For Mason and Feeney

I make my living playing middle limit poker in

Ontario. When Daniel Newgreanu (something like that) played here the rake was 5% (which was pretty greedy). Well now it's 10%. I still make

my living.


Dispute any part of this.


Mason Malmuth said something like "we were surprised how good inside the poker mind was".

Its crap for any middle limit player. This is on

principle. I make 40 dollars an hour playing poker and i know its taboo to touch this book, but

john feeney say your shit to defend yourself.


First of all Malmuth said when i criticized that

i wasn't ready for this book. (wrong, i know it and more) and then mason gave a cheap plug for some other book, nice try lets ask john about that

psychology, it tells a lot about who you are.


Now getting back to inside the poker mind which

mason himself cannot deny said he was surprised how good it was, yet couldn't cite a specific passage which made him think. Dispute that. You know your not the only middle limit winner.


I'll now quote from the book for Mr. Feeny.


" A player like Vito is unlikely to keep records of his play. So at times he may have been able to convince himself-as he did others-that he was winning. "


you did the same thing convinced others you wrote a good book. YOU DID NOT.


I could go on and on but i'll close with this


"some of this material has already been the subject of much debate. Certain essays, having appeared in Poker Digest, have been questioned

and discussed vigorisly on the internet. This pleases me. It tells me my thoughts provoke thought and reaction."

LoL it shows your thoughts were questioned by

the poker impaired. There isn't anything in that

book which hasn't been published prior.

I challenge all the readers of this forum that

own John Feeny's book to quote a passage that made

them think, and i will quote the original source.


Gotta go, but here's a bonus:


"The hands, are not unusual in nature, and the thoughts illustrated are fairly routine,unremarkable thoughts for any good player."


And therin lies the problem for any good player

this book is totally unremarkable. It can't be

criticized for being wrong, because pocket aces are the best hand preflop. Hello can you criticize

that. Was your money well spent. Don't you think

i would feel let down for paying $24.95 to be told

pocket aces is the best pre flop hand? Thats the

bad taste i got after reading Inside the poker mind.


Closing points its a ok referece for people who

are losing and not quite understanding holdem for

advanced players (which is not a cook book-masons words and correct)


And Mason i double dare you what part of inside the poker mind made you or sklansky think other than dollar signs.


Anyway enough i am some loser who needs another

book according to you. However I will be at binions on May the 20th will you?


Ice Rock.

I hope they comp prozac at Binions...

There's seat charges in middle limit games in Ontario. 10% is used for 5-10 and lower.

"Anyway enough i am some loser who needs another

book according to you."


I agree. May I suggest The Professional Poker Dealer's Handbook.

>


Well I'm impressed. I am sure I will see you on TV at the final table. I would suggest a book by Dale Carnegie if you want a book to read.


Pat

1... you must be an rgp poster


2... Valium is quite reasonably priced try it...


3... John has moved on to writing outside of poker and also having an interest in the music industry.So you wont likely get his feedback.


4...The book clarified many areas for me as a L/L

player and enabled me and many others to compete proficiently at the limit its geared to..


jg

Hello IceRock.


As jg pointed out I'm currently on a hiatus from poker. And I must say, being kind of disengaged from poker right now, I'm pretty disinterested in go-nowhere, back

and forth arguments on the net, particularly when it appears you're "posting under the influence."


Can you see the nature of your challenge? I'll offer a counter-challenge. Site any idea you've ever had that made anyone think, and I'll site the sources it came from.

Can you see where such a debate would go if the challenger is intent on "proving" his point?


I should add I'm baffled that as successful as you are as a player, you're so upset over $25. I don't know, it just seems that between that and Brian's observation above, maybe you're not really being straight with us. Am I right?

...according to the definition and example in my dictionary, dis- was okay. But Strunk and White agree with you. To tell you the truth, I prefer the Strunk and White distinction. I felt it sounded wrong when I wrote it, but then changed my mind for some reason. :-/

John maybe we should analyze this pile for what it's worth!!!!!!!!!!!


I still have some extra "Rooms" I will deliver to IceCube for you!! No charge Bro!!


