2+2 and Cardplayer

[Poker blog]

Mason wrote: [ QUOTE ]
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC has ended our relationship with Card Player magazine and all affiliates of Card Player. We intend to keep this separation permanent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will we ever here the story why?

Also, did Mason ever post the results to his hand to talk about where he had the king-high flush?

[Luke]

I don't know about 2+2 and Cardplayer.

As for Mason's hand, Clarkmeister apparently ran into Mason at the Golden Nugget and Clark was able to get out of him that his opponent held AT for the nut straight so Mason's hand was good. There was no mention of suits. Clark posted this info towards the end of the original thread if you want to do a search.

Luke

[Poker blog]

Thanks Luke. I've been in and out of town as of late, so I was afraid I might have missed it.

Guess Mason doesn't want to fill us in on the kerfuffle with Cardplayer.

[DcifrThs]

I cannot remember exactly but i think it came about when a friend of mason's posted an encounter he had with Barry Sherman (i think thats his name...i don't remember and its why i posted it as "1/2 the story") while playing poker.

barry apparantly referred to mason as "an idiot" or some such nonsense.

this may be the straw but there is a lot piled on the camels back and i'm not sure how far back it goes but it seems like a mariana trench type wound.

-Barron

[DcifrThs]

,

[Poker blog]

That's exactly why I ask. It sounds to me like Shulman was mad at Mason for something, possibly because 2+2 ended its affiliation with Cardplayer.

The story will get out eventually, so I thought it might be in Mason's best interest to tell us his side now.

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot remember exactly but i think it came about when a friend of mason's posted an encounter he had with Barry Sherman (i think thats his name...i don't remember and its why i posted it as "1/2 the story") while playing poker.

barry apparantly referred to mason as "an idiot" or some such nonsense.

this may be the straw but there is a lot piled on the camels back and i'm not sure how far back it goes but it seems like a mariana trench type wound.

-Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

[oddjob]

[ QUOTE ]
That's exactly why I ask. It sounds to me like Shulman was mad at Mason for something, possibly because 2+2 ended its affiliation with Cardplayer.

The story will get out eventually, so I thought it might be in Mason's best interest to tell us his side now.

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot remember exactly but i think it came about when a friend of mason's posted an encounter he had with Barry Sherman (i think thats his name...i don't remember and its why i posted it as "1/2 the story") while playing poker.

barry apparantly referred to mason as "an idiot" or some such nonsense.

this may be the straw but there is a lot piled on the camels back and i'm not sure how far back it goes but it seems like a mariana trench type wound.

-Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

yah, i think anyone who charges $100/year for a magazine subscription could possibly be called the idiot. you're supposed to make money off the advertising. advertisers buy ad space bbased on readership (is this a word?). charging a lot and cutting down on the number of cardrooms you supply does not ad to the number of readers.

[HUSKER'66]

It's really none of our business.


Curiosity killed the cat remember.

Husker

On anothere note, I read an article regarding the Shulman's and how they are hoping to expand their subscriptions to somehwere in the 300,000 range over the next year.(3000% increase over the 10K current subscribers) /images/graemlins/shocked.gif It was also reported from the horses mouth that the annual subscription price would fall in the $39.95 range.This was all mentioned in an article on pokerpages.com (I think) /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.....something under the title of ,"Riding the wave of the Poker Boom" yada, yada, yada.

[nolanfan34]

And yet last time I checked, you can access any article you want, online. Why would someone pay $100/yr. for a subscription if you can get it online for free?

[oddjob]

[ QUOTE ]
And yet last time I checked, you can access any article you want, online. Why would someone pay $100/yr. for a subscription if you can get it online for free?

[/ QUOTE ]

because i can't take my computer in the bathroom with me when i need to take a dump.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
because i can't take my computer in the bathroom with me when i need to take a dump.

[/ QUOTE ]

One word. Laptop. (or should that be two words?)

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[RiverMel]

Um...wireless internet?

[oddjob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
because i can't take my computer in the bathroom with me when i need to take a dump.

[/ QUOTE ]

One word. Laptop. (or should that be two words?)

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

makes sense, instead of getting a subscription for a magazine i should just buy a new laptop.

[oddjob]

[ QUOTE ]
Um...wireless internet?

[/ QUOTE ]

oh, and if i get a laptop with wireless internet, it'll be for porn, certainly not to read poker articles.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
makes sense, instead of getting a subscription for a magazine i should just buy a new laptop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I was being completely serious. Sorry I left out the . /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Anadrol 50]

Luke is starting to anger me....

[Oski]

CardPlayer = Expensive toilet paper. And its not even good for toilet paper...EITHER.

[HUSKER'66]

According to the article, they were just currently "breaking even" at that subscription price.($100)

What I find ironic is as you mentioned, you can view the articles online.

That and the fact that they have thousands of free copies available at casinos all across the country.

Husker

[Dilbert]

[ QUOTE ]
According to the article, they were just currently "breaking even" at that subscription price.($100)

What I find ironic is as you mentioned, you can view the articles online.

That and the fact that they have thousands of free copies available at casinos all across the country.

Husker

[/ QUOTE ]
They get most their revenue from advertising, so they have to keep the viewership numbers up (free issues). Only the pros are going to pay the subscripion price - its a business expense to them and they will pay a lot, so CP charges a lot.

current CP management is clueless - they deserve to lose money on this rag

[Czech_Razor]

[ QUOTE ]
oh, and if i get a laptop with wireless internet, it'll be for porn, certainly not to read poker articles.

[/ QUOTE ]

errr . . . pr0n is ok, but poker lasts longer?

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Poker blog]

[ QUOTE ]
They get most their revenue from advertising, so they have to keep the viewership numbers up (free issues). Only the pros are going to pay the subscripion price - its a business expense to them and they will pay a lot, so CP charges a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would pros pay the subscription price for Cardplayer? First, pros likely don't need to read advice from Roy West or any of the fluff.

Second, a pro is likely to pick one up for free in a casino.

[MicroBob]

this was my initial reaction as well.

pros are probably the last people who would take out a subscription for card-player imo.


i wil pick up a copy at the Horseshoe in Tunica when i play there....but thats only about once a month.
i just miss the other articles....and i dont think i'm missing much.
most of it is fluff.

i do enjoy the articles from the poker 'pros' writing about their first online experiences.
"there are buttons to raise and call and fold....the site i played on offered tables at 1/2, 2/4, 3/6, 5/10 and 10/20. they also offer little things called 'chat-boxes' in the corner so that you can hold conversations with your opponents"...etc etc.
i've read a couple of these before.


almost everytime i read Sexton's article it goes something like 'did you know that a lot of people are watching the WPT?? it's becoming a very very popular show!!'

there's usually a couple of decent articles in there.
but nothing even close to the Sklansky and Malmuth articles that i regularly enjoyed. some real mind-benders among their contributions.

[Luke]

Luke is starting to anger me....

I guess nobody else cares.

Luke