Slotboom Argument & Important Discussion

I decided to start a new thread to increase visibility of the following because I think it is central to the purpose of most of these forums, and is at the heart of Two Plus Two Publishing LLC. In the "Slotboom Quiz" thread below in response to criticism from me Rolf wrote the following. (I've taken the liberty of repeating it here.)


"Well, I think you're right here- I also think you know a LOT more than me on making the right plays. In fact, I think even a lot of regular players in the limit hold'em games in Vienna and Amsterdam I play in know more on certain expert plays, odds and probabilities than me. I still think (and have always claimed) that my main strengths in poker are my patience, discipline, choosing the best game / best seat and my image- all things that have nothing to do with making the right plays. This means that theoretically a lot more people should be able to make as much money as I do. In practice, a lot of them have tried, have come close (all thinking "hey, what Rolf is doing can't be too hard") but weren't able to make it in the long run. I believe one of the my biggest strengths compared to the "by the book" players (which I'm also part of) is the power to adjust to changing circumstances and playing the players. I also think my pot-limit experience has helped me to see things in limit poker from a broader perspective than the odds before the flop side that most serious players (and posters on this site) think is most important (which it is). In fact, almost none of my fellow players in my regular game agree with me on the AK play I recommend in the quiz, for example, not even some of the players whose game I think very highly of. I also know that results are not eveything. However, if you are able to make a good living out of a $10-20 hold'em game under the tough game conditions over here (5% rake, max. 15 Euro), conditions that most players would consider unplayable, with no other income except for the writing stuff, then that accounts for something, IMO, and I think that a few of the plays I recommend in the quiz UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS / CIRUMSTANCES will have had something to do with these excellent results. I don't claim to be an expert like you and Mr. Sklansky obviously are, but I think I have a lot to say that is worth listening to, and maybe even worth learning from. My articles aren't aimed at top professionals who know things better than me, I simply try to help the solid / good / average players by showing MY view on certain situations, and a large portion of this advice is how to stay out of games that are too tough, avoid players who are too dangerous and situations that look good, but can get you into trouble. I think a lot of players DO respect that- for example, Mr. Duplessis himself was one of the people who sent an e-mail to me, thanking me for the quiz. Of course, they might be better off reading your and Mr. Sklansky's works (which, as you might have read, is my recommendation anyway). Or, they can read everything (like I have alays done). And if they disagree with you or me, that's fine too- they will have learned because they KNOW why the right play is not the play the author suggests. Just my thoughts,

Rolf."


Now forgetting about whether he is a successful player or not, the Slotboom argument seems to me to be saying that it is okay to publish advice that is well intentioned, but which at times may be sub-standard. Of course at Two Plus Two that's not acceptable to us. We don't want to put anything in print that is not extremely accurate.


So as I see it, we come down to this question. Should we be highly critical of an author, and this is not directed at Slotboom but is poised hypothetically only, who at times puts out information that we know is not accurate?


All comments are welcome. (I would especially like to hear from those authors who are not officially affiliated with Two Plus Two that like to participate here.)


Best wishes,

Mason

I would like to see strong criticism of an author's work if necessary without criticism of the author himself if it can be avoided. This can be a fine line, but I think it leads to better understanding and less acrimonious threads. A detailed criticism of an idea teaches quite a lot. For instance, in a post below you said something about "feeling sorry for Slotboom." I don't think this was meant to be insulting, but it begins to get personal without adding to the debate. Say Slotboom's quiz is FOS for XYZ reasons. That is great.


I agree that authors do have a greater responsibility than others to be accurate and are fairer game for criticism. But the criticism should focus on the work and not the person.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. The reason I felt sorry for Slotboom was because of all the criticism he was receiving on these forums due to his quiz. Perhaps to some it came across this way, but it had nothing to do with him as an individual.

Mason,


I believe it is your responsibility to point out the correct "play" for the situation on this forum. That's why I read this forum to learn the correct way to play poker.


It's amazing to me that much poker writing if full of misinformation based on someones experience, rather than carefully analyzing the facts. Especially in limit poker the majority of answers can be based on statistics and opponent behavior. Even good statisical information can be used in Pot-Limit and No-Limit games. I'm not dismissing the importance of reading your opponents in these games, I believe it is a matter of balancing your strategy to correctly play these situations.


Good luck and keep up the excellent work.


Mark

hmmm. i think any article/book, whatever, that makes you think a little more in depth about your game, whether the writing is right or wrong, has its benefits. i dont think being critcal of the author does any good. but by posting why the idea isnt sound is beneficial.


there are many plays in holdem that arent advisable in certain situations that work in others. i have yet to see anyone commend anyone on a stone bluff being pulled off, instead being ridiculed for the play. there can be sound reasons for a play that show up later in the session, but by the hand itself, it looks like a disaster.


holdem isnt definitive beause of the human factor. any 1 way of laying a hand during a betting round may be right just by how other players react to said action.


Limping with pkt AA seems to have become like an abortion issue. thread after thread ive seen the debate. fact is, both ways can be right given the situation.


when i learned BJ, it was from one of the worst damn books out there. but as i got better, i was able to recognize very quickly, the crap books and information, from the good ones.


i think the people on here who respond will know the crap when they see it. and by how they criticize it, it may spark new ideas about play. usually they wont just write that they just disagree/agree, but WHY they do. THATS the helpful part.


it helps noone to criticize an author unless he attacks another in print. then he deserves what he gets...


just some ideas..


b


btw...i wish i could remember, but their was a couple essays in masons BJ essays that i found that i disagreed with. but it helped my game to read it and analyze the idea. no, i cant remember what it was, it was about 5-6yrs ago when i read it, but i remember as i disagreed i knew the whys' of why i did. thus solidifying my thoughts on the subject. sorry i cant remember which essay it was.

I don't quite read Mr. Slotboom's comments the way you do. I don't think he's saying his advice may at times be substandard. He says there may be some players in the games he plays in who know more about certain aspects of the game than he might. And he says he is not as expert as you and David are.


But he says he does well in the games and feels he has things to say which may be beneficial to others. Certainly it is within your right, or anyone else's, to judge his advice and to comment on it.


