My Take on the Magazine
 

Hey,

I wanted to make sure you guys know that 2+2 approaches the magazine a little differently than it approaches books.

Books are to be accurate, and the advice contained therein is to be correct and valuable. There's a lot of ideas and theories that we might include in books that we don't because we want to maintain that bright line of unquestionable accuracy.

The magazine works differently. This is the place for "edgy" ideas and theories. We're willing to take more risks, create more controversy, and allow people a place to propose some non-traditional ideas.

Now that doesn't mean we'll publish just any nonsense in the magazine. I've rejected plenty of articles for being mistaken, usually in a demonstrable, mathematical way.

It does mean that an excellent poker player could disagree with some of our magazine articles, and that would be ok with us. In fact, just because we print it doesn't necessarily mean that we (Mason and I) agree with it. We print it because we think it is interesting and may educate people and provoke discussion.

So basically, if you don't like something you read in the magazine, feel free to post your thoughts in the forum or write a counter-article.

(Obviously, Barron's article created the most controversy this issue. I have thoughts on the play described in the article, but I'd prefer to keep them to myself. Frankly, I don't really think my thoughts are relevant. But publishing it, or any other magazine article, doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with it. Just that I thought it was worth publishing.)

Re: My Take on the Magazine
 

This is somewhat different than what Mason has indicated in the past, in my opinion.

He's been clear that he expects the 2+2 magazine to be the highest quality publication. That includes having better advice than a certain other magazine. I know I've seen threads in the past where authors here have criticized the play of hands by other mag authors, for being incorrect advice, -EV, etc.

So how is that different in this case? Presenting a different line is one thing. Publishing an article that seems to rely on some very shaky assumptions in order to make the math work, is something else.

I'm not being critical here really. Just expressing my thoughts. I do think as editor that if you have thoughts on the article, you are somewhat obligated to explain what concepts it included to make it worth publishing.

Re: My Take on the Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]
He's been clear that he expects the 2+2 magazine to be the highest quality publication.

[/ QUOTE ]
A poker magazine that doesn't publish cutting-edge stuff may always be correct but it doesn't meet my definition of the highest quality. Doing something new and nonobvious means being wrong sometimes.

Re: My Take on the Magazine
 

Seems to me there is a difference between a 2+2 book that says, "You should raise here because x,y,z," and an article by somebody that says, "I raised here because x,y,z." A 2+2 book is saying how you should play whereas the article is saying how the particular author played.

Re: My Take on the Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]
The magazine works differently. This is the place for "edgy" ideas and theories. We're willing to take more risks, create more controversy, and allow people a place to propose some non-traditional ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you will post [censored] thats wrong. too bad.

Re: My Take on the Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The magazine works differently. This is the place for "edgy" ideas and theories. We're willing to take more risks, create more controversy, and allow people a place to propose some non-traditional ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you will post [censored] thats wrong. too bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think thats a good thing.

Barron's article basically said, "I took an unusual line that was somewhat risky, because of the opponent. And you should think about how you might do the same thing sometime"

That aspect of the article was great.

Unfortunately, the message that came thru to people after the posts/discussion seems to be more "given this opponent, my line is a good one". And in my opinion (like most others) this second piece is wrong.

But the core idea of showing an unusual line and why it MIGHT be good in a particular situation and what FACTORS that situation has is exactly the kind of edgy top quality thing 2+2 SHOULD be doing.

-G

Re: My Take on the Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]

Barron's article basically said, "I took an unusual line that was somewhat risky, because of the opponent. And you should think about how you might do the same thing sometime"


[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that the essence of good play? Mixing it up at times? Keeping the other guy guessing?

I think that's why, unlike chess, the AI programs used in computer v. human poker matches will never be so dominating.

The chess game(s) all seem to use X offense, countered with Y defense, followed with Z counter-attack, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Every master chess player knows every written move. Everything every great player did. And it's all been put in the computer.

Poker, OTH, is so variable. Sure, in situation "this," the smartest play is "that," but maybe I'll do "the other" this time. P. Hellmouth, as a prime example, screams, "You donk! You called with XX? How stupid is that? You were a dog at....."

But the donk play took the pot. PH used straight line thinking. Sometimes you have to think outside the box. If you get predictable, I take your chips. I get predictable, you take my chips.

Re: My Take on the Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think that's why, unlike chess, the AI programs used in computer v. human poker matches will never be so dominating.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between poker and chess, is lack of complete information.

Why do you think a computer AI can't be programmed to mix up its play?

Re: My Take on the Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]

Why do you think a computer AI can't be programmed to mix up its play?


[/ QUOTE ]

Was that rhetorical?

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: My Take on the Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]
Was that rhetorical?

