Flawed Author - 2+2 Books

sillyarms · #1 01-23-2005, 02:27 PM

Harrington on hold'em Hand 4-9 pg 165-168.

See if you can find it.

I am biting my tongue a little bit here because people here don't like it when 2+2 authors get criticized.

silly

Easy E · #2 01-23-2005, 11:03 PM

if you can critize and back it up, they'll be all over it as well.

Yes, the posters can get a bit defensive sometimes, but the better ones don't do it without reason from my experiences here.

Ed Miller · #3 01-24-2005, 01:52 PM

I am biting my tongue a little bit here because people here don't like it when 2+2 authors get criticized.

I want to clarify this. People (and that includes me) aren't very receptive when 2+2 material is criticized in vague, hand-wavy, illogical, incorrect, mathematically unsound, or personally attacking ways.

If you have a specific problem with a specific example or concept and argue it compellingly, you won't encounter nastiness... at least not from the knowledgable posters.

For instance, since Jim Brier's set of articles came out, there has been a lot more critical discussion of SSH. Some of it has been very good, and I welcome it.

Scotch78 · #4 01-24-2005, 03:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, since Jim Brier's set of articles came out, there has been a lot more critical discussion of SSH. Some of it has been very good, and I welcome it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm currently re-reading SSH textbook style with a highlighter and pencil nubs, and would love to have some extra thought food; where can I find these articles? Also, have you written any responses/defenses to the articles and where would those be?

Scott

Ed Miller · #5 01-24-2005, 03:44 PM

I'm currently re-reading SSH textbook style with a highlighter and pencil nubs, and would love to have some extra thought food; where can I find these articles? Also, have you written any responses/defenses to the articles and where would those be?

Brier has written five articles (so far) for Cardplayer. You can find them on the Cardplayer.com website. He also wrote an article for the January issue of the 2+2 magazine, that you can find here.

I've written a few responses, notabaly an article also in the January 2+2 mag... and some scattered posts on here. I plan to spend more time responding in detail... but I'm trying to get Getting Started in Hold 'em out the door, so I'll wait until that project is done to write more.

Rudbaeck · #6 01-24-2005, 04:27 PM

I went over the math and didn't find any errors there. Maybe I'm blind.

I don't agree with the river decision to bet in a single table tournament. I think check-calling will get more money in. If you check villain thinks the third club froze you up and will take a stab at the pot way more often than a weak made hand will call your bet on this scary board.

Maybe this is just flawed limit thinking on my part though?

Spill the beans already, what is wrong in the hand?

sillyarms · #7 01-24-2005, 07:45 PM

I was a little upset over the way this post was being handled when I made the above post, so I apologize for being rude about it. I did actually find a small error in the problem. I figured it was sort of obvious. The flop in this hand is K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and the author lists J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] as one of his opponets possible hands when making the decision to bet on the river, but this is impossible because the 9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] is on the board. It's only a matter of his opponet having backdoor flush outs on the flop. Not a fundamental math error.

pg 167:

[ QUOTE ]
For example, if he was holding J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] to start, he wouldn't necessarily bet on the end, but he'd almost certainly call a bet by you.

[/ QUOTE ]

silly

Rudbaeck · #8 01-24-2005, 08:26 PM

I feel dumb for missing that.

BarronVangorToth · #9 01-24-2005, 08:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
silly

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good catch, though -- I missed it during my first (and second!) read-through ... I'm sure many others did as well. Nothing wrong with pointing out things like this, by the way, as I don't believe anyone believes Dan is incapable of making a potential minor error.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

BarronVangorToth · #10 01-24-2005, 08:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I've written a few responses, notabaly an article also in the January 2+2 mag...

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, Ed, for what it's worth, you handle yourself with a lot of class when discussing someone's legitimate (and otherwise) concerns about your work. Instead of being overly defensive you've taken the time to clarify and explain -- shows a lot of character. Anyway, looking forward to your future work.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com