Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles

[ZeeBee]

The review was reposted here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=1582549
I couldn't find the original.

ZB

[larrondo]

Here is the original post which contains the review:

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...mp;sb=5&o=

[ZeeBee]

[ QUOTE ]
He gave you one.
Just because you aren't satisfied with the answer doesn't make it less true or direct.

[/ QUOTE ]I certainly wasn't accusing Mason of being untruthful or deceptive - merely of giving a jocular rather than serious response.

I don't know if you've read Mason's review of MLH - but it certainly doesn't give any suggestion that what Mason felt was weak-tight advice was because Ciaffone & Brier misunderstood the basic principles of odds and probability. Also, elsewhere on the board, Mason has agreed with the thought that the overfolding may be a symptom of Ciaffone's background in no/pot-limit. This idea of Ciaffone not understanding schoolboy maths has never come up before.

So when I read his response of "Is there? He has you repeatedly folding when the pot odds....." I assumed it was somewhat tongue in cheek of the "ho, ho, he has you folding so many times it's just like he doesn't understand odds properly" type.

Maybe I misinterpreted, but my interpretation is the only one I had. Not being desperate to know the answer I didn't want to push the same question again to the point of annoyance and so signed off accordingly. I'm surprised someone not directly involved had the energy to comment.

ZB

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi ZB:

You did misinterpret. I don't know for sure the real reason, but obviously in no limit you don't get the odds that you frequently get in limit. It seems like many writers don't take into account the size of the pot, and thus recommend play that is too weak-tight. It's hard to come up with any other reason for it.

best wishes,
Mason

[betgo]

Here are a couple from recent issues that have been discussed elsewhere in this board.

There are some excellent articles in Cardplayer. There are also articles with little content and erroneous content.

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_maga...amp;m_id=65551

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_maga...amp;m_id=65549

[J_V]

Bravo. A clear conceptual mistake. I am guessing D.S. made the assumption that the suited connectors had more straight value when they do not.

[Matt Ruff]

[ QUOTE ]
Nor did I know that I needed to make sure my online posts were as well edited as something I'd have published in a leading research journal or industry magazine.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need to, but if you want to be taken seriously by as wide a range of readers as possible, why wouldn't you?


[ QUOTE ]
How is your Swedish?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty fluent at the Muppet dialect: "Borshki, borshki, borshki, dyun, dyun, dyun..."

-- M. Ruff

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nor did I know that I needed to make sure my online posts were as well edited as something I'd have published in a leading research journal or industry magazine.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need to, but if you want to be taken seriously by as wide a range of readers as possible, why wouldn't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because no one else bothers with it? Forum and email discussions are a hybrid between the spoken and the written word, thus allowing more errors. If you analyze the linguistics of online discussions they actually share more with spoken rather than formally written conversations.

If you spell check, agonize over grammar and punctuation and a level of clarity that isn't needed then more power to you.

Perhaps you should apply for a job as editor of Cardplayer? They need someone with those characteristics. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ZeeBee]

Thanks for the clarification Mason.

My feeling from reading around the advice is that the authors also seem to fear that their oppnents really do have every potential dangerous hand that they could. "Monsters under the bed" syndrome I guess.

But not understanding (or I guess more accurately, failing to properly apply) the principles of pot/implied odds is a different level of mistake to not understanding the difference between odds and probabilities (confusing 17:1 with 1 in 17) which David talks about - in my opinion anyway.

ZB

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi ZB:

You may be right. But these errors do show that these authors have major fundamental flaws in their thinking. In addition, I have always found it disturbing how they refuse to even consider that they don't have it correct. The result is that books appear (and books are my department) where the philosophy, as well as much of the specific advice, is just plain wrong.

Best wishes,
Mason