Is Bill Roberties a qualified writer?

[SNOWBALL138]

After listening to everyone disagree with me for this whole thread, I concede that you guys have a point.

Here's a summary of why I am wrong.

1. HOH is good. The product speaks for itself

2. Harrington doesn't have experience writing about poker, so Bill was able to compensate for that by providing his expertise in organizing ideas, and explaining them through examples.

However, it should not be ignored that the author of a tournament book has never cashed before. Sure, luck plays a large role in hitting the final table, but cashing isn't the hardest thing in the world to do if you play in enough events.

So, in conclusion, I doubt that I would ever buy a poker book written solely by Bill, but on the other hand, I think HOH is a fine contribution to the poker literature, and that Bill deserves our appreciation for his work on the book.

[fnord_too]

Bah, this thread is too long to read to see if this has been pointed out...

In backgammon, there is a ton of play determined by careful analysis, much of which is mathematical and all of which is EV. In short, to be a world class backgammon player, and Robertie is, you have to excel at decision making under uncertainty. Not so coincidentally, that's exactly what you need to excel at to be a great tournament player. That I think qualifies him to contribute to the book, at least from the standpoint of doing independant analysis to vet Dan's ideas and hand examples.

As to his actual role, I'm certain I don't know.