It might sometimes be taken the wrong way when you criticize another author or poker writer who is not affiliated with 2+2. This is because it would be in your financial interest for players to buy the books you publish and read your essays as opposed to those of others. One has to either accept the fact that you critique others' writing based on your judgment of their merit, or not accept it.


For me, the bottom line is that I win at hold 'em largely because of HPFAP and what I've learned from the forums here. So while I can't ultimately know your motives, the results, for me, are certainly consistent with your trying to give the best advice you can.


One can learn something from most every writer. Many years ago I became a winning draw poker player largely because of John Fox's book. It was filled with outrageous stuff and a lot of silly things. But I was able to cull out what was of help to me. So I don't think it's a sin for those who think they have something to say to go ahead and say it. Nor is it a sin for you to be tough on bad advice when you think it is bad.

I am concerned about this notion you have regarding poker relative to information being "extremely accurate". Poker is not like chess or bridge where there may be a correct move or a correct bid. If you want to buy a poker book which is "extremely accurate" I suggest you purchase Mike Petriv's "Hold'em Odds Book" or perhaps Michael Weisenberg's "Poker Dictionary". Now both of these works are "extremely accurate". The problem is that they say nothing about how to play poker.


Poker is a game of incomplete information. To view every poker problem as having an "extremely accurate" solution is to harbor a faulty mental construct of the game. When assessing poker advice, the term "extremely accurate" is really not appropriate in most cases. If the poker advice could be labelled "extremely accurate" it is probably trivial.


Rather one should view poker advice as either being cleary reasonable or not. Does the advice consider the major factors involved or does it overlook critical information? Is the advice aimed toward supporting some poker concept which may or may not apply in the specific situation? How does the advice compare with the opinions of other experts and top players? Again, if you are looking for some closed-form analytic solution or computer simulation to solve a poker problem and the viewpoints of top players is not relevant, then you are probably solving a theoretical problem not a real one.


With regard to the Slotboom quiz, I found it interesting and informative. I do not agree with many of Slotboom's answers but that does not mean Slotboom is wrong and I am right. Slotboom's answers may well work out a higher percentage of the time in certain situations or under certain game conditions. What is important is understanding the rationale both pro and con. It is the process that one goes through in reaching a decision that is important - not obsessing about whether or not there is a "right" answer.


Furthermore, who is to be the judge of what poker advice is "extremely accurate" and which is not? I know of some top players who take issue with some of the advice in Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players - New Edition. A former World Champion as well as one of the all time tournament money winners in poker have taken strong exception to the infamous Ten-Nine Problem discussed on Page 168 of HPFAP-New Edition. Does this make the information in HPFAP-New Edition less than "extremely accurate"?

I somewhat like HDPM's distinction.


One difficulty I see in "Quiz" sorts of columns is that the authors sometimes wrongly think their answer is correct. While some poker problems can be answered with various actions, other problems truly are clear-cut as to the best course of action--however, just what the best course of action is, is not always obvious even to winning pros (especially in those cases where the best action is counter-intuitive). This creates a problem for these authors: they may indeed be winning players and may often know the expert play in a given situation--but that doesn't mean they always know the most expert play. So if they give answers as gospel, they could be seriously misleading their readers on occasion. Depending on the severity of the error and the impact on the earn of the player who takes it to heart, it may cost little or it may cost much. The authors, however, have no way to know what they are wrong on, because they are already analyzing at the limit of their ability. A higher level expert will see the flaws, just as in poker a better player may outplay a merely good player.


If an author is giving advice that will cost those who follow it serious money, I think they should really be taken to task over it. If they are only rarely giving advice which is wrong, and if following that erroneous advice only costs a little, then I feel a major issue need not be made of it.

In any case I see nothing wrong with pointing out errors.

this post jim, reminds me of one i did earlier called, 'poker by numbers'.


poker isnt definitive, like say BJ. too many other factors are involved. sometimes posters on here analyze stuff as if the cards were face up the whole time. forgetting that they werent.


for instance, one wrote something like "if i raised LP with TT, how could you call with something knowing your dominated?"


since many hands can be raised here, how does he know you have TT, unless you showed him. if he was 100% certain, THEN its definitive isnt it? haha


good post


b

There are many situations in poker where the best play may vary depending on many factors and conditions. That's all a part of what real "poker" is. There are also certain cases where the best action may be definitely known. For instance, when David Sklansky poses a poker hand problem, he usually takes pains to leave no unknown factors open which could influence the decision. The answer may then be determined solely through EV analysis and logic. This is also a highly valuable technique in practice (though heaven knows it often isn't easy) because, once the best EV play is known, it becomes a benchmark to which various intangible factors may be added, or subtracted from, in a rough manner.

"Should we be highly critical of an author, and this is not directed at Slotboom but is poised hypothetically only, who at times puts out information that we know is not accurate?"


YES! - Highly critical of the author's inaccurate information. Not of the author (ad hominem argument), unless you can PROVE that the author knows it is bad information and willfully puts it into print anyway. That can be tricky and somewhat subjective.


But bad information is so easily disseminated that it must be meet with forceful disagreement and well-reasoned counter arguments. Any author should know that what he/she prints is subject to open debate and should be able to stand any justifiable criticism.


-Zeno.

"A former World Champion as well as one of the all time tournament money winners in poker have taken strong exception to the infamous Ten-Nine Problem discussed on Page 168 of HPFAP-New Edition. Does this make the information in HPFAP-New Edition less than "extremely accurate"?"


The fact that a good player disagrees with us would normally us pause. However, this is not true in cases like this. The T9 play is in a special category that is frequently misunderstood even by expert players who trust their instincts but don't do the math. We contend the play is worth doing because it increases your chances of winning the pot by only a few percent, but that few percent is worth more than it appears since the risk is only a fraction of a small bet. An expert player who is not mathematically oriented could easily be led astray by his intuition. So his opinion is not worth much on questions like this.

But "the math" is always driven by assumptions. Those assumptions can always be challenged and replaced with a different set of assumptions which make the original poker advice appear incorrect.

