Ed Miller's book "versus" WLLH

[EdSchurr]

Are those the same inflection points that exist where a graph changes from concanve up to concave down or vise versa? How exactly do you make them relate to poker tournaments?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bob:

Our integrity is based on the fact that the material which our company produces is simply top notch. That is it is both accurate and detailed.

We do not try, nor pretend to be, wonderful people or "ambassadors of poker." We speak our minds as we see fit and produce a product that is simply far superior to everything else out there. Years ago David and I set as our goal to produce the best books on topic not only ever written but to ever be written. In addition, we price it reasonably. I'll let you and others be the judge.

I do agree that David's remarks got off the mark. But he also happens to be right. What he was saying, perhaps in a somewhat convoluted way, is that many of the other writers in this field are not expert enough nor understand the underlying principles of the various games well enough to be writing a book about it. In fact, a number of years ago, I told one writer (via letter, and this was not Jones) that he had no business writing a poker book.

This is the way we conduct our business. I believe it is part of the reason why Two Plus Two Publishing LLC has been more successful than any of us involved would have ever thought was possible. It is also the reason why David and I are not always that well liked by other writers, publishers, well known players, etc. in this field. We are not afraid to speak our mind, and we act on our convictions.

It is the reason why new talents like Ed Miller, John Feeney, and Alan Schoonmaker sought us out and became part of the Two Plus Two family. It is also the reason why many other writers in this field have been turned down by us.

Finally, as you point out, we encourage vigorous debate on these forums and certainly don't require posters to agree with us.

Thanks for your support and best wishes,

Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Ed:

I don't want to miss-explain Dan Harrington's book, so I won't address this topic much right here. But the simple answer is no.

As I remember from my Intermediate Differential Equations course many years ago, eigenvalues are specific points where a conventional solution does not apply. In a sense it is like dividing by zero or perhaps a black hole in the sky where the laws of physics as we know them do not apply.

But I do know that Dan Harrington has thought through many of these specific situations in a systematic way probably more so than any top tournament player. Again, I expect this upcoming book to create a sensation among poker players.

Best wishes,
Mason

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
many of the other writers in this field are not expert enough nor understand the underlying principles of the various games well enough to be writing a book about it.

[/ QUOTE ]


i agree
(based on my admittedly limited but rapidly expanding knowledge).


thanks again for the well-thought reply. it has been a pleasure chatting with you on this topic.

at first, i rolled my eyes a bit when i saw that this thread had been revived (but obviously couldn't resist taking a peak).
now i'm actually glad that it was.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Moondog:

You certainly did miss something. In fact, you missed a lot. Ed Miller has put up many posts where he was quite specific about things. You have selected two posts in a vacuum. I would agree with you if only these two posts had appeared. But that certainly was not the case.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,

The other posts that Ed has made are not the point here. Lee said that Ed had posted certain things which were critical of his book and gave specific quotes. You said it never happened.

If you wish to read into what Lee was saying and debate his generalizations, fine. However, that has nothing to do with my post. Please go back and read that post carefully. It is not questioning whether Lee is right or wrong in his views or whether he appreciates the meaning of what Ed has posted in the past. It is merely pointing out the fact that your post was quite simply not true.

Here's a quick outline:
1. Ed makes very specific criticisms of Lee's book. Among many things, these criticisms include that the book is "full of errors" and that certain things are "just plain wrong".
2. Lee posts that he wishes to discuss these criticisms, citing those same exact words.
3. You refer to Lee's post where he mentions the specifics of the criticism and say "none of this ever happened".

It DID happen. You claimed it did not happen. You are either lying or mistaken.

[El Barto]

I find David and Mason's views on the Jones book to be consistent and primarily on the topic of quality of poker advice. Here is Mason's review of LLHE from a 12/20/03 post:

[ QUOTE ]
Winning Low Limit Hold’ em (7) by Lee Jones. Years ago I received a proposal from a then unknown author concerning a book on low limit hold ’em. After reading the offer, which included excerpts from the forth coming work, I quickly rejected it. It was obvious to me that this text was going to contain a huge number of errors and it wasn’t worth our time and effort to take on this type of rewriting project.

Well the book was published by ConJelCo and true to form our expectations were met. In my opinion it was a confused work at best and with the exception of advising new players to play much tighter, it contained much erroneous and misguided advice. Thus we at Two Plus Two were glad that our efforts and energy went into different projects.

But an interesting thing happened. The opinion that David and I had of this text was in the minority. It not only sold well, but was praised by others. However, we stuck to our guns. The text was still badly flawed and we do understand how to play poker well, and despite what others might say, Winning Low Limit Hold ’em would not put you on the path towards winning play. It was that simple.

Of course we were accused of bashing the book because it just might be competitive to our products. Also, we believe that its author may have held some hard feelings towards us at times. But again our opinion was based on our knowledge of poker and hold ’em in particular — nothing more and nothing less.

Anyway, an interesting event has now occurred. Winning Low Limit Hold ’em has been rewritten and a new edition was released in year 2000. Furthermore, this is not a superficial change. Lee Jones even states in the “Introduction to the Second Edition” that it was necessary to make changes. In fact, to quote his words, “I was wrong. There — I said it.” indicates that he took many of the criticisms to heart and produced a much better book (and is now even an occasional contributor to our forums).

