Ed Miller's book "versus" WLLH

[astroglide]

how are his reasons different from what yours would be for mistakes in HPFAP?

[Ed Miller]

This would sound much better: "flop your set, you jam. You miss your set, you scram"

That does sound better.

I guess words arent the strong point of an MIT grad.

No comment.

Tell me, will you have a "A Note On The English" disclaimer at the front of your book?

No.

[dm34]

Ed, you didn't deserve that. But you can see how much good S & M did for you in this thread.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't be serious here. MIT (or Stanford, Berkeley, Caltech, ....) graduates, just like anyone else, are perfectly capable of having very strong convictions based on flawed assumptions. In fact, some of these people are so often used to being right that it's hard to convince them otherwise.


[/ QUOTE ]

El Diablo is wise in all but one respect. Berkeley grads are never wrong. Ole.

[Ed Miller]

Ed, which version of Lee's book have you posted about in the past? I'm assuming the second.

My comments all refer to the Second Edition. I have not read the First Edition completely. I have seen it, however, and I am aware of a few of the specific changes between the two.

I too agree that, from the changes I know about, the Second Edition is a considerable improvement over the First one.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
And I commend him for writng what I hear is a much improved second edition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it surprising that you have written all of these posts attacking Lee's understanding of the game without even reading his second edition.

Is it so incapable that Lee actually studied and improved his understanding of the game between writing his two editions? Is it so incapable that perhaps Lee did indeed understand the game well and is plenty smart, but just didn't put the proper time and effort into his first book?

One could point to many people here who posted flawed analysis when learning the game, but after studying the game became much better in a relatively short period. I bet if anyone looks at say, Ed's or Clarkmeister's (or my) posts of 2 years ago v. now, they'd appear to be from two vastly different players.

Lee happened to have his thoughts, some of them apparently wrong, put down in a published book. I still don't see why you seem to judge Lee so harshly based on his initial attempt rather than focusing on his revised, corrected version. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Regardless of how good Ed's book is, should we judge him on mistakes he put down in writing early in his tenure here at 2+2? Regardless of the solid volumes of work you have put out, should we always point at your statements that "you'd rather have 67s than KT on a K65 board" and "pocket 4s are equal or better than pocket 7s in a multi-way pot"? Should 2+2's work be discredited by citing isolated examples of advice from HPFAP that is flawed, especially in today's games? No, both of you should be judged by your body of work and advice, with more emphasis placed on the current advice. I don't see why you don't do the same for Lee.

[ QUOTE ]
I also salute him for realizing originally that there was a vacuum in the poker literature and for realizing he could make good money by writng a beginners book even though he wasn't qualified to write a real good one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, why is this kind of barb necessary?

[ QUOTE ]
I simply said that he will be wrong when he disagrees with Ed.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I repeat, Ed (as well as other 2+2 authors) is not infallible. Perhaps it is more likely that Ed will be correct in such a disagreement. I can buy that. But to say in an unqualified manner that Lee will be wrong any time he disagrees w/ Ed on a poker matter is simply arrogant and quite likely false.

Just a few weeks ago, I had a disagreement w/ Ed re: the best line to take in hand he played in a loose 40-80 game. He was pretty confident he was right. Is there any possibility that I was right and Ed was wrong? How about if I tell you that Clarkmeister, Dynasty, and JA Sucker were also there and all agreed w/ my suggested play?

PS: I scored 780 on both the math and verbal sections of the SAT, so I rule. Olé!!!!!!!!!

[Ed Miller]

Just a few weeks ago, I had a disagreement w/ Ed re: the best line to take in hand he played in a loose 40-80 game. He was pretty confident he was right. Is there any possibility that I was right and Ed was wrong? How about if I tell you that Clarkmeister, Dynasty, and JA Sucker were also there and all agreed w/ my suggested play?

As I recall, Clarkmeister didn't agree with you guys. He said that both plays were relatively close, and he clearly broke with you three on your contention that your play was clearly better. Maybe he agreed with you guys when I wasn't around...

In any event, I certainly admit that the play is close, and perhaps your way is slightly better. I don't think it's nearly as clear as you three made it out to be, though.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Just a few weeks ago, I had a disagreement w/ Ed re: the best line to take in hand he played in a loose 40-80 game. He was pretty confident he was right. Is there any possibility that I was right and Ed was wrong? How about if I tell you that Clarkmeister, Dynasty, and JA Sucker were also there and all agreed w/ my suggested play?

As I recall, Clarkmeister didn't agree with you guys. He said that both plays were relatively close, and he clearly broke with you three on your contention that your play was clearly better. Maybe he agreed with you guys when I wasn't around...

In any event, I certainly admit that the play is close, and perhaps your way is slightly better. I don't think it's nearly as clear as you three made it out to be, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

My recollection was that Clarky agreed that it was better and Sucker thought it was v. close. But frankly I don't really care about that or even which play was better. My question wasn't regarding whose line was optimal. It was whether or not it is possible for a 2+2 author to be wrong in a disagreement regarding a matter of poker with someone who has not been deemed a poker authority by those at 2+2 responsible for annointing individuals as such. I posit that it is indeed possible.

[Ed Miller]

It was whether or not it is possible for a 2+2 author to be wrong in a disagreement regarding a matter of poker with someone who has not been deemed a poker authority by those at 2+2 responsible for annointing individuals as such. I posit that it is indeed possible.

But are you and Sucker not the very 2+2ers responsible for the annointing of poker authority? He that giveth can also taketh away. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Ulysses]

Please go offer your thoughts in the Hypothetical Extremes thread re: marked cards w/ WCP players v. super-loose games in the Mid/High forum. There is a lot of money and pride at stake regarding your esteemed opinion on the matter!