HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

Maybe my case is unique, but I've already run into two diagrams that are incorrectly labeled in the problems section. The problem usually is it has You listed in the BB but the explanation has you being in the SB. There are a ridicilous amount of mathematical errors as well, some as common as calculating pot odds.

It just feels that after all the work Mason claimed went into editing this book that he hasn't held up his end of the bargain. I don't plan on buying a 2nd edition with all the corrected errors because I feel it's the publishing company's responsibility to ensure as few typos as possible the first time. Mason, I look forward to hearing your explanation.

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

Why don't you just supply a list of specific errors so we can all benefit? I doubt that any explanation you recieve will satisfy you. Not much good can come from a post like this.

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

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. After my second reading, I will post all of the errors with my suggested corrections. I also feel I will probably get flamed by a bunch of people who are on Mason's nuts but that's the way it goes sometimes.

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. After my second reading, I will post all of the errors with my suggested corrections. I also feel I will probably get flamed by a bunch of people who are on Mason's nuts but that's the way it goes sometimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Minor errors are ok IMHO, for the business of the book. The books timing had to coincide with the WSOP, small typos could be overlooked provided the theoretical concepts and results are correct.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

Actually, I agree. I'm almost done with my first reading, and the book is rife with errors, both simple wording errors and more serious analytical errors. I also have many questions which are debatable, but the errors I'm talking about are not debatable.

Having said all that, I find HOH2 even more beneficial than the fantastic HOH1, and in my opinion, together they are an incredible and invaluable work.

A few lists (one by Mason) have already been done for HOH1; HOH2 needs it as well.

-ptmusic

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

This doesnt bother me in the least. When I find these errors, its a sign that I am actually reading critically and not just accepting. At any rate, the value of these two books far, far outweighs any negatives from the errors and such. I just cant get worked up about it.

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

Hi Pt:

When we're ready, we will post an errata for HOH: Volume II.

best wishes,
Mason

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. After my second reading, I will post all of the errors with my suggested corrections. I also feel I will probably get flamed by a bunch of people who are on Mason's nuts but that's the way it goes sometimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I highly doubt you'll be flamed if your identification of errors is objective and accurate. In fact, I bet such a list would be received excellently. People get flamed here when they run their mouths and don't provide anything to back it up.

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

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

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

OP's post acknowledged the value of the text. Your post ignores a publisher's responsibility to its readers. I think you are being too defensive. Everyone here would benefit from more professional editing practices at 2+2.

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?

We could use a lot more objectivity on this forum.

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.

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
He doesn't have to back this up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't saying Hold 'me had to back it up. I'm saying, in general, why people get flamed here. If you say "2+2 sucks" and don't provide specific examples, you'll get flamed. If you say, "This example is wrong, and here's why," you generally won't get flamed... and anyone who does flame is missing the boat.

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

I would prefer that the only errata list that gets posted is from us and not from you or anyone else. The reason for this is that I have been sent errata data by readers that isn't always correct, and if that is the case with some of your corrections it would only serve to confuse other readers. We will address this soon enough.

Mason

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

Hi Mason,
Broken-record here. As I've suggested before, please have a dedicated page for errata, so that folks don't have to go searching too hard. It would be a convenience for us regulars, and I doubt most new customers would think to search forum postings for official 2+2 errata. Also, please update the errata as new errors are found, instead of waiting for the next printing.

Thanks,
Pasta

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

His mistake would lead people to misunderstand the difference between odds and probabilities.

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

Hi Ed,
Is there an errata for SSHE? I noticed an error or two in some of the example problems (at least I think they are) and am wondering if there are others I'm not aware of.

Are there erratas for other 2+2 books somewhere?

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

Yipes I am new to poker and just stopped by looking for some more good books to read. I did get the HoH volume one and was thinking of getting the HoH vol II. Ah but before I spend my $$ where do I get the correted data sheets? Are they here on 2+2? I assume they are free? Well glad I stopped by.

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Ed,
Is there an errata for SSHE? I noticed an error or two in some of the example problems (at least I think they are) and am wondering if there are others I'm not aware of.

Are there erratas for other 2+2 books somewhere?

[/ QUOTE ]

We fixed some problems between the 1st and 2nd printing. Please check to see which your book is (it says on the title page). If it's a 2nd printing, I'd be interested where the errors might be. I know of no errors at the moment that we didn't fix. (Not to say they don't exist.)

Unfortunately, stupid me didn't keep track of the errors I did fix. Fortunately, though, they were all very minor spelling-type fixes.

