My Take on the Magazine

[Ed Miller]

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.)