RCF

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove or why you're targeting such an obviously nice and genuine guy as John Feeney, but keep 'em coming! LOL


natedogg

The thing is: you can change the example but the

principle is the same. Inside the poker mind is

simply regiratation.


No one could cite a passage that made them

think. That's the bottom line.


thank you,


peace out,


Ice Rock


P.S. i enjoyed reading it, but it didn't help

my game. Moreover, i burn more bread than toasters. The money is inconsequential, but principle is everything.


As for under the influence, i'll be like you

John and just say, "its beyond the scope of this

essay" and wont even retort that he's on a hiatus

from poker. Jee that makes me feel good.


lets make some money go get em.

It's a shame John felt compelled to answer this mean-spirited post. He's a complete gentleman and a fine writer. I got a lot out of the book. To cite just one example, John's discussion of the "A-Q" test has become a classic.


I did not know John had moved on to other things, but it doesn't surprise me, given his intelligence and worldliness. I don't mean to insult anyone here (myself included), but one of the reasons it doesn't surprise me is John seems too intelligent to limit himself to poker.


Sometimes it's better to keep one's mouth closed and let others think that one is ignorant than to open it up and remove all doubt.

"No one could cite a passage"


Um, try... you're transparent to everyone, Mr. money burner /images/wink.gif, and they know you're not worth the bother.


No wonder you didn't get anything out of the section on "Subtle Losses of Judgment." (First written about by you, I guess...LOL) You have no judgment at all.


You're not the first drunk adolescent to post a gibberish rant on the internet. God knows you won't be the last. Back to the Paradise microlimits you go.

Don't sweat it John. Your book rocks! This guy is just baiting you.

The message of the post was simply, i didn't like

the book. The reason is i didn't think it was

a valuable contribution to the literature of poker. I felt the book had been written many times before. However, now i understand better,

some of the people I take money from aren't able

to comprehend books the first time they read them.

In addition due to the lack of intellect they feel

they have to read them many times. I am not going

to quote but hold'em poker for advanced players

says something like you should read it many times.


Now then, Mr Sklansky (whom I respect, but wont say why) Was challenged why he didn't FULLY explain the fundamental theorom of poker and his

explaination was something like "I thought it was

beyond the scope of the general reader". Based on

the feed back of my post I have to agree, but there are some of us who would of understood and

I understood it long before Morton.


I also respect Mr. Malmuth. He said he was surprised how good inside the poker mind was (he said we) So of course I was curious to read it. However, when I read it I was left wondering how good is this?

So I challenge Mason and Sklansky (you were inferred from we) what part of the book is challenging? What part made you think? Therein lies the problem it didn't make me think, "not because I didn't get it, but because I did."


Now I'll leave it up to the reader. Nevertheless, Copernicus, Galilo, Columbus, etc

were all proven correct when they went against

the general opinion.


You tell me what they said, and why its a fact.

Not to mention it was against, dare i say the church. Bring back the witch trials, slavery, etc.

Be proud of your history. They must be right they

held the majority of the opinion. Someone changed

it. I am that someone.


Now I am leaving forever, before i do i am laughing at AQ. He didn't make that classic, rather that is the classic example. Holdem poker

for advance players touches on it. Ken warren's

book discusses it on pages 169-170 etc.


I'll be gone, your quite right the sun circles the earth, the earth is flat, etc.


And at no time did i criticize Feeney the man

only his book


Good luck,


I'll survive, will you


IceRock

When you can barely string three words together coherently you reveal something about your level of logic, and ability to comprehend, much less assess any book. But I'm not criticizing you the person, just your ability to think and understand.


But just to humor you (I know, he's not worth bothering with. I'd say the other assessments of him are on the money. But just a quick hit at the softball...), if I understand what you "wrote" (being mighty liberal with the word), you're saying "Inside the Poker Mind" does not contain any ideas that did not appear first in other poker books. Well I've read nearly every poker book written in the last 40 years, and have played successfully at limits higher than you, and surely for longer than you. So maybe I'm qualified to respond.


I read the book some time ago, but did a quick skim to see which sections I remembered containing ideas or advice I had never seen in other books. There may be more, but I was trying to judge strictly. I came up with at least 16 essays. Here are four. Why don't you tell us who wrote on these topics previously?


