Self serving magazine articles

[wdeadwyler]

I don't want to name names and get people mad at me, but sometimes I feel that some of the articles are just egoist self serving loads of crap. The writer's analyze a hand, making sure to drop any names they feel, then tout their superb play, and it all works out well in the hand. While some of the writers are self critical and comprehensive, I feel around 1/3 of the articles are self-serving or just boring and basic. I would like to see more interesting articles, but I don't want to criticize anyone in particular at this point. Does anyone else feel this way or am I alone here?

[chris_a]

What would you consider to be a "more interesting article"?

[David Sklansky]

Name names.

[Pyromaniac]

ask for a refund.

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[wdeadwyler]

Are you serious or kidding? You might feel that way but I doubt others dol.

[wdeadwyler]

Perhaps more no limit articles.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to name names and get people mad at me, but sometimes I feel that some of the articles are just egoist self serving loads of crap. The writer's analyze a hand, making sure to drop any names they feel, then tout their superb play, and it all works out well in the hand. While some of the writers are self critical and comprehensive, I feel around 1/3 of the articles are self-serving or just boring and basic. I would like to see more interesting articles, but I don't want to criticize anyone in particular at this point. Does anyone else feel this way or am I alone here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who submits an article and has it published should be ready to accept both praise and criticism. Instead of generalizing in your post, come right out and discuss/critique the article(s) you have a problem with. That's exactly what this forum is for.

Also, you are welcome to write a (better) article yourself.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you serious or kidding? You might feel that way but I doubt others dol.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure he was serious, and people here aren't all that thin-skinned or they don't stay in the forums very long.

But by your own statement, you believe the content to fluff ratio in the 2+2 mag is about 2-1, and think that's not high enough. Even if that were true, and I don't believe it is, then how does that stack up to the competition is the question. My answer is that in the best issue of the year the competition has an inverse of that ratio, not to mention articles that contain mathematically and strategically flawed advice. And when you say some articles are boring, then you mean they don't interest you or deal with forms of poker you mostly play. But so what? You don't read all the forums here do you? And as alluded to by the other poster, it's all free. Plus I think that many players really don't appreciate how valuable some advice is just because the examples used deal with a form of poker they don't commonly play, when the theoretical points are applicable to other forms as well. All the negative responses to Barry Greenstein's book in the books forum has shown me that many posters here are just incapable of recognizing a lot of good advice.

I can't say that the topics of all the articles in each issue interest me, and quite a few don't. But I am grateful to be able to read those that do. There has only been one article in an issue in which I was actually disappointed and it was the interview by deacsoft with Jennifer Harman-Traniello. The reason I was disapointed was because she only gave one line responses to each question and never discussed anything in depth. For that reason if I had been the editor, I probably would not have published it.

Also you have to keep in mind that other than the articles written by 2+2 authors, the editors depend upon posters to submit prospective articles and thus that is dependent upon what various posters are interested in writing about, and also what they are willing to share.

[nate1729]

I'm with Sklansky on this one: give some specific examples here. By the way, feel free to criticize me, but be sure to look at my August article before you do.

--Nate

[PokerHorse]

baron von whatever, this is the first article i read by him, but i thought it was very substandard and was suprised it made it in. i realize its hard to get new stuff thats not rehashed, but his logic in this last article was flawed imo and should not have been published.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
baron von whatever, this is the first article i read by him, but i thought it was very substandard and was suprised it made it in. i realize its hard to get new stuff thats not rehashed, but his logic in this last article was flawed imo and should not have been published.

[/ QUOTE ]


There's another thread going about my article - and I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it, hopefully if you go back in previous months, you'll like those more, or you'll like the future ones this year - but if you have specifics where you think what I did is wrong, please elaborate in this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=magazine&Number=3271250&pa ge=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=all) as I definitely want to hear where you believe I didn't do the mathematically correct thing, given the situation.

Barron Vangor Toth <--- Two R's, no Von
BarronVangorToth.com <--- Two R's, no Von

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you serious or kidding? You might feel that way but I doubt others do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky has the right to know which authors you think are egotistical and self serving. After all, he's got a stake in this. If you don't want others to know who you think writes this way, shoot Sklansky a PM instead of posting it.

I leave you with this:

"If there is a god, then he is like me."
-David Sklansky

[wdeadwyler]

Ok nate, you asked.

I think your preflop and flop play arent too bad. Now, as for the turn, I think you tried to pull a fast one which would normally result in you spewing chips but as a result of your poor opponents you got away with it.

