My book: "Professional Poker"

[Mark Blade]

Hi Mason,

Thanks for the feedback on my post. I enjoy this sort of debate about poker. I think, however, that you may have accidentally misread my post.

A few points of clarification:

You wrote, “I hope everyone reads this statement. It's totally ridiculous. No one has this type of skill and ability, and if someone was to claim they did, they would not be very truthful.”

My clarification: I think you may be insinuating that “I” have claimed to have this ability. If you read my post very carefully, you might notice that I never ever make such a claim. In fact, I say that I DO NOT play this way. I thought I was being clear about this in my post, but maybe I wasn’t explicit enough, so let me state it more clearly here. I do not play this way because I do not have this type of skill and ability. That’s why I went through all those “and if they could do this, and if they could do that, and if they could do these other things.” I was basically saying that if you could align all the planets in such a fashion, then this is theoretically possible. Just because I am not skillful enough to organize these planets, can I conclusively prove that no one can? And if I can’t prove this, can I state for a fact that Ciaffone and Brier are not being truthful? I’m not comfortable making that leap. You are. That’s fine. But in so doing, you have insinuated for the readers of these posts that you, who are obviously a very informed and experienced player and teacher, rightfully belongs in the poker penthouse (and, by the way, I agree that you deserve to be), while I, who the readers of these posts have no benefit of knowing at all because almost none of them have my book in their hands, obviously belongs on the poker pavement. And all because of these theoretical musings? Really? Do I deserve that?

In your comment about my thoughts on their starting hands, I agree that it is quite possible (especially considering Ciaffone’s extensive pot limit background) that a pot limit strategy spilled over into this book. And, of course, I agree with everything you said about the differences between these two forms of poker. But since oreogod had asked me about this book, I was just pointing out how these starting hand decisions are situationally dependent and that players with an exceptional edge over their competition on the flop, turn, and river play, can profit from playing more hands (even in limit), and that if this post-flop edge was great enough, that even the hands the Ciaffone & Brier recommend are playable. That’s all. Maybe I'm wrong about this prediction I'm about to make, but I don’t think that many subsequent readers of this post are going to chop my head off for that.

Also you wrote, “I have now read only a few pages of your book, and it seems okay to me though most everything has already been written elsewhere (but at least you do give credit to other writers which is much more than I can say for a few other authors).”

My response: I think this sort of comment is unfair for a few reasons (except, of course for your notation about my propensity toward responsible attribution. I very much appreciate that you noticed this fact) :

1-You have only read a few pages of my book. But with your extremely powerful and influential voice, you have probably turned away many potential readers of my book, who will walk away from their computers right now concluding that that my “entire” book is probably just a rehash and is just “okay,” therefore not worth purchasing. Now, if you had read my entire book and somehow come to this conclusion, then that would be very fair. Although, I just don’t see how anyone who has read my “entire” book could come to the conclusion that what it contains has all been written elsewhere. On the other point, I’m not arrogant enough to know if anyone or everyone will judge it as excellent, okay, or a piece of trash. Well, let me restate that. I do, at least, know that “some” readers have found it to be excellent as many have gone out of their way to tell me so and some poker industry people have put their professional credibility on the line to endorse it. I guess I shouldn’t say “know” because it is possible that they all could be lying to me. The poker authors who have endorsed my book (who, by the way, were not friends or even acquaintances of me before they first laid eyes on my book) could all be lying just because they have some delusional fantasy that they are going to somehow ride the success coattails of a low profile (actually “no” profile would be more accurate) poker author on the delusional hopes that his crappy book will somehow propel their own book sales through the roof from mere association. And I guess all the more typical “Average Joe” type readers who have been contacting me about my book to heap praise on it could all be lying to for some unknown motive. And I’m not talking about friends and family members. I’m talking about total strangers who shelled out their hard-earned money, including a regular poster on these very forums. Now, I certainly realize that even the worst poker book ever written probably has an occasional rabid fan. Or maybe all these readers are so uninformed that they can't distinguish good info from bad info so they have all been tricked by me into thinking that it is good, but it is actually bad. Or maybe I’m only hearing from the select few who love it, while the vast majority who hates it are being quiet. Of course there is going to be a significant skewing effect in some regards on this issue. But so far, and I’m being totally honest, I haven’t had one even slightly negative review of the book, or at least I should say that was until I was slightly jolted out of my office chair this morning by your post. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

