Flawed Two Plus Two Advice

[Al Mirpuri]

I want to know how much of Two Plus Two's poker advice (whether written by SM&Z, alone or in collaboration, or others) is thought to be flawed, mistaken or wrong.

Yes, I am aware that Two Plus Two authors are the best poker theorists currently working but are they always right? Methinks not.

[Al Mirpuri]

I voted that something like 2.1% to 5% of Two Plus Two poker advice is wrong.

It should be noted that I am not talking about instances where Two Plus Two have corrected themselves, eg MM did not think low limit HE was really any different than the HE that HEFAP addressed and said as much in print in one of the Poker Essays books but he has since published Small Stakes Hold'em and so he must now believe that that low limit HE plays differently enough to publish a book devoted exclusivelty to the type of games found there: loose aggressive.

[Al Mirpuri]

Obviously, there can be no real scientific quantification of how much incorrect material there is in Two Plus Two's printed advice via an opinion poll but this poll will quantify the attitude of forum users to the material Two Plus Two puts in the public realm.

[BarronVangorToth]

It is illogical to think that everything any of them has written about is always perfectly accurate.

While the percentage is small, I'd assume most would agree that it is very likely that a fraction of 1% of their advice is incorrect -- and probably VERY close to 1/10 of 1%, if not even less than that.

When your average poker writer might be right 90% of the time, that makes 2+2 writers 100x's more accurate in my book.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[johnnybeef]

2+2 is excellent at getting the strategy/mathematical side of the game in print. i don't feel that they adress enough of the intangibles like someone like bob ciaffone or roy cooke does.

[Beach-Whale]

I have no idea how much of "2+2 advice" that might be erroneous in some way - I'm just not a good enough player or teoretician yet to spot errors with any confidence (except extremely simple ones, like the 52s error) - but what I don't like is the attitude that they are somehow infallable.

This attitude seems dangerous to me, especially when "followers" take it to heart, and just accept everything without questioning or thinking things through on their own.

I'm not sure of anything, until I have convinced myself of it through some kind of understanding. Most of the time, 2+2 books have miserably failed to give me the kind of understanding that I am looking for and can feel comfortable with. Maybe it is because I am not smart enough, maybe it is because I have high standards for what I call understanding, and maybe it is because 2+2 books often could be much better written. I genuinely think that it is a combination of all those three reasons.

I have seen them say that even a small percentage of erroneous advice in a poker book can be very detrimental. Well, I dare to say that poorly presented information can have that same, or at least similar, effect. This (poorly presented information) is in my view probably a much bigger issue with 2+2 books than straight out erroneous information.

But, they might be working on it, because SSH seems much better than eg HPFAP.

[RollaJ]

I think some of it may be flawed just based on how the game has evolved since the books were published......... That being said , I dont fully agree with the preflop play of most group 6-8 hands in HPFAP..... many of those are too weak for me even first in on the button

[PhatPots]

I think that two plus two advice is generally correct. Most of the player authors play higher stakes, so their perspective on the game is somewhat different. I agree also that they focus on the mathematical point without putting enough emphasis on the other factors of the game. Although the mathematics is key, it is not the only factor.

Cheers,
Pots

[That guy]

I would have to agree that HPFAP is not presented well. It makes excellent technical points but it is very poorly organized which makes it very difficult to read. On the other hand, The Theory of Poker and SSH are very pleasant reads.

I like the format of Ciaffones books and hope 2+2 can do something similar to Middle Limit Hold Em. 'Improve Your Poker' is a real nice read too.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi PhatPots:

Have you read The Psychology of Poker and/or Inside the Poker Mind?

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Whale:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
I have seen them say that even a small percentage of erroneous advice in a poker book can be very detrimental.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right. An error rate of 2 percent isn't good enough.

Best wishes,
Mason

[jasonHoldEm]

I'm still trying to figure out how they add two diamonds and two clubs and end up getting four hearts...poker is hard.

J

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you read The Psychology of Poker and/or Inside the Poker Mind?

[/ QUOTE ]

Must reads IMO.

Lawrence

[bobdibble]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still trying to figure out how they add two diamonds and two clubs and end up getting four hearts...poker is hard.

J

[/ QUOTE ]

money + luck = love

[schmoe]

I voted that something like 2.1% to 5% of Two Plus Two poker advice is wrong.
It should be noted that I am not talking about instances where Two Plus Two have corrected themselves, eg MM did not think low limit HE was really any different than the HE that HEFAP addressed and said as much in print in one of the Poker Essays books but he has since published Small Stakes Hold'em and so he must now believe that that low limit HE plays differently enough to publish a book devoted exclusivelty to the type of games found there: loose aggressive.