This is just another reason why I have learned almost solely from 2+2 material. There's some or a even a lot of BS in almost every other poker book I've read (even Supersystem has some screwey advice, if anybody wants examples I can find the exact pages and you can see for yourself). Anyway I'm surprised that Mason even gave that book a 10, IMO its only worth about an 8 or 9 maybe.


Kris

Hello,Mason,s

Yes,one should ALWAYS critically look at published material and state reasons for agreements and disagreements in someone's work.

These criticisms should be made only by those who have a proven track record of wins of at least 1BB/Hr. after playing a particular game structure for at least 2000 Hrs(IMO).

**************************************************

But remember,DO NOT ATTACK THE INDIVIDUAL--ONLY HIS WORK.

Do not say condescending words about anyone--BUT VIGOROUSLY dissect his work--criticize,agree,disagree,etc.

Try to demonstrate to the writer where you think he is wrong and why--ALWAYS referring to his work--NOT him personally.

It's extremely important to maintain a freely opened forum.


Happy pokering,

Sitting Bull

I think that what you are saying would certainly be the way we would want it in a perfect world, but I'm not always sure that's the way it is.


Let's suppose some hypothetically author produces a book with incredibly bad information in it and he sells it for a pretty good price. You not only have to fault the work, but it might be fair to also fault the person.


To be a little more specific, have you ever read a John Patrick book. I think that everyone on these forums would agree that they have virtually no redeeming value. Furthermore, I'm sure Patrick has been told on many occasions, plus given ample reason why, that's it's impossible to be a professional craps player or professional roulette player (using what are considered fair methods to play). But I'm sure that he would argue, probably very passionately, that his money management schemes will lead you to success.

well, since you wrote all comments welcome:


Everyone has advice/opinions to offer. Some publish,some post online, some talk at the tables, and some just talk to themselves. Where does one find the best advice? and does where one find that advice mean it's of higher quality?


If you pay attention to the stock market there are many sources of information. And many, if not most, pundits contradict each other. Why should poker be any different? There are many situations that are not clear cut, and the best answer is often 'it depends'.


My point is that one should be critical of all the advice. There is nothing to be gained by simply reading and accepting advice. Even if it comes from the highly respected writers/editors of this forum. The mere fact that either david or mason writes an opinion on a particular situation, changes the scenario when that situation occurs again. It's like on wall street, once one reads advice in the newspaper, it's too late to take advantage of it.


So caveat emptor.


If you wish to speak out, and offer opinions broadly, don't be suprised if people disagree. Welcome the critique. That's the way to learn the errors of your ways, or reinforce the correctness of your opinions. Otherwise the only point to publishing is an ego trip.(or make money)


As this is david's and mason's forum, I would expect them to be highly critical here. Anything less and the forum loses significant value.

But at the same time, don't accept that their critique is 'correct'. If you do, you'll still be one step behind.


Poker. Don't you love it. Always changing. Always evolving.


aaron (vegasone)

Perhaps what the math types need are human relations lessons. They should learn the art of disagreeing without nescessarily being disagreeable, especially to people that are "not in their league" intellectually.

Jim,

Nice post. I cannot have put it more eloquently than you the reference to "extremely accurate".


As it has been a mantra that poker is a game of incomplete information where most of the "correct answer" is "it depends", the game is no different from other subjects that us, humans, dissect in our day-to-day living.


Critics of movies, books, plays, etc, expound their views were disagreements are not uncommon. Wall Street analysts churns their numbers but never come up with a unified conclusion. Even scientists are still debating in the origin of life, man, the universe, etc.,etc.,etc. ad infinitum.


What it all says is "everything is relative". So, how can a "little game" called poker that we all enjoy be any different?

.. Poker is a game of incomplete information. To view every poker problem as having an "extremely accurate" solution is to harbor a faulty mental construct of the game. ..


That's not what Mason is claiming. He is claiming that the advice in the 2+2 books (not a solution to a problem) is accurate and highly profitable (although he doesn't explicitly say this). The advice is directed at a myriad of "poker problems" that present themseves.


.. Again, if you are looking for some closed-form analytic solution or computer simulation to solve a poker problem and the viewpoints of top players is not relevant, then you are probably solving a theoretical problem not a real one. ..


First of all you seem to have a hang up about any kind of mathematical analysis of a situation. Too many assumptions to be made, blah, blah, blah. Using this kind of analysis is a tool like many others. I have noticed that people that disdain this type of analsyis often expect a formulaic approach that cranks out one correct answer. In truth the approach is nothing like that and I'm surprised because in one post (I don't remember the thread) you actually seemed to understanding this. An analysis of this type should take the underlying assumptions into considerations and weight them with various probabilities. A JUDGEMENT BY A HUMAN BEING has to be made regarding what are and aren't reasonable assumptions with appropriate probabilites. If you're going to continuously criticize an approach at least try to understand what you're trying to criticize. If you want the primo example of where many experts were wrong look at the threads on RGP and 2+2 about Mason's 4,4 hand. Here's another one. Your recent $20-40 problem on the forum had many what I would consider to be experts respond to it. The almost unanimous conclusion was that the guy should call the raise with his non-nut straight. In my mind it's clear that when reviewing the post that a fold was in order since it is a higher EV play than calling or raising. They were all wrong.

How about the situation where you raised with 9,9 from the cutoff and lost to A5? The question was whether or not your bet on the turn was correct. The truth is that it depends on who you are in there with and it this involves making a JUDGEMENT about what is a reasonable set of assumptions with probability weightings. In other words there is no one right answer that applies to all opponents. However, put a lot more money in that pot and then see if there is one right answer.


.. Furthermore, who is to be the judge of what poker advice is "extremely accurate" and which is not? ..


This is why I believe that many times a mathematical analysis of EV is preferable. It gives me a certain amount of confidence. If my JUDGEMENT as what are the most reasonable set of assumptions weighted by probabilities is wrong, so be it. What I can't live with is knowledge passed down from the oracles that this is the right play no matter what. I certainly will gain insight and learn a lot. If I consider someone to be an expert then I would take there advice a lot more seriously than someone that tells me what an expert told them.