[/ QUOTE ]

NO... a computer can be programmed to play exactly the same way as you would play... and evaluate more factors faster!

Re: My Take on the Magazine
 

Hi Everyone:

We're actually quite happy with the magazine. In fact, we feel that it is far superior to any other magazine out there and this includes both hard copy and Internet mags. We're also proud that we don't allow the fluff and require every author, no matter who it is, to produce something worthwhile.

Specifically, we're looking for good articles that will create discussion. They don't have to be something that Ed or I (or David or Ray) agree with, but the author needs to be able to defend his position in a logical and detailed manner.

A note on Barrron: One of the reason why I began to write articles on poker and other forms of gambling is that it was part of my learning process. I suspect that something along the same lines is happening with Barron. The difference is that because of the Internet and these forums, he is able to get a great deal of excellent feedback. Feedback for me (years ago) was a much smaller and slower process. So I'm a little jealous.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: My Take on the Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Was that rhetorical?

[/ QUOTE ]

NO... a computer can be programmed to play exactly the same way as you would play... and evaluate more factors faster!

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true.

I read players. A computer doesn't.

A computer is programmed along the lines of if/and/or/then/else. (Boolean)

I make adjustments. A computer can't.

If you play exactly the same in every known/possible situation, you will be beaten by the computer, assuming you each receive an equal number of AA, AK, etc., compared to an equal number of 27o, 38o, etc.

The computer is programmed with all the best knowledge available. I'm not. I make mistakes, yes. How will a computer distinguish my mistakes from a bluff or a semi-bluff? It won't. It will simply charge ahead.

Did you see this? I thought it was interesting.

http://www.poker-academy.com/wprc/

Re: My Take on the Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]
the author needs to be able to defend his position in a logical and detailed manner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,

Have you read the thread in question? Does that satisfy your expectations wrt an author "defend[ing] his position in a logical and detailed manner" ?

This post describes how I expected this article to be defended and illustrates a number of examples of Barron's "defenses" that were imo nothing but guesses and feelings backed up by no logical reasoning or analysis whatsoever.

I was surprised to see what I believe to be a very flawed article in the magazine. Barron's attitude in reaction to criticism is what really disappointed me, though. All manner of logic errors in the thread aside, his unwillingness to openly consider his errors was stunning. I have come to expect far more from 2+2.

In addition, Mason, do you have any thoughts regarding my criticism of the strategic advice given in the "Marginal hand turn decision" article?

Thought-provoking articles are one thing. Advice that is simply incorrect is a very different thing. In my opinion, that is the side of the line where the 2+2 magazine found itself in the last issue.

Re: My Take on the Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]
A note on Barrron: One of the reason why I began to write articles on poker and other forms of gambling is that it was part of my learning process. I suspect that something along the same lines is happening with Barron. ...because of the Internet and these forums, he is able to get a great deal of excellent feedback.

[/ QUOTE ]
i suspect you haven't read the thread. the author has certainly gotten a ton of feedback, but there's no sign of any learning process taking place; instead his stance has basically been: "that's my story and i'm sticking to it."

Re: My Take on the Magazine
 

Nut,

Do a search for my posts in the Bot threads and you'll get more detailed reasoning.... no reason to hijack this thread.

Suffice to say you underestimate the capabilities of computer AI... do some more reading on the poker academy and UofAlberta sites.

Re: My Take on the Magazine
 

Thank you, I will. After I last posted I realized I was headed in the HJ direction. I apologize to all.



[img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: My Take on the Magazine
 

Hi Masked Man:

Sometimes the learning process can be tough, and the reaction you see will in time change. With this said I'll try to spend some time in the thread.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: My Take on the Magazine
 

There is something wrong here. And it needs pointing out. I will not get into the middle of others that are discussing the issue(s) with Barron's article. But I feel compelled to make one remark that I will address to you, Mr. Miller.

The large thread created by the controversy about the article is rather gruesome, like an old steam train blowing up in slow motion while traversing a collapsing bridge. 2+2 is the collapsing bridge and Barron is the engineer operating the train.

But here is the real problem – the intransient stance of Barron. This bizarre behavior is difficult to understand in a winning poker player. People that display this type of behavior cannot, in my opinion, be long-term winning players, at least not at higher limits. They may be successful for a period of time at lower to mid- limits, especially under the conditions of play at present, but sooner or later, they will slowly lose their bankroll and dissolve into nothingness or be forever stuck at some level of play and limit. The inability to admit a possible mistake or acknowledge that perhaps your thinking was questionable is a serious character flaw and an immense psychological block to improving your poker playing skills. And this applies to much more than just poker, as you well know.

In addition, Barron's obstinate behavior does not reflect well on the magazine in particular, or on 2+2 in general.



