Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

In the newest edition of Cardplayer, out today, Bob Ciaffone, Jim Brier, and Lee Jones all make inexcusable, rather disgraceful errors in their respective articles. Errors either in math, logic, or argumentation. While only one of the errors could cost a lot of money, they are all non tirvial and reflect a lack of understanding of some pretty basic things. Not only would two plus two authors never make these mistakes, neither would the likes of Roy Cooke, Dan Kimberg or Howard Lederer. I'm not talking about esoteric stuff or mere nitpicking.

See if you can find them all.

I am biting my tongue a little bit here because people don't like it when I get too mean. But these errors do bring up a point that I've thought, but not written, until now. Namely refuting the idea that almost any poker book has some value because there are always going to be a few pearls of wisdom to pick up. The presumtion is that those concepts that are already known are ignored and those concepts that are flawed are discarded. Well that's fine if the reader is knowledgeable and can separate the good from the bad. But what if he is not? Even a book where as much as 90% of the stuff is right may be of negative value to non discerning readers. Because most of the 90% is things that he already knows or can find elsewhere. Meanwhile if the reader blindly puts his faith in everything (something he can come closer to doing regarding books about most subjects) that these flawed poker thinkers write, he would be better off having read none of the book at all.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

Am i missing something here? I don't even see an article by Lee Jones this month

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

I guess it's this one.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

ok, i just got the one with the 2004 poker year in review on the cover in the mail yesterday.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

Jim brier's math is horrible. Example given "2 outs from 45
unseen cards is about 4%". Thats true if you get to see
the turn only. However, we get to see the turn and river so
its over 8%. This makes multiple of his calculations wrong.

Lee jones logic is way off. "When i have to put a player on
2 specific cards to beat me, thats monsters under the bed
and I'm not playing that game." He is implying the opponent
can't have AA since he's holding an ace and 1 is on the board. The reason this is wrong is for example there are
players out there that only cap the preflop betting with
AA or KK. Specifically against this opponent there is a
25% chance of him having AA. This is hardly insignificant.

As for Bob Ciaffone "5 times big blind or less in chips its
time to go into panic mode look for a good spot to steal"
example given with blinds of 50-100 and a stack of 500 go all
in with any 2 on the puck if no one else is in yet.
This seems wrong to me. I would only do it on blind faith if
my poker mentor david sklansky told me it was right. I am
currently reading tournament poker for advanced players.
Great book, thanks david.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

[ QUOTE ]
As for Bob Ciaffone "5 times big blind or less in chips its
time to go into panic mode look for a good spot to steal"
example given with blinds of 50-100 and a stack of 500 go all
in with any 2 on the puck if no one else is in yet.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you are multitabling SNG's then this is a standard move.

Ciaffone\'s error
 

Ciaffone wrote:

"So, let’s see what happens when you have a weak hand on the button with $500 in your stack, the blinds are $50-$100, and everyone folds to you. The odds of running into a pocket pair in the big blind are about 17-to-1 against. The odds on either one of the blinds having a pocket pair are about 9-to-1 against."

If you have 2 cards that are not paired, that means there is 50*49/2 = 1225 other starting hands possible. Of those, 72 can be pocket pairs (78 max, but you have 6 potential pairs blocked). 72/1225 = 5.878% chance one person will have pocket pair = 1 chance in 17 = 16:1 against.

So, it is 16:1 that any given player will have a pocket pair, not 17:1.

5.878% x 2 players = 11.756% chance 2 players might have at least one pair between them = 1 chance in 8.5 that either player will have pocket pair = 7.5:1 against.

So, it is 7.5:1 that either of the blinds will have a pocket pair when you are on the button, not 9:1.

Not a huge error, and I don't know if it was the one David saw, but an error nonetheless.

On to the other 2 articles.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for Bob Ciaffone "5 times big blind or less in chips its
time to go into panic mode look for a good spot to steal"
example given with blinds of 50-100 and a stack of 500 go all
in with any 2 on the puck if no one else is in yet.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you are multitabling SNG's then this is a standard move.

