Flawed Two Plus Two Advice

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Whale:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
I have seen them say that even a small percentage of erroneous advice in a poker book can be very detrimental.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right. An error rate of 2 percent isn't good enough.

Best wishes,
Mason

[jasonHoldEm]

I'm still trying to figure out how they add two diamonds and two clubs and end up getting four hearts...poker is hard.

J

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you read The Psychology of Poker and/or Inside the Poker Mind?

[/ QUOTE ]

Must reads IMO.

Lawrence

[bobdibble]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still trying to figure out how they add two diamonds and two clubs and end up getting four hearts...poker is hard.

J

[/ QUOTE ]

money + luck = love

[schmoe]

I voted that something like 2.1% to 5% of Two Plus Two poker advice is wrong.
It should be noted that I am not talking about instances where Two Plus Two have corrected themselves, eg MM did not think low limit HE was really any different than the HE that HEFAP addressed and said as much in print in one of the Poker Essays books but he has since published Small Stakes Hold'em and so he must now believe that that low limit HE plays differently enough to publish a book devoted exclusivelty to the type of games found there: loose aggressive.


This is silliness. Rather than make some vague and unquantifiable claim - "Two Plus Two is wrong 2.1 to 5% of the time" - why not elaborate /discuss /refute the areas where you feel Two Plus Two's advice is incorrect.

[imported_PP123]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar till:</font><hr />
I have no idea how much of "2+2 advice" that might be erroneous in some way - I'm just not a good enough player or teoretician yet to spot errors with any confidence (except extremely simple ones, like the 52s error) - but what I don't like is the attitude that they are somehow infallable.


[/ QUOTE ]

What's the 52s error?

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea how much of "2+2 advice" that might be erroneous in some way - I'm just not a good enough player or teoretician yet to spot errors with any confidence (except extremely simple ones, like the 52s error) - but what I don't like is the attitude that they are somehow infallable.


[/ QUOTE ]

What's the 52s error?

[/ QUOTE ]

Beach-Whale has asked why 52s is not included in the Sklansky Hand Groups when 43s is, and yet the former is the stronger hand.

[Al Mirpuri]

The two extremes are interesting: that 7% of us thought Two Plus Two withour error (defies credence) and that 8% would have Two Plus Two would have them not publishing anything as Two Plus Two have repeatedly claimed in print that 90% correct is 10 points incorrect is too much to be reliable.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
I voted that something like 2.1% to 5% of Two Plus Two poker advice is wrong.
It should be noted that I am not talking about instances where Two Plus Two have corrected themselves, eg MM did not think low limit HE was really any different than the HE that HEFAP addressed and said as much in print in one of the Poker Essays books but he has since published Small Stakes Hold'em and so he must now believe that that low limit HE plays differently enough to publish a book devoted exclusivelty to the type of games found there: loose aggressive.


This is silliness. Rather than make some vague and unquantifiable claim - "Two Plus Two is wrong 2.1 to 5% of the time" - why not elaborate /discuss /refute the areas where you feel Two Plus Two's advice is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope to address this in print at some point.

[Beach-Whale]

See the thread "Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles" started by Sklansky. I bring it up there to show that everyone makes mistakes, in defense of Bob Ciaffone, who of course know the difference between odds and probabilities. To claim that he doesn't is plain silly. As silly as it would be for me to claim that David Sklansky does not know why 52s is a better hand than both 42s and 32s. They are both just simple mistakes, like we all make.

If Bob Ciaffone is a flawed poker author because of his mistake in his latest Card Player article, then David Sklansky is just as flawed as a poker author because of his 52s mistake in HPFAP, in my opinion.

Especially since HPFAP is a book, and even has been around for years, in several editions, whereas Ciaffones article is in the latest issue of a bi-weekly magazine.