[ QUOTE ]
The magazine works differently. This is the place for "edgy" ideas and theories. We're willing to take more risks, create more controversy, and allow people a place to propose some non-traditional ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are some Journals that operated, more or less, on the same principles, or will occasionally print something to stimulate discussion and get the idea into print for the purpose of gleaning reaction and analysis from others. This is usually done as part of a learning cycle, but what occurred in the subsequent thread dealing with Barron’s article was that the cycle was derailed.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, just because we print it doesn't necessarily mean that we (Mason and I) agree with it. We print it because we think it is interesting and may educate people and provoke discussion.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you honestly state that was the case with Barron's article?

I ask this question in a completely rhetorical manner.

Regards,

-Zeno

Re: My Take on the Magazine
 

Ed, if you just admit that twoplustwo made a mistake and published a terrible article, we aren't going to less of you for it. Frankly, I am insulted by this PR man crap spinning an article full of strategic nonsense as "edgy" and "taking risks". Your refusal to comment on the substance of the article by saying that it isn't "relevant" is an absurd copout.

I have looked forward to a new edition of the magazine each month and have even considered contributing. This isn't the first time there has been a deeply flawed article (the "multitabling" article spring to mind) and if it weren't for the discussion here, I would have just shrugged this one off too since overall I have enjoyed this month's magazine so far, but honestly this disingenuous "damage control" thread really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If you needed to start a new thread about this, just leveling with us and telling us what you really think of the article and the reaction to it would have been much more respectful of our intelligence and perceptiveness than your carefully worded evasions.

Re: My Take on the Magazine
 

Hey,

Am I the only one who thought the Oct. issue was one of the best? Anything that provokes such a reaction has got to be a publisher's wet dream. I agree that the mag should provoke discussion, and that's what it did.

Re: My Take on the Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hey,

Am I the only one who thought the Oct. issue was one of the best? Anything that provokes such a reaction has got to be a publisher's wet dream. I agree that the mag should provoke discussion, and that's what it did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phat, had I been travelling this week as I have most of the last few months, I never would have started and driven that thread. If that were the case, I think there's a good chance that discussion wouldn't have happened and people would have just read the magazine and thought "wow, this is chock full of really bad advice."

I think that's pretty much the opposite of a publisher's wet dream.

Re: My Take on the Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think that's pretty much the opposite of a publisher's wet dream.


[/ QUOTE ]

so.. what? like, publisher's blue balls?

Re: Zeno\'s take on the Magazine -
 

Mr. Miller,


[ QUOTE ]
There is something wrong here.

[/ QUOTE ]


And it is getting more wrong by the minute.


[ QUOTE ]
In addition, Barron's obstinate behavior does not reflect well on the magazine in particular, or on 2+2 in general.


[/ QUOTE ]


With the continuance of the thread under question, Barron is causing an exponential rise in the embarrassment to the magazine you are editor of. I respect you a great deal Mr. Miller, though we have never met. Please take my advice and bring an honest closure to the controversy. It would be better for all concerned and stop the damaged that is being inflicted on 2+2’s reputation that has been built up all these years, a reputation so well deserved. Don’t surrender that excellent reputation in defense of someone that is clearly not worthy of it, at least not by the actions reflected so far in this forum. There are plenty in the poker world that could use this incident to make whatever attacks they can on this forum, the website as a whole, on you, and on the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine. Perhaps you can ride out the storm easily, or not. I leave that your judgment.

Respectfully,

-Zeno

Re: My Take on the Magazine
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ed, if you just admit that twoplustwo made a mistake and published a terrible article, we aren't going to less of you for it. Frankly, I am insulted by this PR man crap spinning an article full of strategic nonsense as "edgy" and "taking risks". Your refusal to comment on the substance of the article by saying that it isn't "relevant" is an absurd copout.

I have looked forward to a new edition of the magazine each month and have even considered contributing. This isn't the first time there has been a deeply flawed article (the "multitabling" article spring to mind) and if it weren't for the discussion here, I would have just shrugged this one off too since overall I have enjoyed this month's magazine so far, but honestly this disingenuous "damage control" thread really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If you needed to start a new thread about this, just leveling with us and telling us what you really think of the article and the reaction to it would have been much more respectful of our intelligence and perceptiveness than your carefully worded evasions.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is some of the best advice i've seen. It's only natural that you see this as a "Them vs Us - writers vs forumguys" discussion. I would be strange if ANY editor in the world would have reacted differently, but now you have our reaction and maybe we could take bobbyi's advice.

A poker magazine where the best articles get published and the 2+2 staff argues about it. Now THAT would be edgy and it looks like everyone really would like that. I know I would.