This is silliness. Rather than make some vague and unquantifiable claim - "Two Plus Two is wrong 2.1 to 5% of the time" - why not elaborate /discuss /refute the areas where you feel Two Plus Two's advice is incorrect.

[imported_PP123]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar till:</font><hr />
I have no idea how much of "2+2 advice" that might be erroneous in some way - I'm just not a good enough player or teoretician yet to spot errors with any confidence (except extremely simple ones, like the 52s error) - but what I don't like is the attitude that they are somehow infallable.


[/ QUOTE ]

What's the 52s error?

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea how much of "2+2 advice" that might be erroneous in some way - I'm just not a good enough player or teoretician yet to spot errors with any confidence (except extremely simple ones, like the 52s error) - but what I don't like is the attitude that they are somehow infallable.


[/ QUOTE ]

What's the 52s error?

[/ QUOTE ]

Beach-Whale has asked why 52s is not included in the Sklansky Hand Groups when 43s is, and yet the former is the stronger hand.

[Al Mirpuri]

The two extremes are interesting: that 7% of us thought Two Plus Two withour error (defies credence) and that 8% would have Two Plus Two would have them not publishing anything as Two Plus Two have repeatedly claimed in print that 90% correct is 10 points incorrect is too much to be reliable.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
I voted that something like 2.1% to 5% of Two Plus Two poker advice is wrong.
It should be noted that I am not talking about instances where Two Plus Two have corrected themselves, eg MM did not think low limit HE was really any different than the HE that HEFAP addressed and said as much in print in one of the Poker Essays books but he has since published Small Stakes Hold'em and so he must now believe that that low limit HE plays differently enough to publish a book devoted exclusivelty to the type of games found there: loose aggressive.


This is silliness. Rather than make some vague and unquantifiable claim - "Two Plus Two is wrong 2.1 to 5% of the time" - why not elaborate /discuss /refute the areas where you feel Two Plus Two's advice is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope to address this in print at some point.

[Beach-Whale]

See the thread "Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles" started by Sklansky. I bring it up there to show that everyone makes mistakes, in defense of Bob Ciaffone, who of course know the difference between odds and probabilities. To claim that he doesn't is plain silly. As silly as it would be for me to claim that David Sklansky does not know why 52s is a better hand than both 42s and 32s. They are both just simple mistakes, like we all make.

If Bob Ciaffone is a flawed poker author because of his mistake in his latest Card Player article, then David Sklansky is just as flawed as a poker author because of his 52s mistake in HPFAP, in my opinion.

Especially since HPFAP is a book, and even has been around for years, in several editions, whereas Ciaffones article is in the latest issue of a bi-weekly magazine.

[Beach-Whale]

[ QUOTE ]
Beach-Whale has asked why 52s is not included in the Sklansky Hand Groups when 43s is, and yet the former is the stronger hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be 42s, not 43s. Sklansky made another mistake when he said 43 in his reply. But that probably was just a mistype. The '3' and '2' keys ARE quite close to each other...

Or maybe he was trying to be funny.

Anyway, 43s should be better than 52s, since it can make more straights. Just pointing this out so that no one gets confused. Again.

[David Sklansky]

"I bring it up there to show that everyone makes mistakes, in defense of Bob Ciaffone, who of course know the difference between odds and probabilities."

I don't think he does. Else why would he have said 9-1 in the second case? As for his book containing the correct information, remember he had a coauthor. Meanwhile I would have still given him the benefit of the doubt if not for a plethora of other mistakes in past articles.

[maryfield48]

[ QUOTE ]
The two extremes are interesting: that 7% of us thought Two Plus Two withour error (defies credence) and that 8% would have Two Plus Two would have them not publishing anything as Two Plus Two have repeatedly claimed in print that 90% correct is 10 points incorrect is too much to be reliable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might be me, but I find this post incomprehensible.

Maybe I'll get some more coffee and re-read it in 10 minutes.

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The two extremes are interesting: that 7% of us thought Two Plus Two withour error (defies credence) and that 8% would have Two Plus Two would have them not publishing anything as Two Plus Two have repeatedly claimed in print that 90% correct is 10 points incorrect is too much to be reliable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might be me, but I find this post incomprehensible.

Maybe I'll get some more coffee and re-read it in 10 minutes.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's saying that it's weird how many people think twoplustwo are basically godlike (error free). He's also saying it's weird that people at twoplustwo forums think twoplustwo authors are making errors over 10%. Sklansky has said that if you are making errors with a frequence of over 10% the book is counterproductive to the undiscerning reader (most people can filter out bad advice from a professional article/book, so if you read bad advice, you are better off to get none at all).