If you have facts that show an author is a scam artist and knows his stuff is garbage, it is fine to expose those facts. For instance if you spoke to an author like Patrick and said, "Hey your work is all wrong and will cost people money" and he responds, "Well, it doesn't cost ME money," and laughs, that can be reported and his motives questioned on that basis. But questioning somone's motives without such facts gets tricky. You can always point out all their errors and let people decide the author's motives later on their own. In the post where you spoke of Slotboom, I thought the overall tone and message tended toward the personal. I think Slotboom took it as such, probably more than the post would justify, and certainly more than you intended. As I said, I don't think your post was meant to be insulting, but sentences like "maybe he will get better" are coming toward that fine line. If what was said was "Slotboom's quiz was seriously flawed and we hope he comes out with better ones," nobody would even think of taking issue with it.


I guess where I am coming from is that I see well-meaning people who aren't very good at their chosen profession all the time. In any field, you will come across people again and have to deal with them. A lot of times people get out of line or even do bad things intentionally. I have found the best way to deal with such problems is to stick to the merits and depersonalize the discussion. Sometimes conduct is outrageous enough to justify a more personal approach, but not too often. I also go out of my way to soften responses where possible.

This is a case where one would, in my opinion, be justified in criticizing him personally as well. Why? Well if you followed his advice on a regular basis you would simply lose your money. It's that bad. His blackjack advice contradicts known computer simulations and research and even basic strategy (he argues that basic strategy is wrong--but correct basic strategy is not a matter of opinion). This guy is a smooth salesman and I find it very hard to believe he is anything but a polished huckster. He had made a lot of money over the years selling material containing harmful advice. It is not credible to me that he hasn't become aware of the faultiness of his advice at some point along the way. So, IMO, either he's a complete ostrich and a nitwit (which I don't completely believe) or he is knowingly taking the public for a ride. I personally think it's probably a bit of both.


As for Slotboom and Brier, they certainly are not dispensing horrible advice on a par with John Patrick. They also contribute many good and thought-provoking points. These guys are not getting rich writing and they are well-intentioned. And no one is perfect. So I agree, there is no need to attack these poker writers on a personal basis due to a few occasional errors.

Good reply Tom. I would like to make a few points in response to your post.


I agree that the advice given in 2+2 is good and accurate. No one is challenging this. But I also believe that there is good advice to be found in other books and articles written by players outside 2+2. The Bible is a good book but it is not the only good book ever written.


I have no problem with mathematical analyses and I believe they can be helpful in certain specialized situations. But when someone keeps using the phrase "extremely accurate" over and over again in their posts, reviews of poker articles, and reviews of poker books, I think it implies a degree of precision which does not exist in this game. Mason's dismissal of what other prominent players have stated relative to the Ten-Nine problem is a good example of this. He believes that this is a "math problem" which it is not.


When you go to a doctor for an annual physical and he tells you that you have only six months to live, I think you should seek out other opinions regardless of what empirical data or analyses he shows you.

"the Slotboom argument seems to me to be saying"


Dangerous phrase: "seems to me."


What you seem to me to be saying is that you have nominated yourself to be the poker-literature policeman and that anything you disagree with is automatically and absolutely wrong and should therefore not be published.


And now it might seem to you that I'm bothered by your role. Nope. Not a bit. Entertained, yes.


Tommy

"It's like on wall street, once one reads advice in the newspaper, it's too late to take advantage of it."


This is not the same.

On wall street the price may quickly adjust to

reflect widely held opinions. In poker, most

of the players will never adjust or even read

expert advice.


So when you learn a good technique or play, it is

likely to remain valuable.


D.

"Rather one should view poker advice as either being cleary reasonable or not"


I don't like the introduction of the post-modernism/relativism nonsense that has

infected so many social sciences.


I don't want to hear some advice that is "reasonable", I want the truth.


but...


...just because it may be difficult to arrive at the truth or aproximations must be made, doesn't

meant that any reasonable sounding answer is good

enough. There still exists an absolute truth and

we should try and get as close to it as we can.


Poker should be treated like hard science not

not political science.


D.

If you are looking for "truth" or "absolute truth" or "the correct answer", then you are playing in the wrong game. Take up chess.

I think you miss my point.


It is a fact that there is a true correct play.

We should operate with that in mind, and attempt to model and aproximately determine the solution

even if may be difficult to do exactly.


It will not work as well to just believe whatever sounds the most "reasonable" or use relativism gobbledygook and assume that many incosistant plans can be equal.


I do play chess. But it is just the same sitution, except that there is a much more

developed chess research and literature and it

is treated more like a science.


D.

science and mathematics,but also art , philosophy,and parapsychology.

Hence,speculations must be continuously made and then tested over time.

Those that do not seem to hold up must be discarded after a time;those that seem to be "correct" over a period of time can then be regarded as "poker theories"--not merely hypotheses.

If these theories have proven themselves to be "correct" over several years,then they can be elevated as "poker laws".

**************************************************

With regards to the "science of poker",there are just too many variables to arrive at many "truths".

However,as you said,that shouldn't stop us from trying.

Remember,the systematic treatment of poker hasn't been around too long.

It is still necessary to make many "armchair" speculations to attempt to arrive at some "facts".


Sitting Bull

NM

Poker can never be as precise as chess because, like political science, people make decisions based on all kinds of irrational reasons. The correct play depends on the opponents, and the opponents are motivated by all kinds of unscientific things. I absolutely agree that a scientific, logical approach to poker problems leads to all kinds of good stuff, but there will never be absolute certainty in a lot of situations. (Although we will have situations where we can come up with very good answers that factor in an opponent's motivation and irrationality.)

[As most of my life is lived, please prefix what I say here with a giant "IMHO"]


Mason -


It is dangerous to apply the term "correct" or "incorrect" to poker theory. If a problem can be distilled down to a math question, then I'll grant that you can have "right" and "wrong". But as Tommy so eloquently pointed out, very few even marginally interesting problems are simply math. There are many complicating factors that move almost every interesting poker problem into the realm of evaluation, probability, possibility, personality, etc.


So I get uncomfortable when you say "X is right" or "Y is wrong."