[/ QUOTE ]

5xBB is WAY too late in SNG's as a standard move. You will always be giving 1.6-1 or so to the BB if you wait this long. 8-9x is the standard starting push here, 5x is simply a fallback.

Lee Jones\' errors
 

Lee Jones wrote:

"I was in the big blind with A-K offsuit. The under-the-gun (UTG) player raised, one or two players folded, there was another raise, another player or two folded, and somebody else capped it! Now, here was decision No. 1. There’s no shame in folding A-K offsuit, especially when you have to play it from out of position and three other players claim to like their hands. Your obvious concern here is that (1) you’re up against K-K or A-A, or (2) you’re up against another A-K. Especially in this scenario, having another A-K out would be a mess. After all, with all of those raises in there, it was very likely that at least one player had a pocket pair. So, I’d need to hit an ace or a king. But two of the six cards I wanted to see on the flop might well be in another hand, and if I hit one of them, I’d be sharing the pot with somebody else. I was actually coming close to folding, when I thought about two things: First, I was getting slightly better pot odds (almost 14-3) because I was paying one fewer bet than the rest. But more importantly, I saw that I had notes on two of the players. Both notes said that those players didn’t need much of a hand to raise (or even reraise). And the last player (the one who had put in the third bet) had no notes next to him.

It was a bit of a gamble, but I jumped in.

I flopped the nuts: A-5-5 rainbow. “Wait — that’s not the nuts. The nuts is A-A-K, or Q-J-10, or K-K-K, or … ” OK, but let’s stop being so technical for a moment and think about this. If one of these folks had A-A, I was drawing essentially dead. But note that for him to have that, he’d have to have specifically the remaining two aces in the deck. When I have to put a player on two specific cards to beat me, that’s monsters under the bed and I’m not playing that game. “What if one of ’em has a 5?” He’s going to win a big pot. But while it was possible that one of them held a 5 (or 5-5), it was very unlikely. In short, I had a hand that I was ready to play for the nuts. My only concern was whether I was splitting the pot with somebody. If so, I was not going to get him out, and I didn’t want to shut out the other players, who would be paying us off.

I checked. After all, I was supposed to be some idiot who called three bets cold in the big blind with nothing but dreams. Let’s see how the others felt about the flop. The UTG guy bet out, and got raised by the next player. Then, the button three-bet! That was almost certainly the other A-K. I just called the three bets cold (and found myself wondering what they thought I had). The UTG guy called both raises cold, but now the original flop raiser folded. He probably had a big pair and decided he needed to take a shot in this monster pot. When three other people were willing to put in three bets each, he knew his Q-Q (or whatever) was no good. I made a note about him.

The turn was a 7, putting a two-flush on the board. Now, I decided to see if we could trap UTG for a few bets. I bet, he called, and (as anticipated) the button raised. I seriously considered three-betting, but I was absolutely sure I was splitting the pot with the button, and I didn’t want UTG out. I decided that he didn’t have a flush draw, but more likely a big pair that he wasn’t willing to give up, or the case ace with a weaker kicker. So, I just called the raise, as did UTG. So far, so good.

The river was a beautiful offsuit 4. I bet out, and UTG folded! What in the world could he have come so far with only to give up now? And now, the button raised again! Well, shucks. Note that he had raised at every opportunity he had throughout the hand. My notes about him (“raises with weak hands”) notwithstanding, bad players are allowed to get dealt A-A. And there was always the danger that he held a 5. So, I simply called, expecting to split the pot. Imagine my astonishment to see that he held A-2 suited. In short, he’d been drawing very nearly dead on the flop. I was delighted not to have to share the monster pot with him, of course, and made a note that he overplayed bad aces."

**********************

Error #1 - he wasn't getting 14:3 on the preflop call. He was getting 10.5:3 on the exact call, and if everyone called (which isn't a sure thing), he would be getting 13.5:3. This is an error in math, as I think the call is correct.

Error #2 - he puts UTG raiser on pocket pair (rather than flush draw), and then lets him see the river for the proper pot odds call of one more bet. Huge mistake.