Determing the version of book your reading
 

I'm one of those finicky readers that get overly frustrated with small, seemingly obvious mistakes. I'll assume the error is with my understanding and get upset that I can't grok the material.

My question is, when I am at a bookstore looking at a 2+2 books (say HOH1), is there any obvious way to determine which version of the book I am reading?

Re: Determing the version of book your reading
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm one of those finicky readers that get overly frustrated with small, seemingly obvious mistakes. I'll assume the error is with my understanding and get upset that I can't grok the material.

My question is, when I am at a bookstore looking at a 2+2 books (say HOH1), is there any obvious way to determine which version of the book I am reading?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any reader of Heinlein should be able to find a title page. If I take my copy, open the front cover, and look at the facing page, it says:

FIRST EDITION

FIRST PRINTING
NOVEMBER 2004

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

Hi Ed,
I think it is the 2nd edition as I just bought it not to long ago. Don't have it right here with me.

The one I'm thinking of ( I think ) was the first problem on Page 29 about identifying the nuts. Goin' from memory here, but wouldn't JT give you the nut straight not 65?

If I'm recalling incorrectly or got it wrong, my apologies.

The others were just typos. Like spelling appropriate as approriare in on footnote etc.

I'm not a good player, so who knows. I may be missing some fine points.

Re: HOH 2 has more errors than HOH 1
 

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In Antwort auf:</font><hr />

The one I'm thinking of ( I think ) was the first problem on Page 29 about identifying the nuts. Goin' from memory here, but wouldn't JT give you the nut straight not 65?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if the example changed from edition1 to edition2 (I have edition1), but I don't see a mistake there.
The statement is: "There are four cards (4 treys) that give you the nut straight" which is correct in the context.

One suggestion
 

In "Red Zone Strategy in Action", don't keep changing the labels of the players. The numbering indicates order but also which player is which. It's very irritating to have to switch your thoughts about Player 1 to Player 2 and so on.

Just stumbled over this one- 9-7 p 183
 

If you would have gotten called and won the pot, you would have almost tripled up to 400,500

130,500, your 150,000 and the small blind calls for 120,000.

Re: get over it!
 

yes there are errors. however, none that prevent you from understanding what is being said. they should not be there. but the book is terrific, and instead on nit-picking, just enjoy how great the book is, and enjoy life. get over it.

Re: get over it!
 

It doesn't hurt them to have errors for potential repair in future printings identified for free, does it?

Re: Just stumbled over this one- 9-7 p 183
 

Or even pot of 130,500 + your 120,000 (as 30,000 of your initial 150,000 is in the pot as the big blind) and the small blind calls for 120,000 = 370,500 rounded down to 370,000 in the book.

Re: Just stumbled over this one- 9-7 p 183
 

If the book is showing the starting pot size (blinds and antes) WITHOUT subtracting the required money from the displayed stacks first, that is something else that needs fixed.

Re: Just stumbled over this one- 9-7 p 183
 

This issue of whether stack sizes are before or after blinds/antes caused me some confusion. Perhaps the convention adopted should be set out at the start of the book (and from memory I can't recall any such statement).

Actually, on reflection, that makes a nonsense of my theory that the stack size is in fact 120,000 as I ignored the ante. Now I'm confused! Maybe 130,500 + 118,500 + 118,500 = 367,500? All of which only goes to prove your point.....

Hand 10-7, anyone?

None of this changes my view that HOH 1 and 2 are so good that all copies except mine should be destroyed!

Re: Just stumbled over this one- 9-7 p 183
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the book is showing the starting pot size (blinds and antes) WITHOUT subtracting the required money from the displayed stacks first, that is something else that needs fixed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really dont care about the typos in text. Extra periods, improper pluralizations, things to this nature do not affect me much, though as an editor i do notice them and try to get passed it ASAP.

However, the quoted point is on that has been bugging me. Sometimes it makes no real difference in how the hand is played, but sometimes it makes all the difference. I think the antes and blinds that will be put in no matter the action should already be taken out of the displayed stacks. When I am on BB with 1000 chips and blinds are 100/200, no ante, i really only have 800 chips since im not getting those chips back without winning the pot. I suggest starting the stacks with antes taken out and having the blinds being displayed in the little ring he uses. In the example just given, id have 800 and (200) would be under my name inside the ring to indicate that 200 chips have been removed for blinds.

HAND 10-7 ?!
 

I came to the forums to find out if anyone had corrected Hand 10-7. The minor errors in the text that I consider typos dont affect me, but this hand has me baffled!