I mean, look at even Brier's example of chess, which has no element of randomness or incomplete information. If there is a "right" and a "wrong", then how come one fabulously intelligent and talented player can beat another? Surely if right and wrong were that well defined, the game would be a well choreographed pas de deux, ending in a draw.


Tic-Tac-Toe, however, played between two players who know the game, will always end in a draw. I'll grant there's "correct" and "incorrect" in tic-tac-toe.


I expect that 50 years from now, some of what we take as absolute gospel about how to play limit poker correctly will be almost *proven* to be wrong.


Note that nothing I say here reduces, in any way, the contributions you and David have made to the game. You are giants, to be sure. But I believe that other people will stand on your shoulders and see farther. All the climbing around is clumsy, tedious, and filled with accidents. That's okay - it seems to be the best way.


I wish you would simply make your contributions. And argue your positions eloquently and passionately in the appropriate places (and this forum is definitely one of them). But please don't make the argument that "Joe Schmoe is wrong because I say so". Simply tell us what you believe and why. Results and the passage of time will sort it all out quite nicely.


And again, thank you a LOT for the contributions you've made to the game - I have learned much from you.


Regards, Lee

I mean, look at even Brier's example of chess, which has no element of randomness or incomplete information. If there is a "right" and a "wrong", then how come one fabulously intelligent and talented player can beat another? Surely if right and wrong were that well defined, the game would be a well choreographed pas de deux, ending in a draw.


Tic-Tac-Toe, however, played between two players who know the game, will always end in a draw. I'll grant there's "correct" and "incorrect" in tic-tac-toe.


If you grant that there is "correct" and "incorrect" in tic-tac-toe, you should be able to grant the same thing for chess. The difference between tic-tac-toe and chess in this regard is only a matter of scale. The space of all possible chess games is so immense because of the combinatorial explosion that an extensive search of this vast space is totally impossible unless they invent that holy grail of computing called a quantum computer, in which case chess would be reduced to tic-tac-toe...


When it comes to poker, there is the added problem of incomplete information regarding the state of the game. But if we are going to be theorethical here, and I strongly believe that we must be just that, with any specific set of data that you might have, there is a maximum amount of information that can be extracted from that data, and from that information there is a correct conclusion (given the information that you have), even if that conclusion might be probabilistic or fuzzy. You can still use that probabilistic or fuzzy conclusion, and it can still be precise, in the sense that other conclusions would be wrong.


So given a specific set of data, we should be able to view poker just like chess, which is just like tic-tac-toe, with the fact in mind that we start out on much less stable ground.


Of course we cannot get the perfect answer in practice, but that does not mean that some answers aren't closer to the correct one than others.


The more I read about poker, the more I understand how little theoretical knowledge there probably is out there. Most great players and well-known authors seem to not have that great a theoretical knowledge or even interest for that matter, and I do understand that, because it is my understanding that you do not need very deep theoretical understanding to play very good poker. The collecting of good data and information is probably the most important aspect of the game to rise to great heights, and our unconscious brain functions, e.g. pattern matching, trained with lots of experience, can do a very good job if it gets on the right track. You do not need to have a theoretical understanding of physics to be a great skateboarder. You do not need to know cognitive psychology to be able to think. And the reverse is also more than true.


Note that nothing I say here reduces, in any way, the contributions you and David have made to the game. You are giants, to be sure. But I believe that other people will stand on your shoulders and see farther.


I too believe that there will be people standing on Mason's and David's shoulders, but I haven't spotted anyone so far. Not among the poker writers I have read. They seem to be just players, not theoreticians. If someone asks them why they give some piece of advice, they all seem to run to S&M's writing to see if they are right... Like little school boys. I just wish that David and Mason would write a bit more in detail when it comes to the theory behind the advice that they give.


Well, I'm rambling — time to stop.

I did have great help from your book when I started out, and it certainly is better written than HPFAP. Thanks.

"I just wish that David and Mason would write a bit more in detail when it comes to the theory behind the advice that they give."


I sometimes wonder. David and I probably have about 3,000 pages published in our books that are either about poker or related to poker. It seems like to me that there is a lot of detail there.

Lee:


First, thanks for participating. I was hoping you would join in this particular discussion.


However, I strongly disagree with much of what you say. Let me give an example of where I'm coming from. Back in the mid 1980s I memorized the starting charts in Mike Caro's Professional Hold 'em Report. I did this because I had faith in him. Well, it cost me several thousand dollars.


But what was most irritating was that when I began to understand what was wrong with these charts and tried to share it with Caro so that he would either take it off the market or fix them, he didn't want to listen.


Now many years later, this same report came up for vigorous debate, mostly on the RGP Forum. The outcome of this was that Caro announced that he would cease to sell the report anymore (even though you can still buy it at Gambler's Book Club, but it does not appear in his magazine ads anymore). But he never would concede the report was no good. If I remember correctly his position was something like professional players could still win with it, something that I strongly dispute.


So that's where I'm coming from. When I see material that I know is incorrect and will just cost users money, am I suppose to say, "It depends." My answer is absolutely no. I think I'm suppose to say, "This is garbage and those who use it will find it very expensive."


Best wishes,

Mason

Mason,


Move two words and add a "that," and you've got it perfect.


You wrote:


"I think I'm suppose to say, 'This is garbage and those who use it will find it very expensive.'"


Change it to ...


"I'm suppose to say, 'I think this is garbage and that those who use it will find it very expensive.'"


... and you'd be a teacher's teacher.


Tommy

"and from that information there is a correct conclusion (given the information that you have), even if that conclusion might be probabilistic or fuzzy."


-------------


And the correct conclusion could be: "bet 3 times out of seven and check four times out of seven."


There's a correct answer that by it's nature makes it impossible to say one course of action or the other is correct on any given hand.


Tommy

OK, fair is fair, I have only read a small part yet. You have pointed this out to me before. Sorry...


But, I would very much like you to tell me then where to find e.g. the detailed calculations etc. behind the Sklansky Hand Rankings, which would, for instance, answer the question I put forward in my post Strange quirk (?) in the Sklansky Hand Rankings above, so that I can make that book or whatever it might be my next purchase. And/or you could reply to that post. It would be very much appreciated.

