Ed Miller's book "versus" WLLH

[Clarkmeister]

"But wasn't the Lee Jones post a personal attack on Ed Miller?"

No. And I'd be astounded if Ed viewed it as a personal attack either.

[threeonefour]

the claim is either right or its right. If a bum on the street makes the right claim then he is right.The background of the person has no bearing on the subject. What you should be saying is why miller is right not why he is more likely to be right. Because in the end he is either right or wrong, 1 or 0.

Maybe you personally have more faith in Miller. Maybe most people do, but this doesn't mean he is right or that he is even more likely to be right.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
But wasn't the Lee Jones post a personal attack on Ed Miller.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how anyone with decent reading comprehension skills could take Lee's initial post (or anything he has posted in this thread) as a personal attack on Ed. The same cannot be said about David's posts.

[ QUOTE ]
But when he comes on here and mis-characterizes the posts by Ed Miller where these specifics have been addressed, well, ... you see what happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you also see what happens when individuals come on here making silly claims like when an MIT student disagrees w/ someone re: an analytical concept that he has investigated thoroughly, the MIT grad is "almost certainly" correct.

[Ulysses]

Simple precise question. You hear two people arguing about a poker play. One where the right answer can eventually be determined. You know only a few things about the debaters. One is a math grad from MIT who has made a study of poker and is quite certain he is right about this particular argument. The other person two and a half years ago did not know if a flush beat a straight and less than two years ago wrote that he 3-bet 5c8c on a 9TJ rainbow flop for a variety of sketchy reasons.

At this point you must make a price as to who is right about the argument. What would you say that is?

[David Steele]

But wasn't the Lee Jones post a personal attack on Ed Miller.

No and to prove it Sklansky style, here is an outline of a course I took years ago in Engineering:



Math 400
Outline of Topics:

* Method of Characteristics for First Order Equations: Traffic Flow; Shocks; Eiconal Equation, Modelling.
* Sturm-Liouville Theory, Separation of Variables, Eigenfunction Expansions, Special Functions (Bessel etc.)
* Diffusion Equation and Modelling: Analysis by Eigenfunction Expansion, Laplace and Fourier Transform, Max-Min principle.
* Wave Equation and Modelling: Analysis by Eigenfunction Expansion, Laplace and Fourier Transform; D'Alembert's formula in 1-D and multi-dimensions.
* Laplace's Equation: Analysis by Eigenfunction Expansion, Fourier Transform, Schwarz-Christoffel Mapping.
* Classification of Second Order Linear PDEs

[KenDom]

Very Good!!!! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
No and to prove it Sklansky style

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, this is not "proof" Sklansky style. This just demonstrates that you are 98% more likely to be right than he is.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
That said, I will, time permitting, be happy to discuss any specific technical points on which Ed and I disagree, though we should probably take those discussions over to Small Stakes Hold'em, n'est-ce pas?

Regards, Lee


[/ QUOTE ]

In reading this whole thread the biggest loss of all is the fact that the above will likely never take place due to the completely unprovoked and mean spirited remarks of Sklansky and Malmuth of all people. The very people who should love to have an objective poker related debate take place on THEIR forums between two of the most prominent authors on the subject of low limit hold em.

Instead DS suggests that we disregard anything Leee Jones says which Ed disagrees with because Ed went to MIT and thinks about poker a lot. Then Mason calls Lee's first post an "attack" which is just plain ludacris as far as I can tell and most people who have read it and have half a brain seem to agree.

From what I can tell Ed and Lee, if left to themselves, could probably engage in many meaningful debates on the subject of LL poker and have it NOT become personal or deteriorate into them lobbing cheap shots and one liners back and forth at one another. The twoplustwo community would be much better off to witness this interaction.

It really is a shame that S&M had to jump in and degrade the whole thread with ill timing and more importantly ill will. Lee Jones likely doesn't want to be drawn into an ongoing battle of personal insults where each post has more to do with pissing someone off than it does with poker and learning about poker. Who can blame him?

I find it ironic that the reason Mason often uses to defend why he so regularily insults authors is that he's so concerned that the readers of this forum have only the best information to learn from. Then he likely robs us all of what could have been legendary threads between Jones and Miller. Gee thanks.

[ScottTheFish]

I guess we can safely assume someone with a very high IQ who opted for, say, a Harvard MBA or Medical degree from Stanford could never learn to think about poker at the level Ed does because he wasn't exposed to the "types of thinking" taught in the MIT mathematics department?

David I didn't go to any of those schools, and even i can see how absurd that is. Academic snobbery at its finest. You make me sad I bought one of your books.

BTW Kudos to both Ed and Lee for staying above the ridiculous, childish pettiness in this thread by both David and Mason.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Brocktoon:

[ QUOTE ]
Then Mason calls Lee's first post an "attack" which is just plain ludacris as far as I can tell and most people who have read it and have half a brain seem to agree.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that it's okay for Jones to say:

[ QUOTE ]
He says things such as my book is "full of errors" and is (in places) "plain wrong".

I tend to use words like "error" and "wrong" when dealing with facts. I am extremely hesitant to use those words when what we're talking about are opinions, intuitions, experieces, etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

When the fact of the matter is that Ed Miller never did this. When he has put up posts commenting on WLLH he has given specific examples and given specific reasons as to why he has come to certain conclusions. Perhaps Jones wasn't aware of this and made his comments not knowing what has really appeared on these forums.

In either case, if Jones wants to come on these forums, and the Small Stakes forum would be fine, and defend or debate aspects of his book/advice, he will be treated with respect. But he needs to stick to the facts and not accuse Ed of "opinions, intuitions, experieces, etc" when nothing of the sort ever happened.

Put another way, the problem I have with this is if the only thing ever written on the subject was the Jones post above then I would agree with you. But that's not the case.

Best wishes,
Mason