Continuation of Jim Brier post...

Just to continue what was said below. I think part of the reason Jim gets a lot of criticism is


a. He went from from a poster on here to a columnist in a leading poker publication and now an author. Much of the vociferous criticism he received on here were from Sklansky and Malmuth themselves. I think the reason they did so was because Jim had gotten to the point where he was getting paid for giving poker advice. In the eyes of S&M he is now fair game for criticism, especially if they feel some of the advice he gives is weak or just plain wrong.


b. Jim tends to make absolute type statements in a lot of his columns. As we know, poker is a relative situations, not absolute situations. Thus there are many times Jim says something in his column that is seems too rigid, where instead he might be better off saying "it depends". However, sometimes for a beginner it might be better to think in terms of absolutes because the exceptions are exceedingly rare. S&M go to great lengths not to be incorrect in their books. In doing so, they often give many abstract "it depends" type answers to problems one might face. While they are justified in doing so, such answers are of little help to the most players. Jim's column is a boon to players who are willing to work through a hand and see what you should do MOST of the time in a certain situation. As time goes by those players will learn what the exceptions to jims rules are.


I for one always thought Jim's writing was very straightforward and honest, though somewhat overly formulaic (if that's a word). Nonetheless, I enjoyed his posts and enjoy his columns.