HOH EXPOSED CONTINUED....

[KeyToTheMint]

First let me quote Mason Malmuth:

"All manuscripts that we publish go through a very tough and rigorous review process and nothing gets published unless we are sure that it is very accurate. If you don't believe this, besides Ed Miller, I suggest you talk to either Alan Schoonmaker, Bill Robertie, Dan Harrington, John Feeney, Ray Zee, or Donna Harris."

hmmm....If you did this your
works wouldn't be full of superficial errors. Some of the superficial errors later leads to confusing
incorrect statements as well.

Let us begin, HOH is "very accurate".

1. A flush and a straight draw is 17 outs in hand 5-4. WRONG.

2. Hand 3-4 "you'd be risking $27,000 of your own money to try and win $45,000...." WRONG.
Your putting in $33,000 to win $45,000.

3. Hand 4-7 "which doesn't give him a call if he does have the AK of diamonds, a hand with only 12
outs." WRONG. He has more than 12 outs.

4. Hand 4-8 "Player C started with $970 and now has $720 left. Player E started with $750 and
now has $480 left." These starting totals do not match the diagram. WRONG.

5. Hand 5-4 'The pot is $110, and it's $40 to you." WRONG. The pot is actually $130.

I'll stop there for the superficial errors and now get to a more complicated point. With all due respect. A significant portion of the readership of poker books cannot play worth a
lick. I brought up a point in HOH exposed (the original post) about implied odds and it just flew over the heads of most people who responded. Knowing this I will still continue, knowing some
will give me a debate without merit.

Hand 6-3 "You were a bit unlucky, since he shouldn't have called your bet after the flop-there were just too many ways he could have been beaten." WRONG.

Your opponent held 2 overcards with a flush draw and you held ace high. Then on the flop you gave him 3.6 to 1 odds to draw. You further, let him see the river for free and paid off when he made a pair. All in all, for just a 100 dollar flop bet he saw 2 more board cards and made $460, How is this a mistake on the part of your opponent? It isn't.

Harrington said your opponent was incorrect in calling you. WRONG

Probably just another typo leading to the confusion. ie your opponent does not have a flush draw.

Final Thoughts: I liked the ideas in Harrington on Holdem and its worth reading. Its just that it is written in a sloppy manner. Quite frankly, if you take the name Harrington off the book and call
it Joe Blow from Idaho on Holdem, you now have a confused book. He can't count the money in the pot (hand 3-4, hand 5-4), no clue about outs (4-7, 5-4), ignores implied odds (hand 4-9), and plays weak tight (fold overcards with flush draw getting 3.6 to 1 odds: Hand 6-3).

Mason your "rigorous review process" seems to have failed.

There are even more errors than this. But you get the point.

This is not an attack. This is the truth. Which book of yours should I read to clear this matter up?

Here's how I rate books:

Top 10/10 (brilliant)
SSH 10/10 (brilliant)
HOH 6/10 (mediocre due to unconscientious writing, the ideas are valid and useful)
Tales out of Tulsa-Bobby Baldwin 2/10 (useless information)

Show me where I got it completely wrong.

Flat out answer at least 1 question. How can such a "rigourous review process" not notice that a flush and straight draw isn't 17 outs?

Just one more thought. Poker is tough enough to learn to play well by a book even if it is well written and accurate. It becomes even harder when there are typos. For example, hand 6-3
Harrington makes an incorrect weak tight statement when he says my opponent should fold,
who in the example has position, overcards, a flush draw and nearly 4 to 1 pot odds. But taking
away his flush draw he has next to nothing. I think it's a typo, but look at the confusion it causes.