Internet Texas Hold'em: Poker Concepts II (pg 51-72) - Page 4

jeffnc · #31 10-25-2004, 05:17 PM

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

[/ QUOTE ]

This comment is ambiguous since you quote me directly, yet refer to "you guys". As you can read, the premise of my comment was "if this is true", which obviously means I don't know if it is or not. Regarding the other comment Mason made with regard to Hilger's comment about the chance of someone folding on the flop to a raise being "clearly wrong", I stand by my comment. Mason missed the mark in that part of his critique. Otherwise, I'm glad to have my understanding corrected that there are not other books highly rated. I am curious about one thing though - after a cursory look around this web site, I couldn't find the book reviews. After his and your comments about the reviews being in his book, how can we read them if we don't buy the book?

pastabatman · #32 10-25-2004, 05:18 PM

I feel like a fool for thinking this would work. Whatever you may think of the accusations and whatnot, I think most would agree this thread in firmly entrenched in a rathole. And we're not even into the really good chapters yet.

It's fine to bring up these issues, but why not do it in a separate thread? Many of us were hoping to enhance our reading experience and poker knowledge - not much of that going on. Sigh.

Anybody up for starting this over again over at Hilger's website?

Pasta

Ed Miller · #33 10-25-2004, 05:56 PM

This comment is ambiguous since you quote me directly, yet refer to "you guys". As you can read, the premise of my comment was "if this is true", which obviously means I don't know if it is or not.

Sorry, but I lumped you in with others who make a similar critique of Mason's reviews. As for your "if this is true," qualification, you have to be REALLY careful, because you could use that to justify any ridiculous accusation. For instance:

I am given to understand that El Diablo pile drives little children and takes their lunch money. If that's true, I find it abhorrent.

Technically, I guess I committed to nothing. But I planted an idea and started a rumor (hopefully [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]). You can't just run around saying stuff and then qualifying it by saying, "I could be wrong."

I'm just responding to the rumor that Mason trashes every non-2+2 book. It's nonsense, and it takes ten seconds to verify it. People seem more interested in spreading the rumor than actually reading his reviews.

I am curious about one thing though - after a cursory look around this web site, I couldn't find the book reviews. After his and your comments about the reviews being in his book, how can we read them if we don't buy the book?

He posts his reviews to the forum as he writes them. I found a repository of many of them here. If you want all of them, you'll either have to search a lot or read them in GTaoT.

EDIT: BTW, please don't take my mini-rant personally. It isn't really directed at you (as you noted with the "you guys" reference). When I was learning poker, I used Mason's reviews to guide me to the best material available, and I feel that's exactly what they did... 2+2 and non-2+2 books alike.

As with any reviewer, he has his personal slants/perspectives. For him, he spends a lot more time discussing mathematical or logical problems than other reviewers might. This isn't a weakness... it's a strength, as this is an area that is neglected by many other reviewers. It also so happens that most books have mathematical or logical problems. That isn't Mason's fault... don't kill the messenger.

jeffnc · #34 10-25-2004, 09:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just responding to the rumor that Mason trashes every non-2+2 book. It's nonsense, and it takes ten seconds to verify it. People seem more interested in spreading the rumor than actually reading his reviews.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point about rumors is well taken. What I called a "cursory" look was actually more like 20 minutes searching the forum and the web site, and I never could find it (or any others). So for what it's worth I really did try to verify it first and unless I'm a total idiot, it couldn't be done in 10 seconds. But thanks for clearing that up for me, and the link - I have bookmarked it.

gusly · #35 10-25-2004, 10:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the other comment Mason made with regard to Hilger's comment about the chance of someone folding on the flop to a raise being "clearly wrong", I stand by my comment. Mason missed the mark in that part of his critique.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the passage cited by Mason was not clearly wrong, any ideas why Hilger removed it from the revised edition of ITH?

