Ed Miller's book "versus" WLLH

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
i see no problem with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that it contributes absolutely nothing to this thread or the topic that Lee brought up. Really, who the hell cares where Eddie or Lee went to school. It could've been a real good debate on a multitude of topics relative.

If you don't see the problem with how oz and mason handled this thread, well, it IS 'sklansky worship'. They completely hijacked it and blew it on a completely different course. Degenerating it to a pissing contest that the 2 principles aren't even involved in. Then hide behind a reasoning that it was a 'personal' attack on Ed and they jump in to 'help' him. After all, we 'see where it goes..'

Funny, they're the only ones who see it that way. If Ed had a problem with it, he's old enough to take care of himself.

Proof? Read Lees original post, then anything from Oz's response and after. All we need is gary carson in here to complete the nostalgic RGP experience.

b

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi adios:

Thanks you. Your post is much appreciated.

I have been attacked for years because I have been critical of other writers. But when I do this I make it a point to be specific, and to give detailed examples.

But I very often get responses similar to the original Jones post which characterize me as doing something very different from what was actually done. This is precisely the way I see this thread. Jones has accused Ed of being nasty and vague, at least that's how I interpret

[ 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 has been concise and specific. If Jones was unaware of this, then it would explain why he posted the way he did. But in that case he should have done his homework to make sure that what he was saying was accurate.

Thanks again,

Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi David:

I haven't read every post that Ed Miller has made. But I have read a bunch of them where he discusses in specific detail the problems that he sees in WLLH. When he has done this he not only cites examples, but gives his reasons as to why his conclusions are what they are. So it's not completely fair to just pull a couple of Ed's quotes out of the air without showing the complete posts and the other related posts.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi dm34:

So when Jones says:

[ 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 ]

that's okay. Do you think this statement is accurate? And assuming that you do think it is accurate, exactly what does it imply?

I guess it's possible that my interpretation of this is very different from yours. Another possibility is that our interpretations are roughly the same but you're not as familiar with Ed's posts concerning WLLH as I am. If this second case is correct, it would bring us to different conclusions.

best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bruiser:

My guess is that the reason he has not responded to some of the "specific hands" that Ed Miller criticized is that he was not aware of them.

I hope he does begin to respond. I strongly suspect that when the book is finally released later this week many people will begin to debate the differences in advice.

For example, we state in a loose game if there is no raise you should play any pocket pair in early position. In the second edition of WLLH Jones states (in early position) to only play AA down through TT, but to add 99 through 66 if the game is loose passive. That's a big difference.

Best wishes,
Mason

[charlie_t_jr]

When flame wars erupt on this board and others, its through the ridiculous responses that the posters character usually shows through. There is no doubt DS & MM have the best poker "minds" in the business. The proof is in the printed word.

I know none of these people personally, but through reading of books, articles, forums, the reaction of others, etc., it seems the best poker "people" are guys like Lee Jones, Bob Ciaffone, and Tom McEvoy.

Which is more important? I don't know, depends on your values, and how you want to live your own life.

What is truly amazing, is the fact that the two best poker "minds" are either so blinded by their ego or intelligence, that they can't see their own "errors" and that they're "just plain wrong" in this thread. What a let down...ah well they're mere mortals after all.

(The first part of my post, could be taken as a personal attack, I suppose..)

Mason, I didn't read a personal attack in Lee's original post. To say so, is a bit of a stretch. I did see some differences, I was hoping would get debated.

I was however, as a non MIT grad, insulted by Davids post. I'm a big boy though, and will get over it.

Anybody want to talk poker? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[dm34]

Of course it is OK Mason. This is getting more comical by the moment. I'll type it in caps to make it more clear: LEE JONES DISAGRESS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT "FACTS" EXIST IN REGARDS TO POST-FLOP PLAY.

As I said earlier, you are free to agree or disagree with that as you choose, but it is NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK. REPEAT, NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK. He is not badmouthing Ed or calling him a liar, but rather arguing definitions. That is perfectly legitimate.

Ed can certainly stand on his own merits. He doesn't need you jumping in to defend him - I'm sure the book will sell fine regardless of how any argument with Jones turns out.

[The Little King]

Lee and Ed,

Why doesn't Ed present his arguments against your book on this thread and give Lee a chance to explain his position.

[JTrout]

How can you say both,

"When the fact of the matter is Ed never said this.."

and


"I haven't read every post that Ed Miller has made."

Cheers.
JTrout.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
What is truly amazing, is the fact that the two best poker "minds" are either so blinded by their ego or intelligence, that they can't see their own "errors" and that they're "just plain wrong" in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be appreciated if you would elaborate on this point you make. The choice of words being "personal attack" used by Mason is what I'm assuming you're referring to.

Let's look at what Lee Jones wrote in his original post in part:

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

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO this completely misconstrues the nature of Miller's comments regarding Jones's book. Miller's basic take on the book was that it was helpful to a point but many of the post flop recommendations were weak-tight. I think we all can evaluate the ways weak-tight play hurts a poker player's bottom line. However, Jones's implies in my mind that Ed Miller basically trashed his book which Miller certainly did not do. In the aggregate Miller's comments were net positive about Jones's book IMO. In fact if memory serves me correctly he basically stated that a beginning player should buy the book or at least wouldn't be hurt by buying the book. Miller stated that the book would only take a beginning player so far. Now I'm working from memory so if you have any posts that directly conflict what I'm stating here they're certainly welcome.


[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

My comment to this statement is that evaluating the logic involved in strategy recommendations isn't a matter of opinion and intuition. Experience is different than intuition and opinions. Experience can be used to support the logic involved in strategy recommendations.



[ QUOTE ]
Now, does this make me a weak-tight author? I don't think so. Unless Ed has gotten access to a large database of online hand histories and done a statistical analysis to see whether his ideas or mine are "correct", then he is offering his opinion and intuition and experience. Just as I did when I wrote WLLH.

[/ QUOTE ]

One can point out logical errors without having a large database of online hand histories for crying out loud.

[ QUOTE ]
If I got the "pot odds" numbers wrong, if I had mis-stated the probability of flopping a set - those are "errors". I think it's irresponsible, and not constructive to the conversation, to couch much else on the topic of (e.g.) post-[flop hold'em play as "right" or "wrong".

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think about it this is an absurd statement. There are easily many plays that can occur after the flop that are clearly wrong and certainly don't need a large extensive database to support the notion that they're wrong. Also in specifically comparing recommendations it can often clearly be shown logically that one strategy recommendation is superior to another. Jones's implication to me is that all decisions after the flop are subjective if not supported by a large database and IMO that's clearly wrong, at least to me it is.


Maybe it's not pleasant to read brutally honest evaluations of others work. I prefer that to a wishy-washy evaluation. It would be great if we could always make nice but be clear with our points (honestly I don't see where Dave or Mason stated anything really objectionable) so that feelings were spared. This takes a lot of time to think about and formulate at least for me. If that's your complaint i.e. that Dave and Mason weren't diplomatic enough so be it. But I don't think that's very important on an internet forum. I don't think that Jones feels it's very important either because in my mind his post leaves a lot to be desired in the diplomacy department as well.