There's a correct answer that by it's nature makes it impossible to say one course of action or the other is correct on any given hand.


That's about it, I think. But it is an important distinction that one needs to understand between there not being any correct answer and the correct answer being probabilistic and/or fuzzy and depending on the data that you have access to (and thereby the information that you can extract from that data).

Mason -

I don't expect you to sugar-coat your opinions about other people's poker advice. Including mine. But speaking for myself only: over the years, I've learned to say, "I think some of the advice in Bob Smith's 'Beating 6-Card Omaha' is wrong." rather than "Bob Smith's 'Beating 6-Card Omaha' is garbage." Why? Because it might turn out that I am *wrong*, and then my words taste much worse when I have to digest them.


In the meantime (i.e. until/unless I'm proven wrong) I've gotten across the same message - I don't like Bob Smith's book.


I have, in my later years, come to see almost everything in shades of gray rather than pure blacks and whites. I suppose I don't have the luxury of being 100% sure of much of anything. For instance, if you ask me to list "Good and Bad Things", I'll say:


Good: Love, Music, Trout Streams

Bad: Hate, Pollution


Then you say, "What about rap music? And why do you drive a car?"


See - already you've got me.


Now, if you are so sure of your convictions as to state them as unequivocal truths, then so be it. But I'd warn you that more important truths that appeared even more obvious to a much larger majority of the "thinking" population have been shown, over time, to be utterly silly (e.g. the Earth being the center of the universe).


And you have a particularly excellent opportunity. You have been so impassioned in your arguments for so many years - we all *know* that you believe, at the core of your soul, every single word you write. Therefore, if you say, "Gee, I kinda think that Bob Smith might be wrong on this point" we'll all hear, "Bob Smith is a complete idiot!" And you didn't even have to say it :-).


One other thing: you sometimes imply (if not outright state) that there is a one-to-one and "onto" mapping of "Good Poker Books" to 2+2. That is, a poker book is good iff it is published by 2+2. Without bringing my particular tome into the discussion, I'd like to argue that that's unlikely to be true. As to the question, "Is every 2+2 book good?" I think the answer is likely "Most of them are extremely good." Though I must say there are a couple that I've not read but have been told were not very good. But the converse question: "Are any non-2+2 poker books good?" You have, unless I'm mistaken, essentially stated there are none. I could name specific titles that I would use as counter-examples, but on a more theoretical note, what is the probability that you would acquire *all* good poker manuscripts? It's just statistically unlikely.


I think I've been writing long enough. It's an interesting discussion. Thanks.


Regards, Lee

"Are any non-2+2 poker books good?" You have, unless I'm mistaken, essentially stated there are none"


Lee:


You have this one completely wrong, and I object to it most strongly. In my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics there is an appendix in the back that is a very large number of book reviews. If you look at this you will see that I give either a 9 or a 10, the two best possible ratings, to nine different poker books that are non-Two Plus Two books.


I also give twelve blackjack books which are not published by Two Plus Two either one of these two ratings, and Two Plus Two does publish three blackjack books (as well as two other books that have blackjack sections). And, finally, I give eighteen additional non-Two Plus Two books one of these ratings under the heading of "Other Topics," and yes, Two Plus Two publishes several books that fit into this area (of gambling). So you have this quite wrong.


"I have, in my later years, come to see almost everything in shades of gray rather than pure blacks and whites"


If you look at the ratings, and there are over 175 books (plus a few reports) listed, you will see many ratings between the two extremes. For example, the original version of your book was rated a 4, while the new version, the review appeared on our Books/Software forum, got a 7. So your statement about how I only see things in black and white is clearly wrong, and you should know this.


Finally, and I say this in very strong terms, I found your post to be extremely insulting. It's not insulting because of what you stated, but why I believe you said it. What I believe you did wrong was to simply repeat innuendo, and failed to do your homework. Because if you did your homework you would have known that I take pride in my work being very accurate, and my book reviews are right on the money.

I think Mason has acknowledged other good poker books. The Ciaffone books get decent rankings (new one not reviewed yet by Mason) as have others. I know Mason is proud of the 2+2 works, as he should be, but he has not said only 2+2 books are good. I appreciate his rankings because he is better able to filter out good info from bad than I am. I'm sure it has saved me money at the bookstore and more importantly at the tables. (I still am willing to read different stuff though.) I also prefer when people argue without saying "I think..." or In my opinion..." a lot. It goes without saying and can weaken their argument. Hard hitting on the substance is great. Just no personal attacks.:)

Not to pick a fight with you Mason, because I do believe you guys at 2+2 put out the best poker books, but I went through the non-2+2 books you gave high ratings (an 8, 9 or 10) to. These are:


Super System, Caro's Book Of Tells, Caro's strategies for draw poker, Caro's Fundamental Secrets of Poker, Poker Faces, Winning Poker Systems, Caro's 12 days to Holdem Success, Play Poker and Sleep Until Noon, Omaha Holdem Poker, Poker Faces, Education of a Poker Player, Winning a Living, and Poker, Sex, and Dying.


Now it appears to be that most of these books are either very old or simply ancient (e.g.-Education of a Poker Player circa 1957?). How many of these other books were written in the last 10 years? In addition, most of them do not deal with the most popular poker forms today which are hold'em and 7-card stud. In other words, virtually all of the modern books covering the same games and aimed at the same contemporary market as 2+2 were either not reviewed or have been given poor reviews.

Jim:


You and Lee need to get together and get your facts straight, and you should be ashamed for what you have just written above. Here are the non-Two Plus Two 8, 9, and 10 poker books from the poker section of the reviews in Gambling Theory and Other Topics that you conviently left out. They are:


i]Mike Caro's Guide to Doyle Brunson's Super/System -- A Course in Power Poker,[/i]: 8;


The Biggest Game in Town[i] by A. Alvarez: 8;


[i]Improve Your Poker by Bob Ciaffone: 9;


Pot-Limit & No-Limit Poker by Stewart Rubin & Bob Ciaffone: 10;


Poker Strategy, Winning With Game Theory by Nesmith Ankeny: 9;


Total Poker by David Spanier: 8;


Hold 'em Odds Book by Mike Petriv: 8; and,


Shame on You.

