HOH EXPOSED CONTINUED....

[KeyToTheMint]

First let me quote Mason Malmuth:

"All manuscripts that we publish go through a very tough and rigorous review process and nothing gets published unless we are sure that it is very accurate. If you don't believe this, besides Ed Miller, I suggest you talk to either Alan Schoonmaker, Bill Robertie, Dan Harrington, John Feeney, Ray Zee, or Donna Harris."

hmmm....If you did this your
works wouldn't be full of superficial errors. Some of the superficial errors later leads to confusing
incorrect statements as well.

Let us begin, HOH is "very accurate".

1. A flush and a straight draw is 17 outs in hand 5-4. WRONG.

2. Hand 3-4 "you'd be risking $27,000 of your own money to try and win $45,000...." WRONG.
Your putting in $33,000 to win $45,000.

3. Hand 4-7 "which doesn't give him a call if he does have the AK of diamonds, a hand with only 12
outs." WRONG. He has more than 12 outs.

4. Hand 4-8 "Player C started with $970 and now has $720 left. Player E started with $750 and
now has $480 left." These starting totals do not match the diagram. WRONG.

5. Hand 5-4 'The pot is $110, and it's $40 to you." WRONG. The pot is actually $130.

I'll stop there for the superficial errors and now get to a more complicated point. With all due respect. A significant portion of the readership of poker books cannot play worth a
lick. I brought up a point in HOH exposed (the original post) about implied odds and it just flew over the heads of most people who responded. Knowing this I will still continue, knowing some
will give me a debate without merit.

Hand 6-3 "You were a bit unlucky, since he shouldn't have called your bet after the flop-there were just too many ways he could have been beaten." WRONG.

Your opponent held 2 overcards with a flush draw and you held ace high. Then on the flop you gave him 3.6 to 1 odds to draw. You further, let him see the river for free and paid off when he made a pair. All in all, for just a 100 dollar flop bet he saw 2 more board cards and made $460, How is this a mistake on the part of your opponent? It isn't.

Harrington said your opponent was incorrect in calling you. WRONG

Probably just another typo leading to the confusion. ie your opponent does not have a flush draw.

Final Thoughts: I liked the ideas in Harrington on Holdem and its worth reading. Its just that it is written in a sloppy manner. Quite frankly, if you take the name Harrington off the book and call
it Joe Blow from Idaho on Holdem, you now have a confused book. He can't count the money in the pot (hand 3-4, hand 5-4), no clue about outs (4-7, 5-4), ignores implied odds (hand 4-9), and plays weak tight (fold overcards with flush draw getting 3.6 to 1 odds: Hand 6-3).

Mason your "rigorous review process" seems to have failed.

There are even more errors than this. But you get the point.

This is not an attack. This is the truth. Which book of yours should I read to clear this matter up?

Here's how I rate books:

Top 10/10 (brilliant)
SSH 10/10 (brilliant)
HOH 6/10 (mediocre due to unconscientious writing, the ideas are valid and useful)
Tales out of Tulsa-Bobby Baldwin 2/10 (useless information)

Show me where I got it completely wrong.

Flat out answer at least 1 question. How can such a "rigourous review process" not notice that a flush and straight draw isn't 17 outs?

Just one more thought. Poker is tough enough to learn to play well by a book even if it is well written and accurate. It becomes even harder when there are typos. For example, hand 6-3
Harrington makes an incorrect weak tight statement when he says my opponent should fold,
who in the example has position, overcards, a flush draw and nearly 4 to 1 pot odds. But taking
away his flush draw he has next to nothing. I think it's a typo, but look at the confusion it causes.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Mint:

Due to the way HOH: Volume I was written, it was much tougher than normal to get all the "superficial errors" out of it. We are not happy with this, but believe we have (most) everything fixed on the second printing.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Komodo]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar till:</font><hr />
Hi Mint:

Due to the way HOH: Volume I was written, it was much tougher than normal to get all the "superficial errors" out of it. We are not happy with this, but believe we have (most) everything fixed on the second printing.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Mason
When the second printing is out, will you post the "Corrections" (if it is many) here?
I know you usually dont do it, but since so many here who have read the book and are curious...
Regards
Matthias

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Mint:

Due to the way HOH: Volume I was written, it was much tougher than normal to get all the "superficial errors" out of it. We are not happy with this, but believe we have (most) everything fixed on the second printing.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

While i love your books and your material, the OP has a point. Scrutinizing error-checking obviously wasn't your first priority. You obviously, understandbly, are more concerned wtih getting your books out quickly. I think the part that people have a problem with is the fact that you play it off as though you put a much larger effort into editing than the product reflects. In other words, people assume based on the way you present yourself, that you would, for example, hold back a book's release in order to correct errors because you care so much about the quality of your product. If this were the case, the so called "fixed second printing" would have been the first printing!