For example, part of the problem with the first book was that the author failed to recognize that against many opponents who play too many hands and go to far with them, automatically betting the flop with good (but not great hands) will just assure that many of your opponents are playing correctly. In the second edition, this is now addressed with the emphasis on finding the appropriate strategy so that your opponents will make mistakes instead of accidentally playing correctly.

However, the book still has some problems. For example, Jones continues to stress that when you hold a good hand to get as many bets in on the flop as possible. He doesn’t seem to understand that in loose low limit games where the pots frequently become relatively large that alternate strategies which have the potential to knock players out on a later street are often far superior. Also, by not playing fast on the flop you may save bets if the scare card does come or be able to collect extra double size bets on fourth street.

Another inconsistency is that on one hand the author wants to get as many bets as possible in on the flop to punish the draws but he also recommends that you “bet or raise your draws for value.” Well you can’t have it both ways, and Jones doesn’t seem to recognize the difference.

A final area where this version is still weak has to do with play on the turn and the river. Play on these streets is much more complex that the author seems to realize and correct strategy should often be impacted on what happened earlier in the hand. This “linkage” is an idea that doesn’t seem to ever be considered.

Nevertheless, despite these criticisms, this new edition is a much better work than the original version. If you are new to poker/hold ’em it should be helpful to you, but it probably still needs to be read in conjunction with some of the other/better books on poker and hold ’em in particular.

[/ QUOTE ]

[CollegePlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
does anyone here not see that david is correct?

this isn't your typical "sklansky worship" either, the man is correct!

of course, we all know geniuses that went to state schools and idiots that went to MIT. he's talking about it in terms of if you were to make a bet on it, who would you bet on being correct?

i see no problem with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 50 to 1 longshot.

Would you bet $500 to win $10??

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I was an undergraduate I probably cut as many classes as I went to, and in my four years of college, I never bothered to take notes. However, once in graduate school I discovered things didn't work this way anymore. I suspect you'll eventually have a similar discovery.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's what people all said about eighth grade, high school and college, but I trust you more than them, as you experienced the change yourself.

Thanks for the reply.

And, for what it's worth, I for one think you've remained civil throughout this thread.

-Jman

[/ QUOTE ]


I second Mason's opinions.. When you get to greaduate school and your sitting in classes with people from China, India, Japan, etc. who have been studying everyday for hours on ends, and they have more natural ability than you will, yes, you will have to try, and you know what, you might even try your hardest, and not do as well as you would like. That's when you'll realize you're not as smart as you think you are. You are probably not smarter than your professors. Also, an 800 on the Math SAT doesn't mean what it used to. You're one of many... And oh yeah, those international students I mentioned, they make perfect scores on verbal and quantitative, and they can barely speak english.. go figure. Take some graduate math or physics courses at your school, you will be challenged.. Take some undergrad physics classes and I will assure you that you won't be one of the top two smartest in the class.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi MoonDog:

What didn't happen is the idea that Ed only was vague and used generalities to criticize Jones. That's exactly what the original Jones post that started this thread states. My point is that if you had been following the discussion you would know that Ed was quite specific and detailed in numerous posts. Jones' implication was simply not true and he should have known better.

Best wishes,
Mason

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi MoonDog:

What didn't happen is the idea that Ed only was vague and used generalities to criticize Jones. That's exactly what the original Jones post that started this thread states. My point is that if you had been following the discussion you would know that Ed was quite specific and detailed in numerous posts. Jones' implication was simply not true and he should have known better.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so now his "implication" was not true. Last time around you just made the sweeping statement that "none of this ever happened". That statement of yours was not true, because much of it DID happen. Miller said the exact words that Jones claimed he said. If you want to read into the "implication" of the post, that's entirely different matter, where at least some degree of subjective interpretation would tend to come into play.

That being said, in his original post, Jones never accused Miller of making vague generalizations. He did not say that Miller failed to provide specific examples. He was merely questioning whether the resulting advice in those situations could be objectively declared "right" or "wrong". You seemed to have misunderstood his post. It is understandable that such a misunderstanding could occur if one were to read the thread carelessly, quickly, or even if one were to only read it once. However, before I would attack somebody like this, I would make damn sure I had my facts straight.

I am not debating whether such advice could actually be declared right or wrong. I know I would not be in the ballpark on this. I am not qualified to argue it with the vast majority of people on this forum, much less authors such as Miller and Jones. I am merely reiterating what Jones actually said, as opposed to what you claim he may have implied.

Your statement that "none of this ever happened" was not truthful. Based on what you quoted from Jones's original post, it did indeed happen.

Your new, abridged statement that Jones stated in his original post that "Ed was only vague and used generalities to criticize Jones" was also not true. A careful reading of the post shows that he never did say that.

Again, I am not a Lee Jones apologist, and make not claim that he is right. I sincerely believe, in meager poker mind, that Miller is right where Jones is wrong. However, I feel that he has been unfairly attacked, and that you have made blatently false statements as a part of this attack. In my humble opinion, that is just wrong.

P.S. I respect everything you have done for this business, to much of the time, I respect you. Obviously, as a result of this discussion, I (and many others) have lost a lot of respect for you. Based on your statements, which look suspiciously like self-serving lies, in my mind it calls into question the integrity of all of the other book reviews and author criticism you have made and to which I have listened and believed. If you want to go on some crusade against other poker authors, fine, I really don't care. But keep the gloves up and your facts straight. If you are going to accuse somebody of making false statements, make sure he actually said them.