My final post

This is my final post.


While my passion for poker goes back many years and probably will continue for many more, priorities change. I will not be devoting as much time to poker as I once did, and one activity I am dropping is my participation in this forum.


I have learned from members of this group, and I hope some of you have learned from me as well. There are two general points I have emphasised over the years.


First, if a subject is important to you (whether it be poker, photography, or foreign policy), then strive to achieve a solid understanding of that issue rather than simply accept the opinions of some "authority." Develop your own expertise rather than rely on the expertise of others. Experts can be mistaken. You also can misinterpret them, misapply their views, or simply forget what they said. And situations will arise that they have not addressed. Why not bring your own wisdom to bear on the questions at hand?


Second, keep an open mind while you learn. Consider different points of view--indeed, seek them out. Occasionally, "think outside the box." If you understand a subject, you should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.


I offer my thanks to those who caused me to think about poker in new ways. Many thanks, also, to those who read my posts with open minds. And thanks to those who disagreed with my views in a civil manner.


I am especially grateful to my "editor." I never actually have posted to this forum. For various reasons, I always send my comments to a friend. My friend sometimes posts these comments unchanged, sometimes makes a few finishing touches, and sometimes performs major surgery. More are more often, I have sent sketchy outlines or one-sentence ideas for my "editor" to fill out and post. Occasionally, my friend (with permission) has written entire "Mark Glover" posts without any input from me.


Farewell.

Please tell your editor that he/she will be missed.

sorry to see you go as sometimes your stuff was really thought inducing. but im surprised that you didnt write the posts, so what i see from this is that you really were a fraud. you didnt even write what you wrote in content. shame.

Of course, I could be talking to your editor here!..

So the guy had an editor. So what? The thoughts were his. Anyone who has written a book has had an editor, does that make those authors frauds? Of course not, so why does that make Mark a fraud?


Let's not flame people who make/made contributions. We are all worse off for the ones we lose because of it.

Am I to understand that 2+2 books don't use editors? And if they do, the authors are frauds? That's too bad, I really like their books....

The farewell was not in jest. And my "editor" joke was just a joke.


For all I know, the author of Mark Glover's posts could have been a Stephen Hawking. All I care is what I read. And despite the obnoxious nature of many posts signed Mark Glover, his was good stuff , IMHO.

Good luck. You were good for the forum.


JG

Some readers appear to have misunderstood my role in the "Mark Glover" posts. Please allow me to clarify.


First and foremost, I was a conduit between Mark and 2+2. Since he preferred to remain anonymous (including his IP address), Mark sent his material to me, and I posted it on this forum.


If I didn't have much spare time (and the writing was adequate), then I'd simply post his article unaltered.


If I did have some time (and the writing needed a little help), then I might make a few minor changes to enhance its readability.


Occasionally, I might fail to understand some of Mark's passages or find them confusing. We would discuss them, and either he or I would do some major rewriting. I believe this review process yielded better posts--clearer, better organized, and more logical.


For many years, Mark also has taught me about poker. Earlier, it clearly was a tutor/student relationship. Over time, though, I've also been able to explain some new ideas to him.


As Mark gained trust in my analysis (and found less time to write), he sometimes just sent me a basic outline and let me compose the 2+2 post. Other times, our poker discussions produced ideas that Mark wanted to share with 2+2 readers, and he would ask me to put it into words and post it.


Without this collaboration, there would have been fewer "Mark Glover" articles on this forum. I believe this would have been a shame, although I understand it might have delighted some forum participants.


I also want to make it clear that, while my "editorial" relationship with Mark was greatly rewarding, I received no monetary rewards. I volunteered my efforts and am thankful for having had the opportunity.


I find Mark to be an excellent writer, an incredible teacher, and a wonderful friend. I will miss working with him on the "2+2 Project."

While my passion for poker goes back many years and probably will continue for many more, priorities change. I will not be devoting as much time to poker as I once did, and one activity I am dropping is my participation in this forum.


my "editor." I never actually have posted to this forum. For various reasons, I always send my comments to a friend


1)you take yourself too seriously. its just an internet forum.


2) if you would just bust out some posts rather than go thrugh this whole editing process, etc. it wouldnt take so much of your time to contribute here, and you could continue to do so.

We'll all miss Mark (in various ways--I personally thought he was a lot of fun and quite thought-provoking).