You said elderly guy had AK. Ok so he bets, now the other guy with 83 shoulda reraised, then the flush draw calls, and what is your plan now? Im assuming call? That woulda been fine.

Now, instead, elderly guy bets AK, 83 (two pair) just calls (this is garbage), flush draw calls, and YOU raise. Luckily, elderly guy is weaktight and folds AK instead of 3 betting you, or calling. 83 calls again (what a moron), and flush draw of course calls again.

River, you get to the showdown for free, good. your hand has showdown value, and you took it free, is a better hand really gonna call you often enough here for a bet to be profitable. I think in most instances the AQ-AK shoulda correctly check called u here, so your check behind was good.

Now this hand is kinda ok to analyze, but only because your opponents played so baffingly horrible.

I really liked Sklansky's article about Phil because he discussed a situation which isn't so intuitively obvious. In fact, I find alot of his articles helpful because rarely are they intuitively obvious. Your reraise with Top pair+flush draw as a semi bluff is straight out of TOP, except you have less outs than a flush draw+str8 draw. In fact, if the ace comes and completes a flush, you are looking at quite a few more bets to pay.

Luckily your opponents are dreadfully weak tight and it worked out, but what are you gonna do next time someone with a set/two pair 3 bets you, call of course and pray for a club. I hope you had a damn good read on these apparently horrible opponents in this situation. Just because you won doesn't make it a nice hand, I think analyzing it is just results oriented. If elderly guy had c/c you down, would you have posted this as a mistake?

Finally, as for Osborne's article, is this anything new? I would rather of had an article detaling bubble strategy or some other useful comment than the generic, dont' be results oriented, and here is why! Look at this good call I made!

Rant off. Respond at will.

[PokerHorse]

i did not say that you were a poor writer, in fact i made sure to say thast I've only read your most recent. I believe it was flawed, not that you are flawed. as a writer(especially a poker writer) your going to be criticized.
I wasnt aware that a thread had started regarding your article, but my only suggestion to you would be to think about quality over quantity. good luck

[BarronVangorToth]

In my main work as a game designer I receive more criticism from more rabid fans than you can imagine.

And I love every piece of it.

Likewise, here, especially if it is specific, as it helps me do whatever I do better.

You have said now that my article is flawed and the first time you wrote that it was substandard.

If you could take the moment in the aforementioned thread to specifically detail why you believe it is flawed and substandard, I would appreciate it.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[PokerHorse]

I wouldnt have played the hand the same way, not even close.Your Logic for playing onward was flawed, in my opinion. The article itself was not instructive enough(even if your right and I'm wrong), as to have a high enough standard for the magazine(therefore substandard).
What did we really learn from your article? The last statements were not correct reasoning in my opinion.
I dont think you are a winning player. Without even knowing you and having not read your other articles or posts
I think your trying to earn a name for yourself, and hopefully publish a book if you can get a following. Now i might be wrong about you being a winning player, but I'm feeling really good about the rest.
I certainly dont blame you for trying, there is nothing wrong at all with what you are attempting, but I'm giving you honest feedback, as to how it strikes me as a reader here. But I'm just one person. I believe your article would have been better as a post, not a magazine article. good luck

[PokerHorse]

I felt i should explain why i believe your logic is flawed.
In the beggining of your article you quote Ed Miller ,"In LOOSE GAMES,in late posisition you should usually re-raise KQs with 4 players in front have called" etc.
In your scenario ,you knew the player, he typically raised with big pairs, or ak etc.
He's not loose.!! There are some callers, yes but the original raiser as you said has a big pair or cards as big or larger than yours. Fold your f-king hand. this is not the spot Ed Miller is writing about. Also the reasoning on the flop???very thin, but why go further since i've foldedd already. The title fits though,"ON the Edge".

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
There are some callers, yes but the original raiser as you said has a big pair or cards as big or larger than yours. Fold your f-king hand. this is not the spot Ed Miller is writing about.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not? You sure? Many games that Ed is talking about have raisers with tight standards for raising in them.

This isn't a fold preflop. It's, if anything, an easy call.

b

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Barron:

I have addressed some of this in the other thread.

Best wishes,
Mason

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

He's not loose.!! There are some callers, yes but the original raiser as you said has a big pair or cards as big or larger than yours. Fold your f-king hand. this is not the spot Ed Miller is writing about. Also the reasoning on the flop???very thin, but why go further since i've foldedd already. The title fits though,"ON the Edge".

