Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles

[David Sklansky]

In the newest edition of Cardplayer, out today, Bob Ciaffone, Jim Brier, and Lee Jones all make inexcusable, rather disgraceful errors in their respective articles. Errors either in math, logic, or argumentation. While only one of the errors could cost a lot of money, they are all non tirvial and reflect a lack of understanding of some pretty basic things. Not only would two plus two authors never make these mistakes, neither would the likes of Roy Cooke, Dan Kimberg or Howard Lederer. I'm not talking about esoteric stuff or mere nitpicking.

See if you can find them all.

I am biting my tongue a little bit here because people don't like it when I get too mean. But these errors do bring up a point that I've thought, but not written, until now. Namely refuting the idea that almost any poker book has some value because there are always going to be a few pearls of wisdom to pick up. The presumtion is that those concepts that are already known are ignored and those concepts that are flawed are discarded. Well that's fine if the reader is knowledgeable and can separate the good from the bad. But what if he is not? Even a book where as much as 90% of the stuff is right may be of negative value to non discerning readers. Because most of the 90% is things that he already knows or can find elsewhere. Meanwhile if the reader blindly puts his faith in everything (something he can come closer to doing regarding books about most subjects) that these flawed poker thinkers write, he would be better off having read none of the book at all.