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.