why folding in the situation Jones discusses might be good strategy even if it doesn't appear to be game-theoretically correct.

I have no interest in debating the merits of Jones as a poker writer in this forum, but in your analysis you failed to consider any of several legitimate reasons why Jones may have been aware of the points you raise but not include them in his article. Off the top of my head, here are TWO:

1. As you are well aware, magazine columnists often are forced to trim worthwhile content from articles in order to meet publishers' length restrictions. Jones may have wanted to discuss at least some of these issues but was forced to trim them due to publishing constraints.

2. Jones may be aware of the issues you raise but believed that printing them in that article wasn't important compared to other things he had to say.

You mention that a writer should either be superb at his subject matter and a competent writer or be a superb writer and competent at his subject matter. Assuming you are correct in your analysis of Jones' writing, and assuming you don't actually know the reasons why Jones didn't include the information you want, you can plausibly claim that he is either not a superb writer or not a superb strategist, but it seems to me you cannot demonstrate both. Consequently, I'm unconvinced by your analysis.

Mr. Sklansky, there are many things you could do with your time that would benefit yourself and, because of your extreme talents, humanity. It would be my recommendation that spending your efforts explaining why Mr. Jones is not a good poker writer is a cause that is unworthy of you.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Nick:

[ QUOTE ]
1. As you are well aware, magazine columnists often are forced to trim worthwhile content from articles in order to meet publishers' length restrictions. Jones may have wanted to discuss at least some of these issues but was forced to trim them due to publishing constraints.


[/ QUOTE ]

It was the feature article in the magazine, so it's unlikely in my opinion that length restrictions would be an issue like it might be with a columist.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Jones may be aware of the issues you raise but believed that printing them in that article wasn't important compared to other things he had to say.


[/ QUOTE ]

If Jones writes about the issues that David raises, then his conclusion that Harrington got it wrong and his statement about this being mathematically provable wouldn't make sense anymore.

Best wishes,
Mason