Since you started as his student, and later grew to be capable of explaining poker ideas to him (!), here's a suggestion:


Why don't YOU consider joining the Forum in your own right. I'm sure your contributions will be valuable and thought-provoking as well. And while you (and we) will miss working with Mark Glover, you won't have to miss working on the "2+2 project!"

Exactly.

Every professional writer relies on editors.


In more than 30 years of writing for publication I have never written without at least one editor, often several of them. They have helped me to see that my writing was confusing, boring, or just plain wrong.

One reason I write for Two Plus Two is that Mason and David are very tough editors. I know I need editing, and so does every person who wants to produce good work.

Anyone who thinks that using an editor is a sign of fraud has no idea at all of how books, magazines, and newspapers get produced.

Yeah, doesn't everyone here post through an editor??

Alan,


Without the help of good editors, students would be reading a work called Trimalchio, and spending too much time figuring out what the title means, and suffering through a much, much longer version of The Waste Land.

I've heard many times from a few people I know that enjoy the opera that one has to acquire a taste for the opera. As time went on I acquired a taste for Mark Glover's posts.

well Al as we all know that having someone edit or proof read your work is part of writing. but having someone write it all as he said happens is in fact kinda like fraud when he has his name on it and it seemed he didnt even approve it. I hope you dont think you should tell someone that its ok to write a book for you and put your name on it and then act as if you totally wrote the book.

in forums we tend to believe that the person we are conversing with are the same person who wrote the post. sorry but i differ with you here strongly. and i needed to say it as i was the one who use the fraud word that you mentioned.

Ray,


I apologize. First, I did not know that you had been the one who had used the word "fraud." I just read all the posts, then made a general comment on the need for editors. In the acknowledgements section of "The Psychology of Poker" (Two Plus Two) I thank Mason, David, Donna, and nine other people for their editorial suggestions. Those nine had commented before I submitted it to Mason. He and I spent months getting the content right, then David made further changes, then Donna cleaned up the wording.


Apparently, I have blundered into a much larger issue. A friend just called me and told me the background of Mark Glover's comments, personal attacks, the arguments, etc. I was unaware of all of it because I rarely come here.


I was definitely not taking Mark's side in any controversy, and I certainly did not want to insult you. I know nothing about him, and I don't remember ever reading any of his other posts.


ALL I was commenting on was the need to have someone criticize written work. A few minutes later I made a post in another thread. Immense confusion occured because someone omitted the word "not" in a post. An editor would have prevented this confusion.


I can see, however, that there is considerable difference between writing for publication and posting here. I still think that editing would prevent misunderstandings, but NOBODY can hide behind an editor. When something goes out with your name on it or mine, we're stuck with it, just as I am stuck with that careless post.


Sorry about the misunderstanding,


Al

Ray,


You wrote: "I hope you dont think you should tell someone that its ok to write a book for you and put your name on it and then act as if you totally wrote the book."


I guess you have some moral objection to ghost writers. I am curious what it might be.


You wrote: "in forums we tend to believe that the person we are conversing with are the same person who wrote the post."


Sometimes your beliefs are wrong. Were you harmed in a significant way by the revelation that the "Mark Glover" posts were a collaborative effort?


You wrote: "but having someone write it all as he said happens is in fact kinda like fraud when he has his name on it and it seemed he didnt even approve it."


All the posts I wrote under the "Mark Glover" name were approved by Mark. Perhaps you didn't have time to read Mark's final post in its entirety before making your accusation.


Some might argue it is intellectually dishonest to write a poker book that fails to include at least a bibliography to acknowledge sources you consulted. Perhaps you believe this is a silly notion; perhaps you don't. But it seems less silly than the objections you raised in this thread.

So did you come up with the thoughts in your post, or did Mark? Or is it hard to distinguish?


"I guess you have some moral objection to ghost writers. I am curious what it might be."


I don't know about Ray, but I do. Ghost writers, when not explicitly identified as such (prior to one's "final" work), are like a lie. They are essentially the same as saying, "I wrote this," when you didn't. Perhaps you have no moral objections to a lie. But some do.


"Sometimes your beliefs are wrong. Were you harmed in a significant way by the revelation that the "Mark Glover" posts were a collaborative effort?"


People feel understandably deceived, lied to, and mislead when led to believe something that isn't true. Did Ray say he'd been harmed in some significant way?


