[Zeno]

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