BTW, i understand you put a lot of effort into editing. My point is that you make it seem as though you go above and beyond the necessary editing standards, when in reality this simply isn't true.

I have zero complaints on the content and present this post with the uttmost respect for you and your publishing efforts.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Zygote:

You're absolutely correct. I suggest you read and study books that we don't publish.

Best wishes,
Mason

[cero_z]

Hi Mason,

[ QUOTE ]
You're absolutely correct. I suggest you read and study books that we don't publish.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. A sarcastic response to a totally respectful, thoughtful comment on a glaring problem with your product. What are you thinking? How many people need to point out these unprofessional mistakes before you take the advice to heart?

You personally use poor grammar in all of your books. This is not the end of the world, and clearly it is of no importance to you, since you've made the same errors (improperly using commas and writing run-on sentences) since Blackjack Essays. Now, people are pointing out errors that truly obscure the intended meaning of the text. Apparently, this doesn't concern you much either, but it ought to.

There are so many reasonably intelligent people out there to whom this comes naturally; why not ask one of them to proofread your stuff? You thanked Mat profusely for his editing of Poker Essays III; he did an absolutely terrible job. I can quickly scan it and spot multiple pages with multiple errors on each, and something tells me I'm not alone. Get a competent editor, and stop insulting people who don't deserve it in order to deflect criticism of you and your company.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Zygote:

You're absolutely correct. I suggest you read and study books that we don't publish.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Now was that really necessary? If you disagree with what i'm saying, then, the intellecutal thing to do would be to discredit it (i'll do that for you below). Or, why not tell me to piss off?

FYI, here a few things i should also mention about my post:
-I sincerely didn't intend to offend anyone involved. I understand that you put a lot of work into your books and nitpicking criticism can be a difficult thing to handle, but, again, i am only nitpicking. Incase i haven't already made clear, I love your books, errors or not! (i own 4 books of yours among several other 2+2 books)
-If i were you guys, i would also prioritize getting the books out too. I don't disagree with your decisions to do so. I am also not saying that editing or quality isn't a priority of yours. Although, you had mentioned several times that you were in a rush to get the books out and now we can see that more time would've produced a more error-free product.
-To be honest, when i think back on it, i can't really recall you ever claiming 2+2 produced error-free books. I believe your comments were about the quality of content and casing. Since my point was that you shouldn't present yourself in a light that didn't truly shine, and i have no actual reason to believe you did this, i appoligize for the false accusation.

To sum everything up, i was initially in the wrong for fasley accusing you and making partially unwarranted criticisms, but you definitely didn't need to be jackass. After reading all your critiques of other's materials, i'm suprised you would handle criticism so poorly. You are lucky, though, because the errors are like you being a jackass: neither will prevent me from buying and highly enjoying your published books.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

It's been my experience for years that when you don't take the crap the attitude of the attacker quickly changes.

First post:

[ QUOTE ]
Scrutinizing error-checking obviously wasn't your first priority. You obviously, understandbly, are more concerned wtih getting your books out quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Second post:
[ QUOTE ]
I sincerely didn't intend to offend anyone involved. I understand that you put a lot of work into your books and nitpicking criticism can be a difficult thing to handle, but, again, i am only nitpicking. Incase i haven't already made clear, I love your books, errors or not! (i own 4 books of yours among several other 2+2 books)
-If i were you guys, i would also prioritize getting the books out too. I don't disagree with your decisions to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

For reasons which are too long to explain here, HOH: Volume I was extremely difficult to get all the errors out of. We literally caught and corrected hundreds of them but obviously not all of them. The final blame reasts with me since I'm the publisher.

The second printing will hopefully be close to error free, and we are also optimistic that we did a much better job on Volume II.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Easy E]

to simply say "[censored] you!" ..... don't be so coy, Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Easy:

When I speak, I never use any swear words. No one who knows me has ever heard me talk as you suggest and this includes people who can go back over twenty years. I consider speaking as you suggest to be self-weighting. However, I never seem to have any trouble getting my point across clearly to those I wish to make aware.

But thanks for your suggestion anyway.

Best wishes,
Mason