You and I must be looking at different versions of "Gambling Theory and Other Topics". From Page 280-295 there are 71 books listed.


"The Biggest Game in Town" is #19 and it was rated a "7" not an "8".


"Improve Your Poker" and "Pot Limit and No Limit Poker" both by Ciaffone is not even listed. The only Ciaffone book listed is the Omaha book.


The Ankeny book is not listed.


"Total Poker" by David Spanier is #40 and it is rated a "7" not an "8".


"The Holdem Odds Book" my Mike Petriv is not listed.

Jim:


I don't know how to put it to you, so let me be blunt. You are a total idiot and owe me an apology. Nothing personal. You are looking at the 1994 version of . In fact, if my memory is right, it came out in early 1994, which means that all the material in the text was completed before the end of 1993. And what do you accuse me of? Not having reviews that were written during the last 10 years. Did you ever think of looking at the title page and seeing the publication date. What you will see is:


Fourth Edition

First Printing: 1994


and it's hard to write reviews of books that weren't written yet.


By the way, the current edition has a May 1999 date. And guess what, books that came out after that I don't have a review of.


I hope you play poker better than this. And even though you didn't want to pick a fight, I don't appreciate having my integrity attacked.


Best wishes,

Mason


PS: In my book [i]Poker Essays, and please look at the current edition that has a December, 2000 date on the title page. There are two appendixes in the back that recommend books. In all, there are 34 books listed, and guess what, 18 of those books are non-Two Plus Two books.

Mason you are out of line. You are in severe violation of the charter of this forum. Please delete your post.


Angelina Fekali

Studying People Inc.

Ljubljana, Slovenia

http://www.fekali.com/angelina

"Finally, and I say this in very strong terms, I found your post to be extremely insulting. It's not insulting because of what you stated, but why I believe you said it. What I believe you did


wrong was to simply repeat ?innuendo, and failed to do your homework."


Mason -

I'm sorry you found my post insulting. Just for the record, I was recalling posts that I thought you had made (in the last 2-3 months) to 2+2. Needless to say, it would be hopeless for me to try to find them.


That said, you have (in black and white) proof that I was wrong. I apologize.


Regards, Lee

Jim:


You and I must be looking at different versions of "Gambling Theory and Other Topics". From Page 280-295 there are 71 books listed.


"The Biggest Game in Town" is #19 and it was rated a "7" not an "8".


"Improve Your Poker" and "Pot Limit and No Limit Poker" both by Ciaffone is not even listed. The only Ciaffone book listed is the Omaha book.


The Ankeny book is not listed.


"Total Poker" by David Spanier is #40 and it is rated a "7" not an "8".


"The Holdem Odds Book" my Mike Petriv is not listed.


Mason:


I don't know how to put it to you, so let me be blunt. You are a total idiot and owe me an apology. Nothing personal. You are looking at the 1994 version of [i}Gambling Theory and Other Topics. In fact, if my memory is right, it came out in early 1994, which means that all the material in the text was completed before the end of 1993.


_________________________________________________


Jim may have not known that there is a more recent version but when the discrepency arose I think it's fair to say that that Jim should have check into this. Jim even mentions that he may be looking at a different version. I'm sorry Jim but your apparent unwillingness to even check this out shows a lot of obstinance and stubborness about your positions and is further evidence in my mind that you don't possess an open mind about your positions. Perhaps I'm being overly harsh because in the thread about 3 betting AQ you seemed to be at least willing to consider modifying your position. In this one you're clearly wrong.


Mason it's unfortunate that you called Jim an idiot certainly he isn't. Perhaps a better way to put it is that Jim is behaving like one in this instance. I've demonstrated some very idiotic behavior myself when I became intransigent regarding positions I've taken over certain issues. I'm sure there is a high probability that I will do it again but it is a lot lower than it used to be.

Lee:


Apology accepted. We enjoy having you here and I'm sure you have benefited from it.


Best wishes,

Mason

"Mason it's unfortunate that you called Jim an idiot certainly he isn't."


I disagree. He was very quick to smear me. If what he said would have been correct, he would have shown everyone that my claims were totally deceptive and self-serving, and that definitely anything I said couldn't be trusted.


When he wrote that I only gave good reviews to ancient books and asks "How many of these books were written in the last ten years," it clearly was a direct attack on my integrity because it implies that I probably wrote either bad reviews for all of these books and/or deliberately ignored the new ones that were any good.


I consider this a nasty and serious attack. In the future Jim, when you can't wait to attempt to ruin someone's reputation, make sure you are 100 percent correct in what you say about them before you move forward. That's a lot different than debating whether you should fold, call, or reraise with an AQ.


Jim could of easily checked this out in private to make sure you had it right. (He sees me fairly often in the cardrooms, and if he doesn't spot me there are lots of way to get a message to me, either by email; or through a live person who knows me. (An example would be our author Alan Schoonmaker. I know he and Jim Brier talk all the time, and I've been talking a lot to Alan lately.)


So Tom, if Jim could have driven his point home it would mean I couldn't be trusted for anything I do.


Best wishes,

Mason


And, as usual, thanks for participating in our forums and thanks for the support.

Man, this is a pretty disturbing exchange.


Jim Brier has been posting here for several years and he has at all times carried himself with a lot of class and dignity. While I think that he does get a little stubborn when it comes to poker views, I have never discerned even the slightest tinge of an acerbic tone in any of his posts. I think he made an honest mistake when he said what he said after having reviewed an old edition of the book.


I was quite startled by Mason's comment that Jim is an idiot. He clearly is not and even if he was, it still isn't right for Mason to say what he did.


I have a great deal of respect for Mason but hey, I have got a lot of respect for myself as well and I have been wrong before. IMHO, Mason is more wrong in this instance. I think he over-reacted.


I see that Lee has apologized to Mason. While Jim may owe Mason an apology, I also think that Mason owes Jim one.