Multiple changing images

Subtle Losses of Judgement (two parts).

Bad Plays Good players Make


Each is original in a little different way. Some in general thrust, some in the basic idea presented. For example, no one had previously talked about multiple simultaneous images, though they had talked about the what goes on with one basic image. Others had talked about tilt in general terms, but not about the subtle problems and the misplays they often lead to, as Feeney did in the "Subtle Losses" essays. Do I need to detail each item? I think we can take it from there. I can gladly provide the next twelve, but it only takes one to destroy your argument. I've already been overly generous.


Your move, Copernicus.

I've been called a beginning, lying, incoherent,

ignorant, under the influence, uninteresting mico-limit paradiser. Perhaps these comments are true and deserved. Then again maybe they aren't. In any event a lesser man might be offended, but I am

not. I simply do not tilt.


One of the keys to successful poker play is to play opposite of your image. This is the image I

have been given and it's really an actor-observer bias.


Now then, it seems like I opened pandora's box

and would like to close it. What's done is done.

I will look at the essay multiple changing images

since it seems poetic for this situation.


Mr. Feeney begins his essay giving references to other authors who have writtten on the subject

namely Sklansky, Caro, and Malmuth. After the intro he adds his thoughts on the subject. The

heart of his essay is simply you'll have different

images to different people at the same time due

to specific hands you've played against that particular opponent.


My refute is this: In Improve Your Poker by Bob Ciaffone he addresses image. He specifically

says he plays with regulars who know how he plays.

Bob knows what his regular opponents think of his style and further states his image is different to

the live tourist whom he is playing opposite of his image. It's the very same idea in that different people at the same table have a different view of his image. Moreover, in HPFAP,

the second level of thinking in poker is what does

my opponent think I have. Image obviously plays a

factor here in trying to asses what your opponent is thinking you hold. The level you go to is dependent upon your opponent. It is also not profound but different people at the poker table have different levels of ability and the individual opponent dictates what level of thinking you go to. In other words you play the player. Some people just need to be spoon fed. I

do not.


The underlying problem with Inside The Poker Mind is that it is not a beginners book. Therefore it must be for intermediate to expert players. That's where the problem is. The target

audience probably has read and owns many poker books many of which have already touched on these

issues.


It's funny how anyone disagreeing with the main

stream here doesn't get a counter argument but rather insults. After all I am the beginning, lying, incoherent, ignorant, under the influence, uninteresting, not worth it, microlimit paradiser.

It just may be the other way around.

Sorry, not even close. The theme of Ciaffone’s essay is simple: He prefers a tight image, but does little to try to foster a particular image. He just adapts to the image he has as a result of correct play given how the cards have run for him. (It’s a good theme which was, by the way, first written about in any detail by Sklansky in an essay now in “Getting the Best of It.”)


On pages 91-92 Ciaffone barely touches on an idea which, if he were to flesh it out, define it, and explicate it in some detail *might* then prove to be similar to Feeney’s “multiple changing images.” It’s truly hard to believe you attempted to equate this with what John does in his essay. Wow. Anyone following this ought to compare the two essays.


Ciaffone talks about his PL Omaha game in which the regulars know quite well how he plays. With them he effectively has no “image” other than their accurate awareness of how he actually plays. (It appears Ciaffone may not even term this accurate awareness an “image.” That is certainly one reasonable way to look at it.) But he knows his play will convey to the weaker tourists, who don’t know him, a “gambler” image, which he then exploits. Obviously, as it stands, this in no way approaches even an approximation of Feeney’s discussion of the dynamics of multiple simultaneous, changing images. To suggest otherwise is simply laughable. This is not to knock the Ciaffone essay. It’s a fine essay. But it’s a different topic. It’s talking about different aspects of image than what Feeney tackled. John defines the concept of multiple changing images, explains how multiple images form, and describes how they are affected by different types of opponents as well as how they vary over the course of a session. He also differentiates between one’s “general” image and the specific images individual players may have of you. He then goes on to illustrate how one can make effective tactical use of the awareness of multiple images during play.