[Al Mirpuri]

Thanks capt, I was comprehensible to myself and you even if no one else. It was a horrible post. I think I am catching the "Two Plus Two disease" - poor diction, bad syntax, ambiguity of meaning...

[CORed]

I have seen little or no material in 2+2 books that is flat wrong, in the sense of being mathematically or factually incorrect. I have seen some advice that I disagree with. The most notable example of this is the advice in the loose games section of HPFAP to limp preflop to keep the pot small. I recall in a thread a few months ago that Mason or David (I believe it was Mason) stated that this was based on the assumption that your opponents were loose preflop, but would fold correctly post-flop. In this case, it's probably not bad advice, but, in general, if a game is loose preflop, I believe it is better to push your edge and build the pot by raising. This is in fact the advice given in SSHE, which assumes loose play overall. Like a lot of things in poker the best course depends on how your opponents play, so it's often hard to say that a particular piece of advice is always wrong. However, if there are unstated assumptions about the nature of your opponents that are not correct for your game, the advice may in fact be wrong for your game.

[bilyin]

Ciaffone is gentlemanly and not arrogant. Mr. Sklansky, in your value system, I guess it matters not.

[Shoe]

Beach-Whale, I agree with some of your points. However, I believe that the 2+2 authors, and their books are the most accurate books on the market. With that being said, I agree that they are not as infallable as they would like to seem, and anytime anyone blindly follows the advice of others they are asking for trouble. However, you have to agree that the vast majority of the advice they give is good.

The main complaint that I have, is that when I read one of their books, I feel like I am reading an advertisment for their other 20+ books on the market. Every other sentence is something like, this concept is explained in great detail in book x. You read that book and it is explained there, but is explained in even greater detail in book y.

A great marketing scheme, but very frustrating for me. However, at the same time, each book I've purchased has been a good investment, and I am thankful that the great minds of Sklansky, Malmuth, &amp; Company have been willing to share their knowledge with me.

[David Sklansky]

"Ciaffone is gentlemanly and not arrogant. Mr. Sklansky, in your value system, I guess it matters not."

It only matters not if you are a poker student who has a right to expect that someone who has written a book and has purported to give you accurate information does in fact do so. If he fails then the crime is not lessoned because he is gentlemanly and not arrogant.

[adsman]

[ QUOTE ]
Ciaffone is gentlemanly and not arrogant. Mr. Sklansky, in your value system, I guess it matters not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd rather have arrogant and right than gentlemanly and wrong.

I've just read this whole post.

I have to get a life....

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Ciaffone is gentlemanly and not arrogant. Mr. Sklansky, in your value system, I guess it matters not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares how arrogant a poker writer is?
Does it make you feel better to read flawed advice simply because someone is a nicer guy?

Personally, I don't care how nice of a guy a poker author is. I'm not buying their books to get aquainted and go out for a beer with them.

Solid advice is all that matters to me.

[jdl22]

I think it's a "ceteris paribus" situation. All else being equal I would prefer for the author to not tell me he hopes I lose if I don't understand a simple concept.

However, given the choice between an arrogant prick (using Sklansky's words here) whose book gives excellent advice and a really nice guy whose book has serious flaws I'll take the former and obviously it's not close.

[bilyin]

What I was trying to say is there is no need to be a total jerk just because the other guy made a mistake in your judgment.
PS:Ciaffone as a career poker coach has definitely NOT committed the crime of being incompetent.

[David Sklansky]

"All else being equal I would prefer for the author to not tell me he hopes I lose if I don't understand a simple concept."

Ah, but I never said that. I only hope you lose if you haven't bothered to try to learn a simple concept. People who try hard to learn the fundamentals deserve to beat those who think they don't need to. If in fact you did try and still failed to understand, then I would root for you to win. Usually in vain though.

[timmer]

Hell, I wish Mason and co would publish a cross referance between all their books. sort of a "guide to" footnotes sort of thing.

Dr Al has some of this footnoting in his book.

It would sure free up the margins in these over thumbed volumes of mine. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

OF course the Two Plus Two seek and find game of "elsewhere in this text" would come to an harsh and immediate end. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Play well and prosper

timmer

[Al Mirpuri]

jdl22 do not explain your Latinisms. If they do not get it then let them buy a Latin lexicon.

[Al Mirpuri]

Do the folks at Two Plus Two not want to inform those thirteen forum users that think their advice flawless that it is not the case.

Say it isn't so, Joe. Because it isn't.