There were 16.5 small bets preflop. 11 small bets on the flop (and another missed raise opportunity to make the UTG raiser fold a pocket pair).

Jones then has the chance to make it 2 big bets to UTG on the turn by 3 betting, which would make the odds 2 big bets to call with 7 big bets and 27.5 small bets in the pot, or 10.25:1. Insufficient odds to chase a 2 outer.

Instead, Jones calls the turn raise, letting the UTG call 1 bet to win 27.5 small bets and 5 big bets, or 18.25:1, which is sufficient to chase a 2 outer with that big a pot + implied odds.

Jones says he wanted the pocket pair in. Terrible.

Further, the guy could have had a flush draw on the turn, and while he would not have folded a reraise on the turn, he got a cheap river.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

I can point out something obvious that annoyed me in Brier's column:


[ QUOTE ]
As an aside, a typical betting sequence in which you go all the way to the river will result in your putting in more than 14 percent of the money that ends up in the pot. This is due to the fact that not all of your preflop opponents will stay all the way to the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but your pot equity will also increase as players fold because it is pretty rare in a multiway pot for multiple players to have zero outs against you. If you flop top pair with no flush draw any pair will run you down about 10% of the time. If those pairs fold your pot equity increases.

_________________

As for Jones' column I have no idea why he would not reraise on the turn especially given his reads. The pot is big so you want a flush draw or many worse hands to fold (flush draw likely won't) or you make him pay to draw. Also, how do you just "decide he doesn't have a flush draw" if he is an unpredictable bad player. Finally even considering folding AK preflop against the described opponents I think is horrible.

Pocket pair discussion above is excellent as well.

Just my two cents.

Brier\'s error
 

Brier wrote:

"The advantages cited for reraising seem miniscule and not worth the cost of the bet. What is the increase in expectation when you “buy two more outs” by having the small blind fold a better ace? First, what is the likelihood that he even has an ace? Suppose that he would raise from the small blind with a typical “under-the-gun” raising hand such as A-K, A-Q, A-J suited, K-Q suited, A-A, K-K, Q-Q, J-J, or maybe 10-10. (As an aside, very few low-limit players raise from their blinds against a large field with A-Q offsuit). Given the cards showing, the probability is about 30 percent that he has A-Q or A-J suited. Second, two outs from 45 unseen cards is about 4 percent. So, overall, this is worth about 1 percent. On a pot this size, this equates to maybe 0.1-0.2 small bets. In a $4-$8 game, this would be worth about 60 cents. This drops to about 30 cents if we rule out A-Q offsuit."

********************

Buying 2 outs with 2 to come by reraising an AQ out is not worth 4%. It's worth 8.79% if you see the river card.

1 - (43/45 * 42/44) = 8.79%

Re: Brier\'s error
 

I am glad to see that Cardplayer is paying Brier to incorrectly analyze someone else's work, I wonder if I could get a career in this field?

Re: Brier\'s error
 

Movie critic...
Sports talk host....

Seems like there are plenty of options in your new chosen field.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Another error
 

Could it be that Jones misplayed this hand on EVERY street?

What about the river? Assuming there is a cap, why wouldn't he 3-bet the river? Sure, his opponent has misplayed A2 badly so far, but what has Jones done to indicted he has AK (even assuming his flop coldcall and turn bet would tip off a good player to the possibility that Lee held AK, what's to say the weak unknown player could not have AQ or AJ?

Re: Another error
 

[ QUOTE ]
Could it be that Jones misplayed this hand on EVERY street?

What about the river? Assuming there is a cap, why wouldn't he 3-bet the river? Sure, his opponent has misplayed A2 badly so far, but what has Jones done to indicted he has AK (even assuming his flop coldcall and turn bet would tip off a good player to the possibility that Lee held AK, what's to say the weak unknown player could not have AQ or AJ?

[/ QUOTE ]

As it turned out, not raising the river was a 1 or maybe 2 bet error.

Letting a pocket pair have odds to hit his set on the river could have been a 20 bet error.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

I know.