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't think you need all loose players in order to have a loose game. When you have a raiser and a total of four cold-callers in front of you, knowing what you know about the raiser and first cold-caller, there is an argument to be made (and StellarWind makes it in the other thread) for simply calling; I believe the raise is the correct play; I don't think anyone can justify folding here UNLESS they want to avoid variance in an otherwise +EV spot or they believe they cannot play correctly post-flop.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[PokerHorse]

it certainly isnt re-raise time. Yes the game overall probably is loose but the other tight player in the game is raising in early posistion, which negates this strategy. If on the button ,I could see a call here but with a bet and raise on the turn id be gone, and it would really depend on
how the games been going as to whether I call the pre-flop raise.

[PokerHorse]

Like i said above I could see calling, but youd be gone on the flop and even though the game is loose, current conditions apply, so the call imo is not clear cut.The odds you are getting to come in are negated by a very tight raiser. with a loose raiser then I'm with the program.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The odds you are getting to come in are negated by a very tight raiser. with a loose raiser then I'm with the program.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are not negated. Reduced, yes. But not negated. This is a routine call in this spot. If the raiser was loose, then you're looking more at 3 betting in this situation.

[ QUOTE ]
but youd be gone on the flop and even though the game is loose, current conditions apply, so the call imo is not clear cut

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter what the flop is, whether you'd be gone or not, in regards to how you play it preflop.

b

[PokerHorse]

?? we do know what the flop is and your right i shouldnt have used the term negated, severly reduced fits my bill, look above at Masons and others posts and youll find I'm not alone here. good luck

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
?? we do know what the flop is and your right i shouldnt have used the term negated, severly reduced fits my bill, look above at Masons and others posts and youll find I'm not alone here. good luck

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't know what the flop is before the flop is out. the way the post read was making it seem that because of the flop, he shouldn't have seen the flop.

Preflop I believe Mason would coldcall in this spot as would the greater majority of players on this site. The question is the reraise, not seeing the flop.

b

[PokerHorse]

Dude ,i said if I did call I would have been gone on the flop. What part has got you confused? actually, dont answer, lets move on okay.?

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
Dude ,i said if I did call I would have been gone on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]


MANY would call rather than raise pre-flop; those that call shouldn't continue after the flop. Hence the point of the article: given the action and how I have applied SSH to this level of game and these players all leads me to this line in these types of events which I believe are +EV in the immediate scenario at hand.

But, yes, if you call, you fold the flop.


Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[PokerHorse]

Yes i understand. This post wasnt directed at you.
Again with a tight raiser, to me the conditions are not good for your play, and the justification at the end of the article is flawed logic.After you made the first mistake, the pot allowed you to continue but with the pot being capped preflop by a TIGHT raiser and then bet raised and three bet,you have to adjust your odds. this is also a results oriented hand.had you made your straight on the turn
and then faced a re-draw to a full house and lost, this article would never have made it. I do understand one thing from other posts I have now read, which is in general your feeling is that players play too tightly in many situations.
One thing to think about is categories of games. it is more a function of how players are playing right now, rather than making blanket assumptions, and you have to seperate the players.Overall I'm sure that half the table or even more were playing loose, but the other tight aggressive player in the game had the edge here, so it just wasnt the right spot. Tight hand in a loose game. Just as loose hands in tight games happen as wellall the time.

[-Oz-]

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, as for Osborne's article, is this anything new? I would rather of had an article detaling bubble strategy or some other useful comment than the generic, dont' be results oriented, and here is why! Look at this good call I made!

[/ QUOTE ]

While I appreciate your opinion, I think you missed the point of my article. The reason I detailed the hand (and my "great" call) was to set up the conditions where I made a realization about how to think about the game. I agree that this wasn't an earthshaking strategy concept, but it has a major effect on how I evaluate my own play, and that's why I shared it. If this was nothing new to you, congratulations; just one area where your thinking was more advanced than mine. But I suspect there were lots of readers that hadn't thought about this particular application of ROT before.

Thanks for the feedback. Perhaps some of my future articles will be of more value to you.

-Oz-

[wdeadwyler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Finally, as for Osborne's article, is this anything new? I would rather of had an article detaling bubble strategy or some other useful comment than the generic, dont' be results oriented, and here is why! Look at this good call I made!

[/ QUOTE ]

While I appreciate your opinion, I think you missed the point of my article. The reason I detailed the hand (and my "great" call) was to set up the conditions where I made a realization about how to think about the game. I agree that this wasn't an earthshaking strategy concept, but it has a major effect on how I evaluate my own play, and that's why I shared it. If this was nothing new to you, congratulations; just one area where your thinking was more advanced than mine.
-Oz-

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow I got owned.