How come everybody hates Lee Jones?

[BWillie]

Although I am somewhat new at low limit hold 'em, I feel Winning at Low Limit Hold 'Em by Lee Jones is a great book. I always see people ridiculing it here for some reason, which I'm not sure why. It has made me a winning LIVE low limit player, and alot of plays seem to be quite aggressive to me. It does advocate novice players to take it slow then ease into more advanced play. Many times in his book he talks about how a novice shouldn't do this or that, but when you start to get a feel for the game he says you can do these things.

Generally speaking, what aspects make his ideas "weak-tight" and the 2+2 ideas so much better. I'm not being a smart ass, I'd just like to know what differs from book to book. From my experience, whenever I play more aggressively like some people advocate I tend to lose more. Maybe it is just a bankroll question and variance difference.

[AmarilloJim1]

There is a link in the micro-limit forum FAQ at the bottom of the page. It is a book review by Mason and has some info about WLLH.

No one hates Lee Jones...it is just a book suited more for beginners.

Fit or Fold

- Jimbo

[PokerMatt]

WLLH detractors don't necessarily say that you will lose money; in fact you will probably make a somewhat modest profit. I have never read the book but from what I've heard it tries to keep you out of potentially dangerous & complicated situations where a novice could incorrectly apply a more advanced concept and get burnt. Some of these complicated situations played correctly could be very profitable, however. SSH tries to get you to think like experts think by giving you the mindset of making +EV decisions as opposed to making less profitable but also less risky decisions.

"From my experience, whenever I play more aggressively like some people advocate I tend to lose more. Maybe it is just a bankroll question and variance difference."

That may simply be a matter of sample size & variance since we don't know how many hands you played. You may also be applying some concepts incorrectly. Posting hands that have troubled you is the best way to answer this question IMO.

I know I haven't read WLLH, but I hope that helped a little. Hopefully someone who actually read the book can give you specific examples that fit the "weak-tight" image the book seems to have. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[theghost]

I don't hate Lee Jones. Read the book, it's good.

[Jaran]

WLLH was the first book I read. It really got me on the right track. It is a solid beginning book. However, it teaches a style that keeps you from exploiting some profitable situations which can be difficult to play. Once you've mastered its concepts, move on to SSHE, and you'll see the difference.

-Jaran

[chaz64]

[ QUOTE ]
WLLH was the first book I read. It really got me on the right track. It is a solid beginning book. However, it teaches a style that keeps you from exploiting some profitable situations which can be difficult to play. Once you've mastered its concepts, move on to SSHE, and you'll see the difference.

-Jaran

[/ QUOTE ]

[KingOtter]

Haven't read it, don't hate. I'm quite ambivalent to the guy.

[btspider]

weak-tight is probably the second best way to play poker vs loose-passives. no one hates LJ.

[Jakesta]

[ QUOTE ]
weak-tight is probably the second best way to play poker vs loose-passives. no one hates LJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think that being a LAG is more profitable than being a TPP?

[kiemo]

You are mistaking Ken Warren for Lee Jones when talking about dislike of books..

[Jakesta]

Ken Warren is dead on with his player stereotypes though. I mean we all know how weak players in wheelchairs are. Just look at Doyle.


sarcasm.

[btspider]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
weak-tight is probably the second best way to play poker vs loose-passives. no one hates LJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think that being a LAG is more profitable than being a TPP?

[/ QUOTE ]

weak-tight is not TPP. LJ discusses all kinds of value betting/raising, free card plays, etc.

lag, no.

loose tag, yes. a 2+2 lag is not really a lag in the overall sense of things.

TPP.. to a rockish degree is generally a loser.

[TheMainEvent]

I think it is the only book that will make beginners instantly profitable, because of its simplicity. The problem with it is that the weak-tight concepts can be hard to un-learn.

[Jakesta]

Would Jones weak-tight be TAP then? Tight preflop, aggressive preflop, but passive postflop compared to the TAG

[Shillx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
weak-tight is probably the second best way to play poker vs loose-passives. no one hates LJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think that being a LAG is more profitable than being a TPP?

[/ QUOTE ]

You understand that being a weak-tighty is not the same as TPP. In fact, the most "aggressive" players (in terms of PT aggression factor) are *usually* weak-tight. Weak-tight has a lot of conotations, but here are the main ones that I think of...

- Missing +EV raises and calls preflop

- Folding too much postflop

- Playing in a predictable manner. For example, a weak-tighty would check/call a flush draw on the flop everytime. Or, he only raises on the flop with top pair or better.

- Goes into passive mode at the 1st sign of aggression from the opponent. This is why you should raise preflop against weak-tight limpers with weaker hands (when you have position). Over represent your hand since they will dump it on the flop unless they feel like they outdrew your "monster" hand.

Oh yeah...we don't hate Lee Jones. We just hate the playing style that he recommends.

Brad

*Edited

[btspider]

[ QUOTE ]
Would Jones weak-tight be TAP then? Tight preflop, aggressive preflop, but passive postflop compared to the TAG

[/ QUOTE ]

LJ style would be a solid ABC TAG who folds just a bit too much and raises a bit too little.. particularly in large pots. you could not identify a 2+2er from a LJ player by their stats.. unless they were a laggier 2+2er who was 22/12 or higher PF.

