Final Consensus on SuperSystem2

[maryfield48]

LOL at the thought of this forum arriving at a final consensus on anything.

[KenProspero]

Excellent -- 4
Very Good -- 25
Good -- 58
Fair -- 33
Poor -- 6

[Pawtucket Pat]

A lot of you guys need to freakin' lighten up!! Who cares if you catch a couple grammatical errors or mispellings in a 250-300 page book? You see those in NY Times bestsellers frequently as well.

Mason is pointing out the importance of content and language, not trivial grammar mistakes that have no impact on what can be taken from the book. His correction of the SS2 passage makes it easier to understand, and that is very important when teaching anything, especially something as complex as poker. That is the point. Discrediting that by citing mistakes in 2+2 books is completely ridiculous.

Also, I am the only one that read the first page of HPFAP that says the authors are poker players and not grammar professors, and that they apologize for any grammatical mistakes?
I read that and said "so what?" I also have a math mind and frequently make similar mistakes, and this book will make me a lot of money.

Speaking of which, the amount of money that the 2+2 authors have made me through their books is pretty astounding, and I'll certainly excuse any grammar or other trivial mistakes that I find without a second thought.

If you care enough about this to take a shot at Mason or David, you are wound way too tight to be playing poker. I would think that a simple "thank you" is a lot more appropriate.

-HB

[Beach-Whale]

I'm not talking about typos and grammatical errors, I'm talking mostly about bad presentation of the information. Recent books, like SSHE, are much better, but they still are molded in the very boring and dry layout and language.

And when 2+2 are criticizing other works for their editing, why shouldn't I be allowed to point out that I find that amusing when their own editing sucks?

And I'm talking about language and presentation and layout and such things, not grammatical errors and typos.

I am aware that some people disagree with me. But I think a lot agrees also.

But the point is, if you were to play triple draw, I guess you wouldn't care about Daniel Negreanu's language either, even if you thought it was imperfect in some way, so I guess you should tell Mason to frigin' lighten up too.

[KenProspero]

[ QUOTE ]
Recent books, like SSHE, are much better, but they still are molded in the very boring and dry layout and language.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, Limit Holdem for Advanced Players, admits up front that it's written by players not writers. So, I don't see how one can complain there. (To be honest, I had expected the prose to be horrible with this disclaimer, it really wasn't bad at all).

I agree with you that SSHE is generally well written.

I find HOH to be incredibly well written and clear.

So, it's fair to say that the good folks at 2+2 recognized early that they needed editors (and admitted this), and that they've by and large been successful in addressing this problem. Constant improvement -- whether at the tables, or with the pen. How can you ask for more.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Ken:

We have always had a small group of people who just seem to be jealous of our success. Why someone like our whale friend even comes here given how badly our stuff is supposedly written is another question.

As for Daniel, the fault definitely does not lie with him. He's an expert poker player, not a professional writer, and his section is clearly better written than many other writings that I have seen in the poker field. So the failure clearly lies with someone else for not having the English addressed.

Many years ago, when our books were only sold at a small number of locations and only purchased by very serious players, exactly how they were written was not a big issue. But as the years went by and the market began to expand, this changed. Today we have gone to great efforts to make sure that all our books are written as clearly and concisely as possible. We are in a technical field and are not writing novels, so they are certainly dry in spots. But that's the way they are suppose to be.

But on the other hand, you can't go through our books and cross out 20 to 25 percent of the words and improve the way it reads. When you can do that, well, an editor is badly needed.

Best wishes,
Mason

[betgo]

I don't believe SS2 wasn't edited. If it wasn't edited at all, it would be a lot worse; particularly since it was written by top poker players rather than poker players who were writers. It was not as heavily edited as your books.

Part of the charm of Brunson's section of SS1 is the self-published style, where the writing sounds the way Brunson talks. It definately does not appear heavily edited.

[Beach-Whale]

[ QUOTE ]
We have always had a small group of people who just seem to be jealous of our success. Why someone like our whale friend even comes here given how badly our stuff is supposedly written is another question.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are jumping to conclusions here. Do you see why?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi betgo:

The original SS was very well written. I never met Alan Glodberg, but he obviously did a wonderful job in putting that book together. (He's the G in B&G Publishing that originally put out the book.)

As for the editing in SS2, I stand by my comments. However, some of the sections are clearly much better written than others. This might be because the particular author was more skilled at writing, or it might be that the author had some editing done before his section was submitted.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, they could have used a professional editor. Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

The proverbial pot calling the proverbial kettle black. Two Plus Two could use a professional editor. Did the Irony of your words not strike you like a lightning bolt?