Ed Miller's book "versus" WLLH

[dm34]

Lee is questioning whether or not "facts" exist in regards to making poker decisions. Whether you agree with his view or not, it is in NO way a personal attack.

Mason, I will be frank - shut up before you dig yourself an even deeper hole.

[David Steele]

When the fact of the matter is that Ed Miller never did this.

Some Ed Miller quotes:

"There are other errors in this book, so do not assume that if I do not mention something, that there isn't a problem."

And he himself maintains he would stand by the second part:

"When that is the case, I say you are "plain wrong.""


But big deal, both Ed and Lee are both being quite civil and not attacking the person and I don't understand what you and DS are adding to the discussion.

D.

[Ulysses]

This whole thread has been very disappointing.

[David Sklansky]

The moment Lee Jones would actually debate a specific poker point with Ed Miller is the moment that it becomes irrelevant that I made Ed Miller a 50-1 favorite to be right. At that point we readjust the odds based on their words.

But those of you who think that 50-1 is ridiculous simply because Lee Jones wrote a book are sadly mistaken. Because the first edition of his book was strong evidence that he can't analyze as well as Ed Miller. His book might show he can analyze better than the average person but it also showed that he would be MORE, not less, of an underdog to Ed compared to a random person. The principle would be similar to making a price that a random 20 year old will play in the NBA compared to a 20 year old that was the eighth man on the Columbia basketball team. The second guy is far less likely to play in the NBA than a random person even though he is a big favorite to be better than the random person. That's all I've been saying on this thread.

[dm34]

It sucks when people you respect make fools of themselves.

[adios]

Interesting thread [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. Mason your point is well taken and FWIW I believe your observation is spot on. What Jones wrote in his original post completely misconstrues the nature of the comments that Ed Miller has made about his books. Also in my mind Jones has implied that Ed has an axe to grind which is a way different impression than I've gotten from reading Ed Miller's commentary on Jones's book. In fact I was amazed at how precise and specific Ed Miller's comments were. Dave in my mind is stating that Ed Miller's credentials as a poker authority are much better than Jones's. I don't understand why this is construed as a personal attack.

[threeonefour]

it's either right or it's wrong rather... sorry, I am sure everyone got the idea though.

[Saborion]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Although I've known that a flush beats a straight for a very long time, I've never 3-bet 58s on a 9TJr flop. Given how the player that made that play is playing today, maybe I should make some changes to my game. Surely I must become as good a player as he now is.

Saborion to be?

Regarding who of the two is right, I'm somewhat certain it's impossible to tell with the information given.

[theBruiser500]

Why hasn't Lee Jones followed up here, and responded to some of the specific hands Miller has criticized?

[daryn]

does anyone here not see that david is correct?

this isn't your typical "sklansky worship" either, the man is correct!

of course, we all know geniuses that went to state schools and idiots that went to MIT. he's talking about it in terms of if you were to make a bet on it, who would you bet on being correct?

i see no problem with this.