First of all, I bought "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" about 3 years ago and I was unaware that there was another version of the book that I did not have. I thought I had the most current version but I don't have a front page in my book because of reasons discussed below.


Second, because the bindings on 2+2 books in the past of have been so poor and I have moved a few times in the last few years, I have lost some of the pages from many of my 2+2 books such as "Gambling Theory And Other Topics", "Poker Essays-Volume I", and "Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players" (the earlier version not the new version). I have had to buy heavy duty rubber bands to hold the books together because the bindings routinely crack, break,and pages fall out. As a result I am missing pages from some of these books including the front page of "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" which I presume would have the date of the material.


Third, it should have been obvious to you that this was the case based on what was posted and that an honest mistake had been made - namely that I did not have and was unaware that my copy was obsolete. This could have been pointed out in a civil manner, not in your typically obnoxious and insulting manner.


Fourth, I do owe you an apology for making an honest mistake. So I apologize. Nothing malicious was intended.


Fifth, this post of yours, like so many others I have read by you over the past year, now confirms in my own mind what kind of a person you are.

He certainly could have checked this out and I elablorated on that in my post. At was at least extremely irresponsible. I see that his most recent thread gets in a dig about the quality of books so perhaps I'm stepping into the middle of a situation where I don't belong. I agree that your integrity is at stake.

"I see that his most recent thread gets in a dig about the quality of books..."


What thread is that?

I should have said post in this thread. Jim Brier wrote:


Second, because the bindings on 2+2 books in the past of have been so poor and I have moved a few times in the last few years, I have lost some of the pages from many of my 2+2 books such as "Gambling Theory And Other Topics", "Poker Essays-Volume I", and "Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players" (the earlier version not the new version). I have had to buy heavy duty rubber bands to hold the books together because the bindings routinely crack, break,and pages fall out. As a result I am missing pages from some of these books including the front page of "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" which I presume would have the date of the material.

Again, I don't read it as a dig at all. I think that Mason himself has acknowledged that the book bindings in earlier years were substandard. To his credit, I believe that he has also stated that any such books would be replaced. Anyway, that's my recollection...I could be wrong on both counts.


Tom, I read Jim's explanation as to his error and it makes sense to me. Further, he has apologized for his error. So again, I don't see his comments on the book bindings as a dig at all.


Like I said, this whole exchange is pretty disturbing. Anyway, maybe I ought to just keep my nose clean and stay out of this [...oops...too late :-)] but having been a regular participant here for many moons, I felt compelled to share my views.

Mason --


Thanks for giving my strategy a try. Sorry if it didn't work for you.


Straight Flushes,

Mike Caro (caro@caro.com)

Quoting the Terms and Conditions of website use:


"While using 2+2 website, you may not post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory [...] information of any kind..."


Mason -

I fear that Angelina is right. You and Jim are welcome to think as much or little of each other as you wish. But name calling (from either side) is inappropriate - and it's more inappropriate from the website owner.


I encourage you both to apologize to each other (publicly) and then resume your discussions on a technical level.


Ad hominem attacks in these discussions only lowers the quality of the discourse here and reduces the quality of the whole experience.


Regards, Lee

It's always interesting that they take a shot at the book binding which was corrected in 1994 when we left the bindery that gave us the poor quality work. For some reason, about 90 percent of the printing problems that we have had occurred in the binding process. Fortunately, the major binding problems were corrected many years ago and we hope it stays that way.

Better: "supposed" would be proper english, guys. Geez.

If it were I instead of Mason, in his shoes, I would have instead written "Jim, you are being an idiot" instead of "Jim, you are an idiot" Assuming, of course, that Jim had faulted me for not reviewing books not yet written.


Jim: No offense meant; hope none is taken


Mason: If you choose your words a bit more carefully, you too can accuse someone of using a moronic argument without actually calling him a moron;-)

I see it a little differently but I think it's fair to say that the relationship between Jim and Mason has seen better days. Jim's final comment:


Fifth, this post of yours, like so many others I have read by you over the past year, now confirms in my own mind what kind of a person you are.


It appears that Jim doesn't think very highly of Mason at this point as I don't think this was a complement. Given that I think it at least some doubt about whether or not Jim is offering a lamo excuse. Mason is right he (Jim) could have made more than a feeble effort to verify his facts. Jim isn't an idiot either but the feeble excuses don't help his case but he did apologize but then came item 5. Mason is claiming that the book binding problems have been corrected since 1994. To bring up something that was corrected 8 years ago is hitting below the belt in my mind but perhaps it just happened to come up in Jim's post. Hey I'm naive. I get really mad at my wife brings up things that I screwed up 8 years ago and have since corrected.

I think it may be time for another "Who is the biggest jerk on 2+2?" poll. Jim Brier is one of the nicest poker players in the world.

And to think you left the Other Topics forum because you thought things would be more civil over here.

I really don't care a great deal if things are civil or not, but I detest having to argue against multiple bad arguments, misquotes, bad analogies and bad assumptions simultaneously. At the time I left that trend seemed to be on the upswing;-)

I would guess that Patrick has been lucky, and furthermore doesn't understand (or believe in) an objective reality. His advice is horrid, yes. Anyone who claims that Craps is winnable, and publishes a book about it, is not necessarily a huckster. The standard deviation at Craps, especially given a full court press, can be extremely high, and so someone could be way under the number of hours required to achieve a 2- or 3-S.D. result in their play.


However, I would fault any such person for NOT pursuing the math. Although their argument is bad, I would also accuse the person of dishonesty because *they weren't honest with themselves.* Patrick is either a con-man, or (as I believe) he believes so strongly in luck and superstition that he is not capable of rational analysis of any table game. It requires a systematic irrationality in order to maintain a belief in the winnability of craps.


But craps and blackjack are not like Poker. In Poker, you play the man as much as the deck.


-Rapid

"Correct in most cases" is vastly overrated. Two simple examples are playing against paired door cards in stud, and folding mediocre hands in large pots in any poker game.


For a "Slotboom-esque" hold 'em example, calling a very tight UTG raiser with JJ in the SB is "correct in most cases" but should be very expensive.


You can be "correct in most cases" and still be making a terrible error.