jeffnc · #36 10-26-2004, 01:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If the passage cited by Mason was not clearly wrong, any ideas why Hilger removed it from the revised edition of ITH?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that he did. If he did, it might be because, like I said, it was a weak statement. Not because it's wrong, but because it's obvious or just not that helpful. Kind of like saying "If you don't have the nut flush, there's a chance you'll lose to a better flush." Maybe he realized the statement would be better with more explanation, and the extra wordiness was unappropriate there. But it would probably be best to ask him, not me.

theredwave · #37 10-26-2004, 01:52 AM

Can we start a new thread for this discussion? Or possibly let Mason deal with his plagiarism accusations in the correct way by contacting Hilger or taking legal action instead of posting them on a forum for all to see? I just want to hear some poker discussion about this book. I have no problems with people pointing out some of Hilger's conceptual mistakes as long as they explain. I know some people have to have something good to say about Hilger's concepts. Or should the book club just move on to the next section?

gusly · #38 10-26-2004, 02:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the passage cited by Mason was not clearly wrong, any ideas why Hilger removed it from the revised edition of ITH?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that he did. If he did, it might be because, like I said, it was a weak statement. Not because it's wrong, but because it's obvious or just not that helpful. Kind of like saying "If you don't have the nut flush, there's a chance you'll lose to a better flush." Maybe he realized the statement would be better with more explanation, and the extra wordiness was unappropriate there. But it would probably be best to ask him, not me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I don't think I need to ask him. The revision he made to his book is evidence enough that he realized there was a substantial problem with his statement.

Going back to the basics in writing, it's not a good idea to make an absolute statement like "x works best when y=z" unless you have the goods to back it up on all fronts. This is the form of the sentence in question, assuming that Mason's quote is an exact quote.

Clearly, Hilger realized the problem, probably after reading Mason's review, and changed that section. I don't have the 1st Edition, so I don't know how extensive the changes are, but that sentence has been expunged.

The concept put forth in the Revised Edition is in the more general form of a relative statement which is, "when y=z, there's more incentive to try x, but be aware that x might backfire."

Obviously Hilger realized the statement was wrong and revised his book. What you seem to be doing is reading between the lines and applying your knowledge to overcome the incorrect and misleading form of that sentence. A poker novice might not be as fortunate.

gusly

P.S. Baghdad Bob needs your assistance.

jeffnc · #39 10-26-2004, 09:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, I don't think I need to ask him. The revision he made to his book is evidence enough that he realized there was a substantial problem with his statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry you're wrong. It doesn't mean there was a "substantial" problem with the statement, and it doensn't mean the statement was wrong. Author's look for improvements all the time, be they substantial or subtle. And saying there is "a problem" with the statement is not the same thing as saying it's "clearly wrong". It's not wrong. If Matthew read Mason's review and decided to improve the text, then kudos to Matthew for doing so. It would be arrogant for an author to hear criticism and then fail to review his statements objectively. On the other hand, I'm sure Matthew has made numerous changes on his own after time. To suggest that Matthew doesn't understand the difference between a free card play and a semi-bluff is absurd. Matthew used the phrase "some chance". Mason replied that the statement is wrong, for one, because it "almost never" happens. That is also absurd. (If we assume it "almost never" happens, that in no way makes the statement wrong.) I have the first edition, and that statement appears at the end of a rather lengthy explanation of what might happen when you raise in last position with a flush draw. There is very little "reading between the lines" required. It is explained that getting reraised is a possibility, and your opponent(s) folding is a possibility. If the statement was removed, it could simply be that the whole paragraph was reworked, for whatever reason. If it's as important to you as it appears to be, you could simply ask Matthew for the reason.

As to why the rumor about the book reviews got started, I don't know. Maybe it has to do with the type of books involved. All the higher rated books seem not to be limit books. Maybe this was the highest rated non-2+2 book on limit poker.

MEbenhoe · #40 10-26-2004, 10:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Or possibly let Mason deal with his plagiarism accusations in the correct way by contacting Hilger or taking legal action instead of posting them on a forum for all to see?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm this is Mason's forum, and I'm pretty sure he can write about whatever he wants on it. Also, as has been stated multiple times by now Mason never said he wanted to take legal action, and that he just thought some credit should have been given where due. This seems like a pretty valid reason to me.