2-For argument’s sake, let just say that my book did only cover material that had already been covered elsewhere. (And by the way, my book does start off by organizing some things for the reader that almost certainly have been covered elsewhere so I could see why you might get that early impression.) Would that fact, in and of itself, make such a book necessarily not worth anyone’s time or money? What if the book organized many disparate topics into one book so as to better serve a target reader who had a specific information need? What if that book was just better written or with a different voice so that ideas could better resonate with particular readers who are more receptive to that author’s teaching style? What if the writer was just a better writer so that important ideas could be more concisely expressed to save the reader time, or the ideas were just more colorfully expressed so as to not only teach the reader but also entertain the reader during the teaching process? I could go on and on with these points. Let’s take this out of the poker genre for a second. If you look closely at the NY Times non-fiction bestseller list over the years, you will find many books which have offered almost no new ideas whatsoever, but have simply done some of things that I have just written about. Should these books have not been written or purchased? Did they not help people tremendously? Should school textbooks about The Theory Of Evolution all just say, "please set down your books and don't read any further. These ideas have already been expressed in a book by Charles Darwin. Go read that book if you want to learn about these things." Don’t get me wrong. I, as someone who has read a lot of poker books, really most value the poker books that have any even small tidbit of new info, no matter how poorly written a poker book is or how badly flawed much of the other material in the book is. For the vast majority of poker readers, most of whom certainly do not have the number of poker books already on their shelves as I do, they could hardly care if some idea has or has not already been stated earlier. It is all new to them. And if a book could organize these ideas well and express them in a way that resonates with that reader so he or she acts on this information instead of just reading the book and saying to themselves, “yes, uh-huh, uh-huh,” but then does nothing to actually improve their poker play because of it, then the book that resonates well because of the author’s teaching skills or writing talent has served an extremely useful purpose. Even if you ignored all the new info I believe I have provided in Professional Poker, I think my book may do that for some, many, or most readers. You and everyone else on this entire forum may disagree. (Well, I should say everyone “but” the person who already has already posted on this forum about how much they liked my book.)

Mason,
If you ever write Poker Essays IV, I would never read the first few pages and then go on a public forum and give people my initial impression of the book. All I ask is that you wait to rip into my book until you’ve read the entire thing. And if you want to rip into me or rally the troops on this forum to do so regarding my post about Middle Limit Holdem, I guess that’s fair, but I hope that I’ve clarified my position on those things so at least all the posters on this forum know exactly what they are ripping into.

You have done nothing but extend the most professional and polite of courtesies to me in the past regarding my articles that you have purchased for your Two Plus Two Internet Magazine and also my book announcement here. I really appreciate that and will be forever grateful. As you can obviously note in my book, I will also be forever grateful for the many top-notch books that Two Plus Two has published in the past and almost certainly will continue to release in the future. And I’m very confident that your high standards of professionalism toward me will also continue in the future regardless of however you end up judging the merits of my entire book.

Kindest regards,
Mark Blade

[JTrout]

The thoughtful manner in which you have replied to posters in this thread has made it an easy decision for me to buy a copy of your book.

I'm sure I will enjoy it, and learn something from it.

Thank you.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I notice on your site that your book is endorsed by Lou Krieger, Bob Ciaffone, Ken Warren , Michael Konik, and Greg Dinkin

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] This worries me......

Is this guy actually still playing poker? Maybe his books actually made players bad enough so that even he could win.

[RowdyZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I notice on your site that your book is endorsed by Lou Krieger, Bob Ciaffone, Ken Warren , Michael Konik, and Greg Dinkin

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] This worries me......

Is this guy actually still playing poker? Maybe his books actually made players bad enough so that even he could win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well Warren gives some bad advice but he still hasn't fallen to the level of John Patrick, his poker book has to be without a doubt the worst ever written, but on the plus side he has only written 1 and Warren is up to a half dozen now.

RZ

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

Well Warren gives some bad advice but he still hasn't fallen to the level of John Patrick, his poker book has to be without a doubt the worst ever written, but on the plus side he has only written 1 and Warren is up to a half dozen now.

RZ

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortuneately for the gullible gambling public, Patrick has written a ton of books. Like this little gem.

[hbgolfpro]

Mark, I hope you wont allow the comments made my Mason to get you down. Sure, now that he has publicly ripped your book even though he admits only reading a few pages, it cant possibly be a good thing for you. I agree that some people on these forums will now pass on your book simply because of what Mason has said. But lets also remember that Mason is the same person who wrote this.....

"I've read Barry Greenstein's book, Ace on the River. It's terrific and it will get my highest rating of 10. While this won't be my formal review, I'm not writing any of those for a while, I will say that much of the book deals with those things that will not only allow you to play the best you can, but also allow you to play at the best you'll ever be able to play."

We all now realize that his statement regarding how this book will allow you to play the best you'll EVER be able to play is ridiculous. Since he likes to use that term when referring to others, I felt it was most fitting to use it here. Also, Mason now agrees that his rating of 10 was a bit much and has changed that to an 8...give or take a few! For the record I agree that Mason does have expert thoughts and insight into poker. 2+2 is the number one place to read and study if you want to get the most out of your poker game. But doesnt it seem as though Mason feels that what he writes, what he says, and what he believes MUST be the way it is? What gives him the right to think that all of his ideas and thoughts are the laws of poker? Its as if his reviews are the supreme opinion. Nevertheless, as I said I hope you wont let his rude and negative comments get you down. I also hope that his comments havent done too much damage to your book and credibility on these forums. I trust that the true expert thinkers on here will be able to decide for themselves. In closing, I would also like to say that in my opinion you have written a really great book and you seem to be a class act as a person....especially after taking such a rude review from Mason. I hope your book does well.