"All the posts I wrote under the "Mark Glover" name were approved by Mark. Perhaps you didn't have time to read Mark's final post in its entirety before making your accusation."


Where in his final post did Mark (or the person you call "Mark") say all the posts you wrote under his name were approved by him. Nowhere that I can see. But he did say, "I have sent sketchy outlines or one-sentence ideas for my 'editor' to fill out and post.", as well as "Occasionally, my friend (with permission) has written entire 'Mark Glover' posts without any input from me."


Fraud seems like a rather appropriate word. It's unfortunate, since most of "Mark's" posts involved fairly obvious ideas, but ideas which might be useful to beginning players. Most likely it was therefore new, developing players who thought the most about them. It seems a shame to have perpetrated this fraud more intensely on this group.

Dear Mr Schhonmaker,


Allow me to offer my two cents' worth of opinion here.


Although you're of course absolutely correct about the usefulness of editors in writing Non-fiction books, the use of an editor in the construction of something as transient, ephemeral and downright not-that-important as a Web Post, is just not the same thing. I can swallow the explanation about "the need for ISP anonymity" given by Mr Glover (albeit with a lot of effort in suppressing the giggles), and I can also understand the editor's help if we're dealing with some phycical inability to type, but I cannot accept much else.


Using an editor to shape a post here is simply the sign of too much damn self-importance! Exactly what caused Mr Glover's posts to rub people the wrong way here.


Respectfully,


--Cyrus

In some sick way, I'm sorry to see you go. I've never been more annoyed with someone on a forum than I was with you (perhaps with Gary Carson running a close second.)


Of course, you're wrong on the content of your last post.


Many times a person is forced to take the word of an "expert" for one of two reasons: One, the expert understands something which that person cannot. Or two, the expert is much smarter than the person in question, and the expert's probability of being correct is significantly higher than his/her own. Don't think that I don't appreciate your effort at optimism and working for the greater good, though.

G. Ed,


You wrote: "Of course, you're wrong on the content of your last post. Many times a person is forced to take the word of an 'expert' for one of two reasons . . ."


Of course, Mark didn't say you should *never* take the word of an expert. He suggested that for important issues, you should strive to develop your own expertise. Obviously, we all use the advice of others to some degree. The more important a subject is to you, however, the more you should attempt to achieve your own understanding of it. I'm sorry if you misunderstood Mark's point.


By the way, did you ever find the statistical theory you thought supported Mason's no-limit bet sizing claim (which Sklansky later agreed was wrong)?

Cyrus,


You wrote: "Using an editor to shape a post here is simply the sign of too much damn *self-importance*!"


Mark asked me if I would be willing to post his messages on the 2+2 forum. He never asked me to act as his editor; I volunteered those services. I'm glad I did, and I'm glad he accepted. I gained useful knowledge from the extra discussions we had, as did Mark.


Not only did our collaborative arrangment benefit Mark and myself, but I'd like to believe it also benefited some of this forum's readers. I think the posted messages sometimes were clearer, better organized, and more logical.


I'm sorry if this arrangment offended you for some reason.

Mark,

I haven't been coming to 2+2 as long as you, but what I have read from you on this forum in the time that I have been here has been excellent work.


Your understanding of truth and irony is second to none.


If there are really two or more of you, all you had to do was to put both of your names in the "Your Name" box, eg "Mark Glover and my editor". It wouldn't have bothered me, and I would have credited both of you with excellent work.

have you checked the archives? they're also mighty good at arrogance, sarcasm, and annoying refusals to admit being wrong, don't you think? (figured you wouldn't mind some sarcasm here) by the way, keep reading, you'll find there is no 'mark glover' at all.

The councilor tries to engage the witness in further dialogue , while we were promised that our trials will soon be over.


...Will the stenographer, please, read back to us that part about some "FINAL POST" ??

Good memory.


Actually, I discussed the subject with Mason in an e-mail. It didn't take much for me to realize that I might find life more enjoyable if I quit trying to prove my point to Mark. Mason didn't supply any equation, and I chose to use my time to other purposes than to do the actual work. Had Mark proven himself to be less of a boor, I would have taken the time to tell him as much. My need to be right was smaller than my need to spend my free time in other pursuits. I also figured that since Mark chose to completely ignore both of my challenges to play head's up, I didn't owe him any common courtesy. He is self serving in the guise of someone "helpful", but I'd rather be annoyed by Mark than engage in discourse with many people I find more benevolent.