Again, it’s just amazing you would try to equate the two essays. It’s like saying because some author in the ‘60s may have mentioned in passing in an essay about what hands to bet, ‘It’s good sometimes to bet a hand that has outs,” that Sklansky was not the first to make clear in writing the nature and uses of the “semi-bluff.” Well, actually this image thing is not even as similar as that. But it’s hard to think of a bad enough example.


Well, I think it’s more than clear to anyone who looks at the essays in question that you failed in your attempted refutation. Nor did you try to refute that the other essays I mentioned were original. So have at it. You do realize, though, that your argument is already destroyed as a result of this first unsuccessful effort.


But let me help you. Concerning Feeney’s “Bad Plays Good Players Make,” you should probably go looking for quotes from prior authors in which they mentioned some particular play, and said something like, “I see otherwise good players make this mistake all the time.” Then you can say, “See, Feeny was not the first!” What, not good enough? Well, I know it’s lame, but I just can’t seem to think of another author who has enumerated and analyzed in one place several of the most common misplays made by good players. Can you? Or maybe you’d like to cite some references for who previously explained the dynamics of the “subtle losses of judgement” John describes. Go ahead. Then I’ll provide some additional essays. If we simply cover the 16 essays where I found very original stuff in John’s book, I’m betting we’ll see 16 failures out of 16 attempts on your part. But again, your argument is obviously already dead. This will just be for jollies.


By the way, you say, “One of the keys to successful poker play is to play opposite of your image.” Pretty good parroting. On page 89 Ciaffone states, “I feel the important principle is to play the opposite of your table image.” Having trouble coming up with anything original, IceRock?


Also, you complain about posters here being harsh on you. You threw the first insults, and continued with them. What exactly did you expect?

The themes of the essays are different. I am

not talking about themes, but rather ideas.

Feeney says " At any given time your image may be

markedly different in the perceptions of different

opponents." Break it down: Different opponents at

the same table are viewing you different. Ciaffone

says the regulars view him different than the tourists. Break it down: different opponents at the same table view him different. Do you really need to be told that all tourists don't play the same? Not all maniacs are the same. All experts

are not the same. That you have to consider the individual opponent when you play your hand.


Let's look at tells for a second. Some claim

they are not so valuable since through hand reading you come to the same conclusion anyway.

Thats pretty much how I feel about John's book.

In a roundabout way I got his idea's through books

published prior.


I chose the image essay not only because it

was poetic but because I felt it the hardest to refute. Now reader are you trying to tell me,when

you play, and are trying to figure out what hand your opponent puts you on, that you don't consider

the hands you already specifically played against this opponent. Honestly think about this in reading HPFAP's psychology chapter, coupled with experience you should have got in a roundabout

way what john was saying. You write well aestheitically, but you make me laugh because

John himself says "The coexistence of multiple images is less likely to occur, or will be less

pronounced, in games containing more observant opponents." I'll slam you both here because the readers of that book should be playing in precisely those games. He is suggesting that this

particular essay will have less value the tougher

your competition. If you reason that you have to

be more skilled to beat the tougher games than

the better you are the less value you'll get out

of the essay.


chew on that


IceRock

“If you reason that you have to

be more skilled to beat the tougher games than

the better you are the less value you'll get out

of the essay.”


That’s not relevant to the topic at hand. Nevertheless, beyond a certain point, the more skilled you are, the less you’ll get out of any essay. That’s obvious. For instance, an expert player will get little out of a book aimed at beginners (beyond the exercise of analyzing it’s errors, perhaps). A very advanced player will naturally get less out of Feeney’s book than someone less advanced. What’s more, I don’t remember John stating in that essay that it was aimed specifically at a particular group of players. He was simply describing a phenomenon that happens in many games, including lots of middle limit and some higher limit games.


Sure, skilled, experienced players will tend to have figured out a lot of things on their own. That does not detract from the value of an author putting those things into words for the first time, and clarifying them in a way no one else had before. That can still have value to advanced players, and even more for those less advanced. I don’t think John would claim to have been the first person ever to think of the idea of multiple changing images. But he was the first to lay out and analyze the topic in any depth in writing. No one else that I’ve seen had ever explicitly described it.


