HOH EXPOSED CONTINUED....

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
You obviously have no business sense or people skills to come off like you did.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Guys like you from around here would get beat for running your mouth like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The world is truley a lot worst with guys like you

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe when you move out of your parents house and actually experience life and interaction with grown adults you will see that this is not the way to act.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Why dont you calm down a little and stop making such an ass of yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]


Good advice, try taking it.

The guy paid his money for a book from a company who loves to boast about its well deserved reputation for putting out top notch products. He made a valid point and backed up his critque with concrete examples on a forum owned and operated by the publisher of the book which was created in part to address just such issues. Please release Mason's nutsack, with friends as articulate as you he doesn't need enemies.

[Zygote]

couldn't have said it better myself. well done.

[KeyToTheMint]

Im going to break this down for you jimymat.

You wrote "Mason never claimed to be the end all and be all."

Sure he did, for years Mason has been writing, "nothing gets published unless we are sure that it is
very accurate."


You further wrote "... your big chance to show how smart you were by pointing out all of the errors in the book? The book is wriiten to teach theory not how to do simple math you donk."

It is a myth that books published by 2+2 are flawless and contain only minor errors. Hand 4-9 contains a major theoretical error.

Example: pg 167 Hand 4-9


Part A: "Against most opponents you should bet about $250 here. To call, he would have to put in
$250 for a pot of $620, about 2.5 to 1 odds. He's more than 4 to 1 to hit his flush, so it's a blunder for him to call if he knows what you have."

Part B: "A set of kings against a possible flush is just too good a situation to throw away."

First he is much more than a 4 to 1 dog (if he were only around a 4-1 dog Harrington's answer of betting 250 dollars is clearly wrong). However, Two of his flush outs make you a full house. This means he's more than a 5 to 1 dog. Secondly, if he
moves in your calling so he's getting much better than 2.5 to 1 odds (considering implied odds), in so much as you must
call according to part b. In reality he's getting 4.8 to 1 odds. Since:

Pot =620
Your stack remaining =580 (He has you covered)

Your giving him a chance to win 1200 (pot + your stack) for
only 250. 1200/250= 4.8 to 1 odds.

Looking at your pot odds on the turn is not how to determine your bet in this example. One must use implied odds and not pot odds.

Moreover, I will show using the fundamental theorem of poker (computations done knowing opponents cards) Harrington's answer is wrong. Harrington gave his opponent 4.8 to 1 odds. if my opponent is holding:

T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] he needs only 4.5 to 1 odds and is correct to draw, (full knowledge of all cards).
A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] he needs only 3.89 to 1 odds and is correct to draw, (full knowledge of all cards).

There is no reason at all to give your opponent correct odds to draw.

Ignoring implied odds in a NL problem is hardly a minor error. It is compounded even further by the fact Harrington shows the reader how to compute the answer to arrive at 2.5 to 1 odds (ie 2.5 is not a typo nor is it the correct answer of 4.8 to 1). His answer is theoretically wrong in a 2+2 book. If you don't believe me jimymat ask your 10 year old brother. BTW its obvious your chronological age is close to your brothers.

Peace out

For the rest, sometimes the squeaky wheel gets the oil (ie errata sheet). My posts were not meant to bash HOH or 2+2. I enjoyed HOH and 2+2 is the cream of the poker crop. I certainly didn't post this to "show how smart i am". If anything i got called a "bad reading", "losing" , "donk". However, the end (errata sheet) justifies the means (getting abused).

Alls well that ends well.

[David Sklansky]

"Sure he did, for years Mason has been writing, "nothing gets published unless we are sure that it is
very accurate.""

I have always taken this comment to mean from a conceptual, logical standpoint. I make English, typographical, and even calculation errors all the time. But we almost never use fallacious resoning of the type that is found to varying degrees in other author's works. Perhaps Mason could have made this point more clear.

[wyrd]

If you look hard enough, any book will have errors. While there may or may not have been a lot of errors in HoH (I don't know how many errors there were exactly), I can say that it has helped me make money as a novice player. I play in the $5,000 freeroll tournaments at Party Poker. I'm a novice player. I realize that the competition isn't all that tough in these tournaments, but I think it says something when I went from not knowing a thing about NL Hold 'Em, to reading HoH and then place 31st and 16th in two Party Poker tournaments of a field of 2000 to 2500 other players all. Half a week later I placed 35th in another tournament of 2500 players. Did I mention I did all of this within a weeks time? That's right, I knew nothing about NL Hold 'Em (watching TV aside) when I first read his book, and within a week I placed top 50 in 3 tournaments of approximately 2500 players. My winnings have paid for this book many times over.

I for one would like to thank Dan for his awsome book, and see no reason to fault him on a couple of mathemtical errors. As for the so called theoretical errors, I think it's ignorant for someone to argue with the strategic applications of a world class player who has not proven himself to be of the same calibre.