[YoureToast]

[ QUOTE ]
The thoughtful manner in which you have replied to posters in this thread has made it an easy decision for me to buy a copy of your book.

I'm sure I will enjoy it, and learn something from it.

Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, although I can't comprehend how you can show such restraint. Looking forward to reviews from others who clearly don't have an agenda.

[MarkL444]

[ QUOTE ]
The thoughtful manner in which you have replied to posters in this thread has made it an easy decision for me to buy a copy of your book.

I'm sure I will enjoy it, and learn something from it.

Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly what i was thinking

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Mark:

Let me be a little more specific. I've read the firs 101 pages of your book and skipped ahead to other parts.

My comments will have no effect on your book sales positive or negative. but what will have effect are these posts of yours where you go on and on in a convoluted manner defending your book. Remember, you came here uninvited and without permission to advertise your book, and in its defense, you post stuff that to me is borderline crazy. Here's an example:

[ QUOTE ]
The poker authors who have endorsed my book (who, by the way, were not friends or even acquaintances of me before they first laid eyes on my book) could all be lying just because they have some delusional fantasy that they are going to somehow ride the success coattails of a low profile (actually “no” profile would be more accurate) poker author on the delusional hopes that his crappy book will somehow propel their own book sales through the roof from mere association. And I guess all the more typical “Average Joe” type readers who have been contacting me about my book to heap praise on it could all be lying to for some unknown motive. And I’m not talking about friends and family members. I’m talking about total strangers who shelled out their hard-earned money, including a regular poster on these very forums. Now, I certainly realize that even the worst poker book ever written probably has an occasional rabid fan. Or maybe all these readers are so uninformed that they can't distinguish good info from bad info so they have all been tricked by me into thinking that it is good, but it is actually bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't help your cause even though your passion for your work is impressive. But do keep in mind that on page 174 of Professional Poker you wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
After my own books, the next best ones are usually anything that Two Plus Two Publishing puts out. That is the book company run by Mason Malmuth and David Sklansky.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have a lot of nerve to make a statement like this given that, as far as I can tell, your other two books don't even exist yet.

So you're complaining about my neutral comment concerning your book when I haven't finished it, and yet apparently it's alright for you to make comments comparing our books to your yet to exist books.

Now with all this being said, I will eventually finish and then write a review of your book (along with some others). Also, there are many active poker book readers who participate in this forum and I'm sure that in time Professional Poker as well as your yet to exist other books will get plenty of comments here, and you'll be treated fairly.

As for your comment about whether your book could still be worthwhile even if all it does is cover material that has already been writtem, the answer is, of course it can. But you clearly state in the beginning of your text that it includes much material not yet written up in the poker literature, and based on the 100 pages that I've read, I haven't seen it yet.

The thing I do want to point out to our readers is that your book does not contain any incredibe run-on paragrphs like your posts do. It is written much better than what you have posted here, and I have not yet run into any convoluted type logic similar to your defense of Ciaffone and Brier. If I did, well, my comments towards your work would have been very negative.

One final comment. You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Don’t get me wrong. I, as someone who has read a lot of poker books, really most value the poker books that have any even small tidbit of new info, no matter how poorly written a poker book is or how badly flawed much of the other material in the book is.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is what you think, you're going to have a lot of problems dealing with us at Two Plus Two. You're essentially saying that a book that will cause you to lose all your money if you follow its advice, but that still contains something unique or useful is a good book. A book like that can only have value to a top notch player who can seperate the good from the bad. I suspect that the vast majority of players who purchase poker books for the purpose of learning how to play are not yet at this level.

One final thought. You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
And if you want to rip into me or rally the troops on this forum to do so regarding my post about Middle Limit Holdem, I guess that’s fair, but I hope that I’ve clarified my position on those things so at least all the posters on this forum know exactly what they are ripping into.


[/ QUOTE ]

When I see certain types of badly flawed thinking, I really don't need to see much else. You need to get over being upset with my comments and try to think through exactly what I'm saying and exactly how your thinking needs to be reworked. By doing so it's almost a certainty that your yet to exist other books can be written much better than they are slated to be (assuming that they haven't already gone to the printer). It may be tough for you to accept, and it may be emotionally difficult for you to handle, but that one paragraph is all I needed to see.

Kepp in mind that we at Two Plus Two have supported other books not done by us which are clearly good books. (King Yao's recent effort is a current example.) We have nothing against you and wish you success in the future.

Best wishes,
Mason

[buck_thunder]

WOW!!! I have never really seen Mason get so apparently frustrated with a poster. It is quite entertaining.

Mason, I am sooo used to you politeness I was LMAO when I read your post. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Mark, dude you are too long winded. I got tired of reading you ridiculously long post and now I don't even know why Mason is so frustrated with you. Well, besides the fact that you compare yourself to the genius of 2+2 publishing. LOL. LOL. I can't stop laughing about that one. LOL.

WOW. Go on with your bad self Mason!!