I was assuming that one had just lost a hand etc and one was reduced to x5BB.

If I was to find myself with x5 the BB in the SB I would push with any 2 if it was folded to the button. I think this would be the standard line amongst SNG specialists.

Obviously I wouldnt wait to be 5xBB. I would have started making moves long before this.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am biting my tongue a little bit here because people don't like it when I get too mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't do that!
People that think you are sometimes mean or arrogant don't seem to get that you just try to be as blunt as possible.
Sometimes that's not going to be "nice".

I'll be trying to find the errors without reading any of the replies on this thread. I'm curious that way.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

I just want to be clear with my Ciaffone problem. When I
extrapolate the sentence go into panic and move with 5 big
blinds or less in steal position I come up with situations
like,

I might be holding 5-2 on the puck and no one in yet with 300 chips and push with blinds of 50-100. The big blind knows i am desperate, knows he can break me, knows i am in steal position and knows he's getting more than 2-1 on his money. I am going to
get called with the great possibility of having the worst
hand. In essence, all I did was get my case chips in with
the worst hand. I can do this anytime I want. I am not
even saying Ciaffone is wrong. I just don't see how it
is right. I've only played a few low limit tourneys so
I am trying to learn. Help me. Is he right?

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

In that Jones article, he doesn't point out that if each other guy has a PP then 2 outs each is pretty important with that pot size... Also, if they have AQ, or AJ then they'd have 3 outs, and certainly have enough odds to call when he's slowplaying his "immortal nuts". Then, on the turn when he puts the guy on a possible flush draw its even more ridiculous that he wouldn't want to charge him an extra bet. Sure the flush draw would still be getting odds to call 2 more at that point, but why not make them pay when you have the edge. Somehow KNOWING that the button had AK, even though he's an unknown (and wasn't respected enough before the hand to lay down AKo to a cap).

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am biting my tongue a little bit here because people don't like it when I get too mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mean: criticism on the basis of lack of intellectual capacity.

Not mean: criticizing specific errors.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

How about Andrew Shykovsky's article on how to play jacks and queens.

[ QUOTE ]
By the same token, holding jacks or queens in the big blind requires a very different attitude. People have pretty much decided that they are going to see the flop by the time the action gets to me. It seems rare that middle-limit recreational players have the discipline to drop out once they have called even one preflop bet, despite how weak their hand may be. As such, aggression may best be saved for a more opportune moment, when it can create pressure and achieve something worthwhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

Like, getting more money in the pot when you have a big advantage?

Re: Ciaffone\'s error
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you have 2 cards that are not paired, that means there is 50*49/2 = 1225 other starting hands possible. Of those, 72 can be pocket pairs (78 max, but you have 6 potential pairs blocked). 72/1225 = 5.878% chance one person will have pocket pair = 1 chance in 17 = 16:1 against.

So, it is 16:1 that any given player will have a pocket pair, not 17:1.

5.878% x 2 players = 11.756% chance 2 players might have at least one pair between them = 1 chance in 8.5 that either player will have pocket pair = 7.5:1 against.


[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't read the articles. But isn't there an easier way to do your calculation?

The odds of getting a card are 1/1. The odds of getting the same rank as your second card is 3/51 or 1/17. Multiply 1/1 by 1/17 to get 1/17...heh...so, odds of getting a pair is 1 out of 17 or 16:1.

3 years ago, on Planet Poker, Mike Caro or Roy Cooke used to join a game now and then and throw out $100 bones for getting questions right. I snagged the 16:1 answer for 100 bucks. At the same time, bunch of other answers came on the chatbox ranging from 3:1 to 50:1 to 220:1. And this was a 20-40 game.

Anyway, I suddenly understood why it was that the guy who thought it was 3:1 was constantly tilting and complaining that he was the most unlucky player in the world...heh.

Re: Ciaffone\'s error
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you have 2 cards that are not paired, that means there is 50*49/2 = 1225 other starting hands possible. Of those, 72 can be pocket pairs (78 max, but you have 6 potential pairs blocked). 72/1225 = 5.878% chance one person will have pocket pair = 1 chance in 17 = 16:1 against.