[McNeese72]

WLLH was the first book I read and it was good for me in the beginning. But I've learned a lot more from SSH and I'm still learning from it. I've used it so much that the cover is about to fall out. I should take a picture of it and use it as my avatar here. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[cold_cash]

I don't.

His book was the first one I ever read and I got a ton out of it.

I /images/graemlins/heart.gif Lee Jones.

[Sasnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
weak-tight is probably the second best way to play poker vs loose-passives. no one hates LJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think that being a LAG is more profitable than being a TPP?

[/ QUOTE ]

You understand that being a weak-tighty is not the same as TPP. In fact, the most "aggressive" players (in terms of PT aggression factor) are *usually* weak-tight. Weak-tight has a lot of conotations, but here are the main ones that I think of...

- Missing +EV raises and calls preflop

- Folding too much postflop

- Playing in a predictable manner. For example, a weak-tighty would check/call a flush draw on the flop everytime. Or, he only raises on the flop with top pair or better.

- Goes into passive mode at the 1st sign of aggression from the opponent. This is why you should raise preflop against weak-tight limpers with weaker hands (when you have position). Over represent your hand since they will dump it on the flop unless they feel like they outdrew your "monster" hand.

Oh yeah...we don't hate Lee Jones. We just hate the playing style that he recommends.

Brad

*Edited

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice... You just described my first 12 mos after reading WLLHE. I might ask if any one has ever read Lee Jones at my next table, then CR whomever says "yes"!

[dozer]

WLLH was the first book I read also, I'm surprised so many read his book as thier first. I think his book is fine for beginners but playing the 2+2 LAG style is much more fun. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Deamon2]

[ QUOTE ]
playing the 2+2 LAG style is much more fun. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

and much more profitable /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[turaho]

You guys are lucky. The first poker book I ever read was "Play Poker Like the Pros". It took me awhile to get that garbage out of my system.

[parappa]

[ QUOTE ]
WLLH was the first book I read. It really got me on the right track. It is a solid beginning book. However, it teaches a style that keeps you from exploiting some profitable situations which can be difficult to play. Once you've mastered its concepts, move on to SSHE, and you'll see the difference.

-Jaran

[/ QUOTE ]

To this I would add: I believe that most people would make more money by correctly applying WLLH than they would by missaplying SSH. WLLH keeps you out of trouble, and that's not a bad thing at all. SSH helps you wade out into the deeper waters that you'll need to to improve your game.

[krimson]

Lee Jones is a good beginner book. The thing I didnt like about it is that there is nothing in that book that you couldn't learn by searching for "poker strategy" in google.

[cold_cash]

[ QUOTE ]
Lee Jones is a good beginner book. The thing I didnt like about it is that there is nothing in that book that you couldn't learn by searching for "poker strategy" in google.

[/ QUOTE ]

This might be true, but how much bad stategy would come along with the good in that google search? If you're just starting out it can be difficult to differentiate.

[homebrewer]

Great characterization of a weak-tight player. And, it is nice to see the qualities pointed out and described clearly. It seems that a lot of posters (myself included) have only a tenuous grasp on what makes someone or themselves "weak-tight." Thus, we often don't recognize when we are playing in such a manner.

[fflyer]

What is the 2+2 LAG style anyway? There are literally hundreds of posters on this site who appear to be of varying degrees of ability and LAGgishness. Presumably the style is the kind advocated by Ed Miller in SSHE which I have not yet read. I guess I might have to rectify that since everyone on here seems to think it is the poker equivalent of the Ten Commandments handed down on tablets of stone to the internet poker community. I have read Lee Jones' book and found it a useful way to start off. I just find that the kinds of table envisaged by Lee Jones and presumably Ed Miller are very rare on the sites where I have played. I rarely find a table where at least five players regularly see the flop. Does that not limit the books' use to some extent since they are written primarily with loose tables in mind?

[Greg J]

I don't think people on this site *hate* Lee Jones. Most posters, including me, respect him. Ed Miller has repeatedly called his book good, though has pointed out its shortcomings.

I think 2+2ers have this repuation of playa hating on Lee Jones. Most of us think his book offers mostly good stuff, but is inaccurate in places. It does not meet the standard of 2+2 books (though with a re writing it might).

[homebrewer]

If you are referring to SSH, then a TAG (tight-aggressive) style is what many here are trying to emulate - with varying degrees of success.

Someone with more experience than I can comment on the 2+2 "LAG fests" where a lot of Loose Aggressive play is on display for various reasons including during bonus clearing times.

[Rah]

Lee Jones is awesome. I don't think he's weak/tight at all, but if you define weak/tight as missing marginal EV+ raises, how would any book as short as WLLH be able to advocate another style?
It's a perfect book for starting out.

[bottomset]

I hate him with a passion /images/graemlins/smile.gif


just kidding, I've never read his book, don't really plan on it, so I will stay out of this, but from what I've heard its mainly a book to get new players off on the right track, while playing a pretty safe, unlikely to get you in many tough spots style .. which is very reasonable for new players

[TomBrooks]

LLHE was the first book I read and it got me started successfully. I like the book very much for beginners.