The ballad of Jim Brier

Come and listen to my story 'bout a man named Jim,

He used to post here all the time now we never hear from him.

It started turning sour when he teamed up with Ciaffone

Cause after that the authors acted like Jim was full of baloney.


That doesn't sound kosher.

I may regret making this post. If the analysis from Jim was solid and the authors disagreed I think it's clear that many posters would point out that the analysis was solid and the authors were wrong. I think it's equally clear that more than a few forum participents have found some of the advice in his Card Player column to be questionable. I'm speculating that the columns in Card Player are basically excerpts from the book he is teaming up with Ciaffone on. Assuming that the format of the book is the same as what we see in Card Player I'll buy the book even though I believe that some of the advice is questionable. The reason being is that having a lot of hands to analyze is good practice; Jim's insight is worthwhile and worth considering; and deciding whether or not the advice is valid in the format presented is valuable to the reader IMO. I probably won't buy the book if most of it has already appeared in Card Player though.


Criticism, especially on Internet forums, can seem overly harsh and cruel. I'd venture to say that at least some of my comments on his column have been taken as harsh criticism even though I've stated several times that his column is one of the best in Card Player. The fact that people are taking an interest, considering the content, and debating the advice indicates to me that people have found it worth their time and effort to understand. Personally I skipped over the column at first because it does require effort and I didn't want to just read advice without understanding the considerations that went into that advice. Then I decided that the effort would be worthwhile and that I was being too lazy and I started to read it very carefully. I'm rambling a bit but I'm trying to say that if Jim is staying away because of criticism about his column (I doubt that he is), he may be missing the fact that the debate about it is indicative of it's success. Compare the debate about his column to the debate about, The Complete Book of Hold'em Poker.

Jim still posts periodically. People sometimes do have other things to do besides visit 2+2. It might be that Jim is one of those people, particularly now that he is writing in other publications.


Also, contrary to your suggestion, some people were critical of some of Jim's thoughts well before he got into book and magazine writing. In fact, if memory serves me right, some of Jim's earliest posts related to his criticism of HPFAP's semi-bluffing examples. Much of the criticism of Jim's ideas seems to relate to his criticism of HPFAP's examples.


Jim is one of many valuable posters on these boards, and I am sure he'll continue to contribute.

"Compare the debate about his column to the debate about, The Complete Book of Hold'em Poker."


First, as we have stated before, we will hold Jim and others who develop this type of name recognition to a higher standard. I too can't read a column by him without disagreeing with part of it and feel uncomfortable with his way of stating conclusions in absolute terms when my routine play of the hand in question frequently differs.


I also have a little trouble with the approach. While stepping through hands can be very worthwhile, I believe it is much better to think in terms of concepts and then to apply those concepts to the hand in question. That's because small changes in the parameters can lead to dramatic differences in strategy. This means that trying to list and catagorize every situation that can come up should lead to playing errors because the correct underlying theory becomes misunderstood.


As for Carson's book, he seems to suffer from a different problem. It is that he has seized on a certain aspect of the game and totally overrated it. While knowing how to maximize profits on the flop when you hold strong drawing hands in a multiway pot is certainly important, it is only one aspect of play. There is also the turn and the river which he neglects and all those other times when your hand is more typical.

Holding someone to a higher standard and insulting them personally are two different things. In case you don't get that let me make it clearer.


"I disagree with your analysis and your advice." is a perfectly acceptable form of criticism.


"I disagree with your analysis and you're an imbecile for thinking that way." is not.

"I also have a little trouble with the approach. While stepping through hands can be very worthwhile, I believe it is much better to think in terms of concepts and then to apply those concepts to the hand in question. That's because small changes in the parameters can lead to dramatic differences in strategy. This means that trying to list and catagorize every situation that can come up should lead to playing errors because the correct underlying theory becomes misunderstood."


I have Jim's January 4 Card Player article in front of me entitled "Bluffing." I questioned Jim's advice on the middle stakes forum on 3 of the 6 hands Jim described.


But Jim clearly starts out, as he does in every article, with concepts. He devotes 4 longish paragraphs to conetpual discussion. Then he presents six hands and presents the reasons why he thinks his advice is warranted. Now, as I say, I disagreed on with Jim's approach on several of the hands, but the concepts and paritculars of his case are clearly presented.


There is no question concepts needs to be formulated and understood in order to be applied to playing hands. But running through a particular hand strikes me as the best way to apply a concept. Your Hand to Talk About posts do precisely this.


I never liked Caro's columns much (for content, I always enjoy his writing style) because he would give general concepts and not much in the way of particulars to show how the concepts should be applied. It seems to me that doing this can lead to playing errors more readily than Brier's approach.

The reason I enjoy coming here is on the whole the debate and reasoning is much more civilised than on rgp.


But, I feel the criticism of Mr Brier was far too harsh and got too personal.


And I don't read his column so I can't say whether his articles are worthwhile or not.


JMHO.


Cheers,


Keith

""I disagree with your analysis and you're an imbecile for thinking that way." is not."


I agree completely and want to point out that we never respond in this manner.

I believe Jim is down in tunica and may be one of the reasons he hasn't been posting. But even when he was in town i think he slowed down. Maybe because he was geting criticized by Mason alot. But i'm just guessing.


When someone writes an article and states them as absolutions as Jim does he should expect feedback. The way he writes isn't him saying this is what i would do. He is stating this is in fact correct, and the fact that alot of his stuff is very questionable, he should expect criticism on many occasions to his colums. I admire his guts to go out on a limb and state specific situations as absolutions in his columns, where they are subject to criticism. Where many other authors might speak in more general terms. But the fact that his advice is sometimes questionable he might be better off being more general if he wants to avoid criticism. Don't get me wrong, I think his articles are interesting. But i question some, if not alot, of his advice as being correct thinking. And sometimes laugh at the way he speaks of certain situations as being absolute.

But would you ever call Jim ridiculous? I believe differences of opinion are de riguer in such an unscientific pursuit such as poker, but people who claim to be civil and respectful do not refer to other people's approaches as ridiculous.


Mason did it twice on 11/23 and I for one don't blame Jim for being pissed about it, if he indeed is.