So, it is 16:1 that any given player will have a pocket pair, not 17:1.

5.878% x 2 players = 11.756% chance 2 players might have at least one pair between them = 1 chance in 8.5 that either player will have pocket pair = 7.5:1 against.


[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't read the articles. But isn't there an easier way to do your calculation?

The odds of getting a card are 1/1. The odds of getting the same rank as your second card is 3/51 or 1/17. Multiply 1/1 by 1/17 to get 1/17...heh...so, odds of getting a pair is 1 out of 17 or 16:1.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes - the odds of being dealt one pair with 52 unseen cards are exactly 16:1. Your math works. More precisely, there are 78 possible pairs and 1326 possible 2 card starting hands.

However, the problem presented by Ciaffone was slightly different. He posits you have an unpaired hand, and then comes up with odds that there is a pair in the big blind, or either blind.

In fact, the odds are fractionally worse than 16:1 of a someone having a pair when you don't have a pair.

To take it a step further, the odds are ever so slightly greater someone else has pair when YOU have a pair than when you DON'T have a pair.

See why?

Re: The Jones Article
 

Well, I read the Jones article.

Few Points:

1. 17 sb's preflop.

11 sb's on the flop for 28 total

Turn: 8 more sb's when the action gets back to Lee and he has to decide whether to just call or 3 bet. So, that's 36 sb. If he just calls, he makes it 38 sb. UTG (if he has a pocket pair) will be getting 19:1 and should call with his 2 outer given implied odds.

If Lee 3 bets the turn, he makes it 40 sb in the pot. UTG will only be getting 10:1 on his 2 outer with the chance that it could get worse if button raises.

So, if Lee puts the dude on a pocket pair, he should obviously raise.

2. But I am not sure how Lee so single-mindedly puts UTG on a pocket pair however. The betting is capped preflop and it goes 3 bets on an Ace high rainbow flop. UTG then still bets the turn. This guy is a maverick if he is betting JJ. UTG could well have an Ace which (likely) gives him a 3 outer to win and a 3 outer to tie with the remaining Ace and two remaining 5's. Granted, button may also have an Ace but overall, we'll call it a 4 outer for UTG if he has say AQ or AT or whatever.

If Jones 3 bets the turn, he makes it 40 sb in the pot. UTG will be getting 10:1 on a 4 outer which makes it correct (or pretty damn close) to call but he just might fold which would be good for Jones. Even better if UTG folds AK (which is not out of the realm of possibility given all the heat).

So, the turn play seems wrong given Lee's read on the situation.

3. There was a player who initially raised the flop and then folded when it came back to him for one more bet. He would have therefore folded when the pot had 28 bets in it. Lee puts him on a hand like QQ after he folds. Surely, he didn't fold QQ getting 28:1? Lee goes on to say that "I made a note about him". I sure hope it wasn't "hm…watch out..good player".

BTW, I like Lee and enjoyed his posts here when he was around. But this article does seem to have some holes. My analysis above might as well but I am not under the microscope.

Re: Ciaffone\'s error
 

Okay. well and good. I hadn't realized context of your calculation as I hadn't read Bob's article.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

S&M promote a similiar strategy in multi-way pots. I think there was a thread a long time ago where Sklansky made the point that if you are in a multiway pot in the big blind, it is better to raise pre-flop with 99 than QQ.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

If only everyone could be as great as you.
Then the world would be perfect!

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

I haven't read any of the articles D.S. referred to (except for a couple of the quoted excerpts) but when I read his post I immediately thought of good ol' Shykovsky and his abnormally super-weak advice that he seems to spew in virtually every one his articles that i have read (which is not too many).


Regarding D.S. 'holding back' or 'being mean':

I agree with the others....I have no problem with D.S. going into further details as to the problems he has with each article and with the general advice that each author typically offers. in fact, I would welcome more thoughts from David on this.


