Internet Texas Hold'em: Poker Concepts II (pg 51-72)

[gusly]

[ QUOTE ]
When I worked in the computer industry, indeed much of science is like this, ideas are built upon idea.

I just don't think that the paragraphs are close enough to be considered plagiarism. Mason says that the example was taken from a hand he played in 1986. Is that the only time that this hand was played? Perhaps, I don't know...


[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree with you guys on this. The paragraph is just too different, even though the conceptual thrust is very similar.

Hilger lists HPFAP as recommended reading at the back of ITH, so he's obviously studied the book and applied the concepts. The problem I have with the charge of plagiarism in this case is that once you truly "learn" the concept, the concept is internalized. So it would be more work for the author (assuming a certain level of intelligence) to sit down with another author's work and go through the effort to lift his paragraph and change so many details. It would be much more simple and easy to write it yourself.

Maybe Hilger looked at the example in HPFAP and thought to himself, "I need an example like that in my book." But who here doubts that Hilger would know how to play these cards and explain why, if you just picked the cards out of a deck with no book in sight?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi MEbenhoe:

I don't object to this book being discussed here. But I did want it known that when I said it had lifted much information directly from other sources that I was accurate with my comments. I do believe it took more from Middle Limit Hold 'em than our stuff.

By the way, I wouldn't object if the author of ITH would have given credit where credit was due. For example, in the example I cite, if Hilger would have written "The following example is very similar to one that appears on page xxx in HPFAP..." I would have no objection.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Rowdy:

What I'm saying is that Hilger should have given more credit where credit is due. That would have made his book better and give him more credibility both as a person and an author. Perhaps he will do this in a future edition and then I won't have a problem.

Also notice that we have been allowing him to advertise on these forums and the type of ad that he purchases is not one in which we make a lot of money from. So Hilger is being treated fairly here.

Finally, I did rate his book a 7 on my 1-to-10 scale. That's because it does have some conceptual errors in it. The rating was not lowered because of my other complaints.

Here's another example of a conceptual error in this section. On page 63 Hilger writes

[ QUOTE ]
Trying for free cards works best when there is some chance that your opponents will fold, since you now have two ways for your raise to be successful.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, this statement is clearly wrong. Players who are already in for one bet on the flop almost never fold for one more bet. (He states on the previous page "In Hold'em, you normally try for a free card by either betting or raising on the flop..." so he is clearly addressing the flop.)

Second, even if they did, you would still be better off against someone who always called but easily gave a free card as opposed to someone who might occasionally fold but who would frequently reraise.

Second, I think Hilger confused the concept of semi-bluffing, where there should be some chance your opponent will fold, with the idea of a free card.

By the way, it is not my purpose to go through non-Two Plus Two books and point out errors like this one. It is a lot of work and doesn't benefit our company. But I have no objection if some of our posters wish to do this or discuss a book in other ways.

Best wishes,
Mason

[gusly]

Funnily enough, I just went looking for some new music to accompany my poker playing, I stumbled across an example of plagiarism.

If you're bored or curious here it is. First I went to allmusic.com and read Geoff Ginsberg's review

AMG Review of Bad Co. Anthology

then I went to Amazon to buy, and skimmed the second review on the page from September 3, 2003 by Anders Jensen

Amazon Reviews of Bad Co. Anthology

I did a double take. They're different, but there's no doubt one of them copied from the other, or somebody else.

(BTW, why I would consider this music "new" is beyond the scope of this board, so please don't flame me.)

[gusly]

[ QUOTE ]

Here's another example of a conceptual error in this section. On page 63 Hilger writes

[ QUOTE ]
Trying for free cards works best when there is some chance that your opponents will fold, since you now have two ways for your raise to be successful.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, this statement is clearly wrong. Players who are already in for one bet on the flop almost never fold for one more bet. (He states on the previous page "In Hold'em, you normally try for a free card by either betting or raising on the flop..." so he is clearly addressing the flop.)

Second, even if they did, you would still be better off against someone who always called but easily gave a free card as opposed to someone who might occasionally fold but who would frequently reraise.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,

Which edition of ITH do you have? Or do you have a bound galley? I got my copy two weeks ago, and it's the "Revised First Edition" ISBN 0-9741502-0-7. I don't see that quote, and what I see actually reads more like what you said:

"The problem with trying for free cards is that sometimes the strategy backfires if an opponent either reraises or comes out betting on the turn."

Maybe Hilger made some significant changes to the book and didn't publish as the 2nd Edition like Jones did with WLLH? For those who are participating in the book club, this might cause some confusion...

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, I did rate his book a 7 on my 1-to-10 scale. That's because it does have some conceptual errors in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is my understanding that this is the highest rating a non-2+2 book has gotten. If this is true, then it leaves you in a very comfortable position. The books that are best have copied the most from 2+2 books. When he's similar, he's correct, but it's plagiarism. When he's different, he doesn't know what he's talking about. The implication is that everything worth writing about has already been written in a 2+2 book, in one form or another.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Trying for free cards works best when there is some chance that your opponents will fold, since you now have two ways for your raise to be successful.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, this statement is clearly wrong. Players who are already in for one bet on the flop almost never fold for one more bet. (He states on the previous page "In Hold'em, you normally try for a free card by either betting or raising on the flop..." so he is clearly addressing the flop.)

