The First Edition Is Poor

[rescuehfd]

I could not disagree more! I thiught it was very good and will continue to improve. The way I see it, the more articles about our game the better. Keep up the good work Mason and Crew, I look forward to your future issues.

Eric

[partygirluk]

Hi Mason,

I thought the first edition was disappointing and I have never called you a snake oil salesman.

There were many mediocre articles. 1 very bad article. A couple of good ones. Nothing penetrative. DS's article was nothing new, and could have been written by lesser poker minds than his.

The average standard was much better than Cardplayers. However, DN's articles in CP are better IMHO than anything in edition 1.

I think the general standard was too basic for my liking. I would quite like to say "play this hand with me" with DS and RZ, so we can see how a great poker mind works.

[cpk]

I wasn't overly impressed with the whole magazine, but I think the point-counterpoint between Jim and Ed was superlative and raises the bar for poker journalism. I look forward to more of the same.

Then again, perhaps my opinion is colored by the high quality of opinion and advice already available on 2+2. In some cases, this magazine seems redundant.

[andyfox]

In particular, Dr. Al's article provoked much thought and discussion and Jim Brier's comments about Ed's book, and Ed's cogent response were all far better than most anything I've read in any other poker magazine.

[SlantNGo]

Anything Ed writes is far better than anything I've read in a poker magazine.

[ QUOTE ]
Ed's cogent response were all far better than most anything I've read in any other poker magazine.

[/ QUOTE ]

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the other magazines out there: You have a long way to go to catch up with cardplayer. You know it and I know it. So do the best that you can and let us hope it is good enough. I am sure it will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok take the top 11 columns in Cardplayer this month and compare them to the 11 columns here. So which columns are you choosing out of Cardplayer? BTW I fully expect that you'll come up with some B.S. instead of actually coming up with some Cardplayer columns.

[Al Mirpuri]

If you want me to do something for you...then ask nicely.

[Tom Bayes]

I'm more positive than Mirpuri about Issue #1, but he's entitled to an opinion without being flamed.

Here's my take on Issue #1, comparing to CardPlayer magazine. I personally enjoyed 8 of the 11 articles in Issue #1, which is a higher rate than any issue of CardPlayer magazine. Even the articles I did not enjoy (Adams, Young, Sillers) are nowhere near as bad as the worst articles from CardPlayer. I even got a few chuckles from Granny Mae's humor column, although I could see how others might not have enjoyed it.

Too many CardPlayer articles are just shilling something and have no useful content. Any CardPlayer article written by Max Shapiro, Robert Varkonyi, Scott Fischman, or any Shulman is virtually unreadable. I've learned my lesson about reading any of the "cover" stories by Allyn Jaffrey Shulman, where I can learn how such people as Men the Master are comparable to Mother Theresa. Hellmuth articles are usually worth a read just for the unintentional comedy.

The best part of Issue #1 of the 2+2 magazine was the Brier/Miller set of articles. I feel that this idea (have a known poker authority talk about some differences of opinion with a 2+2 author, followed by that author's rebuttal) would be a great feature for every issue. I'd also like to see more articles that are mathematically based and would never appear in something like CardPlayer.

[imported_Robert Andersson]

I really enjoy reading this magazine. The article on positon is great!!!

Enjoy

/Robert