As long as it doesn't get 'personal' and is related to the content (as opposed to background or supposed qualifications) then i'm all for hearing EVERYTHING that D.S. has to say about these authors' articles and books and ideas.


I do appreciate D.S.'s reluctance to not want to create any waves though considering what we've been through before.
There have been times when he has 'honestly' presented his views and been blasted for it.



Obviously he wants to keep the topic on-point and not get too far off-track...and I think he was very fair in stating his opinions on these authors and their CP articles.

Moreover, I appreciate him coming on and presenting his ideas on just how significant the errors are in these articles.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

I haven't read Shykovsky's article yet, but from what you quoted, it seems to me what he's saying is your edge with JJ is small preflop and you have no hope of thinning the field. If the flop comes down safe you will have a bigger edge and you can c/r and thin the field then. If it comes down bad, you can get away from it.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

"If only everyone could be as great as you.
Then the world would be perfect!"

For some reason not everybody realizes this. Can I pay you to get the word out?

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

Pointing out specific demonstrable errors in articles by authors considered experts is not being mean. Its akin to peer review in scientific writing; a way of protecting the integrity of a field of study.

Frank

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

Brier writes:
"Here is something else to think about relative to these two hands. Over time, your opponents will see you making these kinds of raises and reraises and not having a hand to show down. They will notice that you are frequently folding after having shown strength on earlier betting rounds. This means that your goal of eliminating opponents by raising in order to increase the likelihood of winning a hand will be compromised. It also may mean that your bluffs and semibluffs will not be as successful."

Of course he doesn't mention that this can be extremely profitable when your opponents call you down more with mediocre hands. Perfect opportunity to exploit the fundamental theorem of poker.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

[ QUOTE ]
"If only everyone could be as great as you.
Then the world would be perfect!"



[/ QUOTE ]

Alas though, I would no longer be able to win money at Poker....

---Leavenfish

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

[ QUOTE ]
If only everyone could be as great as you.
Then the world would be perfect!

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but game selection would be a real bitch...........
Do you see why? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

[ QUOTE ]
"If only everyone could be as great as you.
Then the world would be perfect!"

For some reason not everybody realizes this. Can I pay you to get the word out?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason's still funnier.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

[ QUOTE ]
S&M promote a similiar strategy in multi-way pots. I think there was a thread a long time ago where Sklansky made the point that if you are in a multiway pot in the big blind, it is better to raise pre-flop with 99 than QQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

When your opponents play well and might be limping with decent hands, that might be true. When your opponents limp in with weak hands (as he suggests in the article) you should raise. In SSH they reccommend raising AA-99 in either blind.

Re: Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles
 

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read Shykovsky's article yet, but from what you quoted, it seems to me what he's saying is your edge with JJ is small preflop and you have no hope of thinning the field. If the flop comes down safe you will have a bigger edge and you can c/r and thin the field then. If it comes down bad, you can get away from it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I think both his idea of not raising and his reasoning is bad. He seems to think that the only point of raising with a big pair is to thin the field. He also seems to think that you want someone who has limped in with a poor hand to fold to your raise pre-flop.

You have a pot equity advantage pre-flop. Also if your opponents are limping in with weak hands you want to wreck their implied odds by raising. These big pair hands make their money on the early rounds. If you wait until the turn to start showing aggression, you are often going to be putting money in the pot with the worst of it.

Re: Lee Jones\' errors
 

I think his error in simple terms is slowplaying in a big pot. Does not cap the flop or three bet the turn, both of which he should do for value if for no other reason.

Brier Mistake #1
 

"As an aside, a typical betting sequence in which you go all the way to the river will result in your putting in more than 14 percent of the money that ends up in the pot. This is due to the fact that not all of your preflop opponents will stay all the way to the river."

This idea overlooks the fact that the play (raising ATs against several limpers is profitable.) in and of itself is profitable. He attaches the potential for bad post-flop decisions as a reason to pass up a play that by itself is profitable.

not sure I said that right. I guess it would be like saying that you should not raise AA before the flop, because you may misplay it afterwards. If the ATs play ends up losing money, does not mean that the mistake was made preflop.