Second, even if they did, you would still be better off against someone who always called but easily gave a free card as opposed to someone who might occasionally fold but who would frequently reraise.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not "clearly" wrong, and what he wrote is not inconsistent with what you just wrote. Just because someone in for one bet "almost never" folds to a raise doesn't imply that it's wrong that there's "some chance" that he will, or that it's not good if he does. (I have seen it happen many times, which is not to say most of the time.) And just because someone might reraise does not imply that it's bad that they sometimes fold. You would not trade a 10% chance of someone folding for a 50% chance they might reraise, and he doesn't claim any such thing. He claims that it's better if there is "some chance" they will fold than if there's no chance, period. It's a pretty weak statement taken at face value, but that doesn't make it wrong.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
It is my understanding that this is the highest rating a non-2+2 book has gotten.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is as far as I got in your post. It is amazing however that this does come up every now and then. All my reviews are currently published in the the 2004 edition of my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics. If you look at it, you will see that there are many non-Two Plus Two books that have ratings higher than a 7.

MM

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi gusly:

That's interesting. My edition is the First Edition. I did not know another edition was out.

Below is my review of ITH. In the review I just happened to mention this same example. Could it be that Hilger read my review and made the fix?

Best wishes,
Mason

Internet Texas Hold ’em; Winning Strategies from an Internet Pro (7) by Mathew Hilger. This text consists of chapters on various subjects such as poker concepts, starting hands, flop play, and so on which includes discussion of concepts followed by numerous hand examples. So in this sense it is similar to Middle Limit Hold’em by Ciaffone and Brier except that Higler does a better job with the sample hands. Specifically the hands described are played more realistically and are not flawed with constant recommendations to fold in close situations.

The reason I don’t rate it higher is that there are, in my opinion, some errors in the text. For example, on page 63 we find “Trying for free cards works best when there is some chance that your opponents will fold, since you now have two ways for your raise to be successful.” The problem here is that buying a free card, as the author points out, is essentially a flop play, and it is very unusual for someone to bet the flop and then fold for one small bet.

Some of his starting hand advice is also questionable, particularly if there has already been a raise. While the author recognizes that you need to tighten up quite a bit if there is a raise, he still has you routinely calling with ace-queen offsuit which is clearly a mistake against players requiring good hands to make it two bets. And from the big blind he writes: “Other hands to consider calling against a lone early or middle position raiser include: TT, 99, and two suited T and above, AQ, AJ, AT, Axs, KQ, K9s, QJ, and QT.” When I’m in this spot, most of these hands will quickly hit the muck.

I also question some of his comparisons to live play. For instance, the author states in many spots that players on the Internet bluff more. While this might be true, I also get the impression (from reading the book) that Hilger’s live play experience is limited, especially at middle and higher limits. So if you’re an experienced live game player, who’s giving the Internet a shot, my advice would be to consider these statements when making your decisions, but not to take them as absolute truths.

Another complaint I have about the book is that many of the ideas and concepts come from other books, yet the author gives virtually no credit to these sources. Many passages in the book are clearly just rewrites of material in either The Theory of Poker or Hold ’em Poker for Advanced Players, and to increase his credibility as a legitimate authority worth listening to, Hilger should have included many appropriate references.

Here’s an example. On page 212 in “The Turn” chapter Hilger writes: “When you are worried that an opponent may have hit upon a draw and he checks, tend to check hands with outs and bet hands with few or no outs. If you are check raised when you have few outs, you can safely fold.” Many of you should recognize that this concept comes out of Hold ’em Poker for Advanced Players. By the way, as Hold ’em Poker for Advanced Players also states: “Tough players will raise on the turn if they hold a mediocre hand that has some potential to become a very strong hand. An example is middle pair on the flop that has now picked up a flush draw. Those of you who automatically fold when raised in these situations are giving up too much.”

[gusly]

[ QUOTE ]
Could it be that Hilger read my review and made the fix?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm. Highly likely, I'd say. He does offer a thank you to "all the poker authors who taught me and challenged me to look at this game from many different perspectives" in the acknowledgement section of my edition of the book, but something like this deserves a more specific mention, IMHO.

[Ed Miller]

It is my understanding that this is the highest rating a non-2+2 book has gotten. If this is true, then it leaves you in a very comfortable position. The books that are best have copied the most from 2+2 books. When he's similar, he's correct, but it's plagiarism. When he's different, he doesn't know what he's talking about. The implication is that everything worth writing about has already been written in a 2+2 book, in one form or another.

Dude, you guys that rip on Mason's book reviews owe him a massive apology. Mason has reviewed hundreds of gambling books, and his reviews are objective, accuarate, and particularly attentive to conceptual and logical problems (an area that most readers are unqualified to evaulate correctly).

It shows how ignorant the arguments are when they say that 7 is the highest score a non-2+2 has gotten. Opening my copy of GTaoT (an old edition, so the reviews aren't up to date) I see the following books:

Super/System - 10
Caro's Book of Tells - 9
Caro's Fundamental Secrets of Poker - 9
Play Poker, Quit Work, Sleep Til Noon - 9
Omaha Hold 'em Poker (Ciaffone) - 9
Improve Your Poker - 9
Pot Limit & No Limit Poker (Rueben & Ciaffone) - 10

These are just the books on the first few pages rated 8 or higher. There are many more after these. None of them are 2+2 books.

It takes Mason thousands of hours to read and review all the books he's covered. He doesn't do it to sell books. He does it mostly as a public service. If I were he, I would have given up on it long ago given the reception he's gotten.

It is true that he's critical of most poker books. But that's because most poker books deserve to be criticized. Period.

Anyway, if you are gonna rag on his reviews, at least have some clue about what you are talking about.