Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm getting pretty tired of people bitching about errors in a book. It almost seems like you were reading HOH2 to try and be the first guy to point out errors. So what? Who's perfect? And Mason has already pointed out that they will publish the list of corrections. That's fine enough for me.

I for one, am glad that the book was rushed out even if there were a few errors in the book. I noticed them, and changed them with my pen, along with all the other markings, underlines, and stars by passages. Not too hard to do.

I find it pretty ridiculous to see a poster like this complaining when I think of how much my game has improved and the resulting positive cash flow that is the result of all the books that 2+2 publishes.

Get a life and show some grattitude.

Wombles

[/ QUOTE ]

These threads are kinda silly. I totally agree that poker books are not generally up for pulitzers, and as long as the principles are gotten across accordingly, the small oversights can be easily overlooked. I mean, I see some people bitching about "two spaces after a period" and that kind of stuff - that does seem a bit trite.

However, even if the presence of some errors will not stop me from buying the book, singing its praises, recommending it to friends, and most importantly improving my game, it still seems that there is a disproportionate amount of errors present, and more than anything it's just totally unnecessary. I mean, I've edited for several magazines, and if I would have let some of those errors slide through I would have gotten the boot instantly in any of those gigs, even the ones with a much lower distribution than will probably buy HOH2. so yes, as a former editor I can definitely say that those errors make me wince a little bit. and to incinuate that people should completely ignore these errors because of the book's (fantastic) content is also a bit absurd. I mean, it IS a publishing company, no?

Basically, another proofreader or two would help everything. My offer still stands Mason, if you're reading this! I'll work mega cheap and guarantee improvement!

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

He doesn't have to back this up. Some of the math errors where Harrington is listing stacks in terms of Q are oddly bad since it's simple division. I'm sure you can spot them within seconds. If no one has by the time I get off work I'll list a couple. I'm actually suprised this wasn't brought up sooner. The errors are very noticeable.

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

Hi Swax:

We're already bringing in someone who should be of help in this area. But thanks for the offer.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

Mason -

I'm sure you'll do a fine job - I didn't really expect you to even dignify that with a response (I was kidding - unless, of course, you had said yes...lol - I guess in poker terms I was "semi-joking").

Anyway - good to see that you're getting on that...I mean, just about all of 2+2's books are pretty much fantastic, so why not make them flawless, ya know? and hey, if the new guy isn't working out, you know where to find me!

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

"Also, isn't Mason down on record as saying that even if a poker book is 98% correct, it can still be terrible.
And does anyone remember the thread where Sklansky lost his mind over Bob Ciaffone misstating the odds of being dealt a pocket pair?"

I don't remember Mason saying exactly that. In theory though it could be true. But only if the 98% part was mainly information that the reader already knew. A second point is that there is a big difference between careless errors that for the most part are obvious to the reader and conceptual errors (like Ciaffone's) that are not obvious and will lead people astray.

Non two plus two books are often filled with conceptual errors in between words that are true but also mainly self evident. Harringtons,s book, for the most part is filled with non obvious true insights with a sprinkling of careless errors that almost any discerning reader wiil usually quickly spot. Big difference.

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
conceptual errors (like Ciaffone's) that are not obvious and will lead people astray.

[/ QUOTE ]

Example please?

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Non two plus two books are often filled with conceptual errors in between words that are true but also mainly self evident. Harringtons,s book, for the most part is filled with non obvious true insights with a sprinkling of careless errors that almost any discerning reader wiil usually quickly spot. Big difference


[/ QUOTE ]
a discrerning reader, like say an editor?

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
I will post a list. My post was to see if any other members here on 2+2 forums have found as many errors as I have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it matter if other readers have found as many errors as you?? If someone were to say, " God no, I only found two errors." will it make you feel smarter and give you the self satisfaction you require?? Or was it that you had to create a thread stating how you also have found all these errors so you are as smart as the countless pthers who have already pointed out that there were errors in the book??

A thread that actually cited the errors so others could use it as a handy reference to correct their versions would be helpful. But as is, this thread amounts to nothing more than you attempting to show off.

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will post a list. My post was to see if any other members here on 2+2 forums have found as many errors as I have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it matter if other readers have found as many errors as you?? If someone were to say, " God no, I only found two errors." will it make you feel smarter and give you the self satisfaction you require?? Or was it that you had to create a thread stating how you also have found all these errors so you are as smart as the countless pthers who have already pointed out that there were errors in the book??

A thread that actually cited the errors so others could use it as a handy reference to correct their versions would be helpful. But as is, this thread amounts to nothing more than you attempting to show off.

[/ QUOTE ]
Show what off? My impressive knowledge of basic english writing or my third grade multiplication/division mastery? As I stated, if you can't read, I will go through the book a second time and post all of the errors I've found.

I haven't seen any other threads discussing the enormous amount of errors and wanted to see if perhaps my book was an exception. I'm not arguing with the concepts the book presents but it makes reading and absorbing the information that much harder when there are so many careless mistakes. For a company that prides itself on perfection in all their work, I was very disapointed. You could tell the release of the book was hastened as any literate proof-reader coupled with a calculator could have prevented most if not all of these errors.

I'm just glad there a few posters in this thread with the brains (and balls) to speak up unlike some of you Mason worshippers.

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

You guys who flamed Hold'me.....just plain suck.