HISTORIC! Cohan971Wearing Down QuadNines on RGP!
 

Veterans of the 2+2 forum probably remember Mark Glover. Newcomers may want to check the archives. Let it be said that Mark Glover the one and only person who has ever footnoted something I wrote and for that I will be forever thankful.


Anyway, the person/persons who used to post as Mark Glover on this forum now post as QuadNines on RGP. The most recent thread titled “Sklansky’s CARDPLAYER Errors” started by QuadNines@hotmail.com on 3/26/2002 at 4:23PM continues on and on and on.


If you want to learn about Mark Glover (a..k.a QuadNines) it is a great thread (pardon me, I should say “interesting”, not “great”). There are responses by David Sklansky, Daniel Negreanu, skp, Badger, Barry Shulman, and our own Vince Lepore among others.


I was the first guy to respond in the post but was worn down easily by QuadNines/Mark and left the battle to fight another day. But there is a new hero named Cohan971@yahoo.com fighting the good fight and he actually appears to be winning the argument in defense of Sklansky’s last column in CardPlayer on points, although QuadNines could still deliver a knockout blow any minute. In any event, I didn’t think it could be done.


Anyway, use your newsreader or Google to check out the thread. I tried to be careful with the spelling above so you won’t have any problems finding the thread on the newsgroup rec.gambling.poker using Google’s Newsgroup Power Search.


Regards,


Rick

Re: HISTORIC! Cohan971Wearing Down QuadNines on RG
 

Glover/Quad Nines, etc. wore me out a long time ago. Anyone who spends as much time and effort on improving their game as this entity does in putting up posts would be a player to contend with.

Re: HISTORIC! Cohan971Wearing Down QuadNines on RG
 

I hold the view that it's good to have skeptics. In fact your recent post about the pair of jacks had some excellent discussion IMO that were skeptical of Mason's and Sklansky's advice. I did think the discussion was far better on this forum regarding that hand BTW. I'm still mulling that hand over in my mind.


Quadnines and many others have disagreed with the advice regarding the T9s hand in HFAP. I know I've benifitted a great deal from the discussion. An excellent player has confided with me that he believes the advice in the book is excellent regarding that play. BTW I'm still mulling that hand over in my mind.


Now the hand regarding A2 has produced more excellent discussion so I can't see where Quadnines is hurting anything. I think it's fair to Quadnines to say that he disagrees with the approach to teaching poker that is utilized in HFAP and TOP. If you look at the problems that he has written about in the aggregate has he really done any thing to substantially discredit these books? Have the discussions that ensued benefitted players? Have the discussions that ensued benefitted 2+2? IMO the answers are no, yes, yes. I don't have the patience that others have in making meticulous arguments about strategy. I'm glad others do though and I think people that read these posts are aware of biases and quit reading the threads when they feel they have strayed from the original topic.

Re: HISTORIC! Cohan971Wearing Down QuadNines on RG
 

Tom,


You wrote: [b[“I hold the view that it's good to have skeptics.[/b]


I agree.


”In fact your recent post about the pair of jacks had some excellent discussion IMO that were skeptical of Mason's and Sklansky's advice. I did think the discussion was far better on this forum regarding that hand BTW. I'm still mulling that hand over in my mind.”


There were some good comments on RGP also. In fact, it prompted me to download the newsreader Forte Agent (I had been using Free Agent).


”Quadnines and many others have disagreed with the advice regarding the T9s hand in HFAP. I know I've benifitted a great deal from the discussion.”


Me too. In fact, I enjoy the forum far more than actually playing poker!


”An excellent player has confided with me that he believes the advice in the book is excellent regarding that play. BTW I'm still mulling that hand over in my mind.”


Which play? Are you speaking of the infamous T9 hand or my recent post on the pair of jacks?


”Now the hand regarding A2 has produced more excellent discussion so I can't see where Quadnines is hurting anything.”


I agree he often generates excellent discussion. I think this Agent newsreader allows you to auto-flag and download posts from certain newsgroup posters. QuadNines will go on this list.


”I think it's fair to Quadnines to say that he disagrees with the approach to teaching poker that is utilized in HFAP and TOP.


That is fair for sure.


”If you look at the problems that he has written about in the aggregate has he really done any thing to substantially discredit these books? Have the discussions that ensued benefitted players? Have the discussions that ensued benefitted 2+2? IMO the answers are no, yes, yes.


I agree.


”I don't have the patience that others have in making meticulous arguments about strategy.


I think you have loads of patience and make great arguments! Please post more.


”I'm glad others do though and I think people that read these posts are aware of biases and quit reading the threads when they feel they have strayed from the original topic.”


Well said. Were we disagreeing about something?


BTW, in a later thread I started on "Counterintuitive Play BTF and On the Turn" I wrote that I'd be the first to buy a Mark Glover book, if he ever wrote one. I meant that.


But this guy Cohan971 (BTW, this is a new poster or a new handle for an old poster - on Google he/she only shows up recently) seems to be just as meticulous and far more logical than Mark/QuadNines. His ability to stick with the argument and find flaws in Mark's logic seems to have Mark reeling.


BTW, I just reread that portion of the thread and I’m pretty sure I know who Cohan971 is. (Hint: He used to post about strategy on 2+2 all the time.)


Regards,


Rick

Re: HISTORIC! Cohan971Wearing Down QuadNines on RG
 

Tom,


I believe we disagree (is this the first time?). Quadnines who refuses to speak to me, not that I blame him, is in fact detracting from the value of the A,2 discussion. He has, in his usual manner, taken a viable example of a concept and tried to turn it into a pissing contest. His motive in my estimation is to discredit Sklansky in anyway possible. He does not address the best way to play in this situation. His primary focus is whether or not Sklansky's was wrong for arrogantly stating that "it doesn't depend." The fact of the matter is that Sklansky shows the best (maybe not optimal if there is such a thing) way to play in these types of situations given the assumptions he makes. QuadNines could care less about that. He is out to prove Sklansky wrong at all costs and focuses on something that quite frankly doesn't matter much. Consequently I believe he diverts the discussion and in many ways hurts the vast majority of those that could benefit from following Sklansky's advice.


Vince

Re: HISTORIC! Cohan971Wearing Down QuadNines on RG
 

Thanks Rick, that thread was pretty interesting.


Ya, that Cohan does seem familiar, for those of us that have read many a post here.


Regards.

Re: HISTORIC! Cohan971Wearing Down QuadNines on RG
 

Vince,


Your points about "Glover's" motivations may very well be correct. Why he has a hard on for Sklansky I don't get.


Detracts from the discussion? He himself maybe. But I thought some of the countering to him (especially by Cohan) was well worded and worth reading, as are normally your attempts to rile him up [img]/images/wink.gif[/img]


Regards.

Re: HISTORIC! Cohan971Wearing Down QuadNines on RG
 

Could be Howard Lederer.

Re: HISTORIC! Cohan971Wearing Down QuadNines on RG
 

My guess is John Feeney or you there, Shredni.

Re: HISTORIC! Cohan971Wearing Down QuadNines on RG
 

My guess is John Feeney or you there, Shredni.


"We" take that as a compliment.


SRedni.


frankensteinross@hotmail.com


Regards.