That Ciaffone made passing reference, in an essay on another topic, to an instance that may have been somewhat akin to John’s “multiple changing images” does not in any way translate to Ciaffone having first defined, elucidated, and analyzed the concept as Feeney did.


What you are doing is simply finding a prior author’s passage that is in any way related, even if only weakly, to something John wrote, and claiming it was therefore the same thing. This is of course logically fallacious. Using the same tactic you could claim Harper Lee did not create an original work with “To Kill a Mockingbird” because another author had previously used children as characters in a novel. It doesn’t fly.


I don’t care if you figured out every poker concept ever dreamed of before reading any of them. Just don’t claim it invalidates an author’s original contributions. And if you had read most of the other books, and played a lot before reading John’s book, you *should* have already known a lot of the stuff in the book. Once you get to an advanced *enough* level, who the hell is going to have a lot to teach you? But what if you had only read a couple of other books and had only played enough to be at some intermediate level of knowledge? In any case, I’ve heard other skilled, rather high limit players speak highly of the book. So it seems they got something out of it. Too bad you didn’t.

I'll quote page 90 frome Improve Your Poker.

"The point of the story is I played cards dealt to

me in a normal matter, but it looked like I was trying to run over the game.....Manning knew that since I had created a table image of an action player by my first two raises, I was increasing the chance of getting called on the third one, so I would be sure to have a very good hand for that raise, regardless of what I previously held."


His chance of getting called is increased. Why?

because of opponents perceptions of him from the

previous two hands. Is everyone thinking this? No

Manning isn't. Multiple changing images in a nutshell.


I would like to add. I was mean spirited and harsh. Sorry Mr. Feeney. You obviously wrote a

good book. It is clear to me a lot of readers

enjoyed and gained from your book. It is well written and accurate, but it wasn't thought provoking for me.


IceRock

It’s good to see you apologizing for having been mean spirited, and acknowledging that “Inside the Poker Mind” is a good book. It’s the right thing to do, and I’m glad you realized it. There is only one item left. You started out this thread saying, “There isn't anything in that

book which hasn't been published prior.” In the post to which I’m replying you take another stab at it, quoting the Ciaffone passage. I believe you know your assertion simply isn’t true.


That you were able to take Ciaffone’s anecdote, in which his point was about something else, and see an element that might be construed as an instance of multiple images is great. (It’s unclear exactly how Ciaffone viewed it, since he doesn’t elaborate on that element.) More power to you. But I think you know the anecdote provides no definition, explanation or analysis of the concept.


There is a book called “How to Win at Poker”, copyright 1950, by John Moss (not Johnny Moss, just some guy using a pseudonym, “John Moss.”). On page 33, he refers to “betting on the come.” Using your tactic, you could say this guy, in 1950, elucidated the “semi-bluff” before Sklansky. But you and I both know a little reference to betting on the come, without fleshing out and detailing the concept certainly doesn’t constitute having elucidated the concept. Players were aware of bluffing with outs before Sklansky detailed the semi-bluff, but his work there was original and valuable. He made the concept his own. Same goes for Feeney’s multiple changing images. It has to do with depth, breadth, clarification, details not previously elucidated, and so on.


We both know that an intermediate player, say, who reads the Ciaffone essay before reading “Inside the Poker Mind” is not likely to come away from it with much new insight and clarity concerning multiple changing images. To be generous, he may receive an inkling of it, but that’s about it. (But he may come away with significant insight into why it’s unnecessary to sacrifice money to manufacture a particular image - the theme of the essay.) You brought it up, because you went digging for anything another author had said that might hint at a player being seen differently by a couple of opponents. You then tried to equate that with John’s essay. I think you know that’s wrong, but were pissed at the initial reception to your post and stretched things to try to prove your point and be vindicated.


Now, I think you’ve made your point that you personally didn’t learn a lot from John’s book. That’s fine. Maybe you had read, played, and thought about the game enough prior to the book that there was not much it could teach you. If you get advanced enough it is doubtful any book is going to offer you a whole lot. But while I’m quite willing to continue with this, now that we agree the book has good value for many, though not much for you, maybe we can leave it at that.