|
|
#43
06-07-2005, 03:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
[ QUOTE ]
All manuscripts that we publish go through a very tough and rigorous review process and nothing gets published unless we are sure that it is very accurate. [/ QUOTE ] It is obviously true that 2+2 books are more consistent in quality than others, particularly those of your main rival. For example SS2 and the Cloutier/McEvoy/Daugherty books contain some very good material as well as some questionable material. It is not just a matter of editing of language, which you have pointed out, but the whole editorial process. Now Rolf's criticisms of SSHE seem fairly nit picky. If this is all he can come up with, it is obviously a good book. I don't see why such critisms need to be answered by the publisher. I also don't see the argument that these critisms are invalid. It seems that it is possible that 2+2 books have flaws, as well as inconsistencies from one to another. 
|
|
#44
06-07-2005, 04:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
[ QUOTE ]
It is obviously true that 2+2 books are more consistent in quality than others [/ QUOTE ] I agree - so let's just close this thread in this nice & friendly manner. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] One more thing though, regarding the ratings. I probably use a slightly different rating system than most others do (definitely different than Mason's ratings), more in line I guess with the 10-point rating system that is used on schools in Europe. This means that a book that gets a rating of a 6 is judged by me as "some good stuff, but probably quite a bit of bad information as well - so read with care, and don't take everything for granted". A rating of 7.5 / 8 is the dividing line for being really recommended. I never give 10's or 1's because a 10 would imply the books are the best ever, cannot possibly be improved, not ever, while a 1 would imply worst book ever, nothing good in it, everything is absolutely horrible. Now, in my view not a single published poker book is either that good or that bad - at least, so far no rated book has been that good or bad yet. This means that almost all books can be found in the 5.5 - 8.5 range, and if you look carefully (both at these ratings, and the *reasonings* behind them) you will find which books -in my opinion- are really great or just marginally good. Another thing is that I try to not rate a book just on a simple scale of good and bad, but I also try to analyze if for specific groups these books may be helpful. While I understand that for most of the (more experienced) people on 2+2 some books may have no valuable information whatsoever, I have given a few somewhat simple books on both tournaments and cash games (for instance, the book by Ken Buntjer, the hold'em book by Ken Warren and the Fundamental Secrets book by Mike Caro) a fairly decent rating, because in my view they actually serve a purpose: they are *very* easy to read for people who are relatively new, and are a decent step up to some of the more advanced works, possibly from 2+2. The fact that in some of these works there may be some (or even a lot of) flaws, does not take away the fact that these books offer information that is usually decent enough and much easier to digest than other books that are aimed at beginners but that require much more basic knowledge of the game. Also, I usually try to take into account the (again, rather subjective) fact whether a book is relevant and / or offers information that can still give you an edge over people who have *not* read it. (For this reason, I have given the once ground-breaking books SS1 and Caro's Book of Tells a fairly marginal rating - even though the objective quality of both works should not changed over the years.) Again, you will find that none of the books that according to some of you are overrated get a rating of more than a 7.5 - and the way I do things, a rating of a 7 or less means that there are almost always some important things I don't like about the book. I am the first to admit though that this rating system is far from perfect, because simple, no-nonsense books now sometimes get a rating that is very close to books that are much more analytical, and sometimes even much better. But any rating system has its problems. For instance, if I remember correctly, Mason rates Ken Buntjer's book as a 1, while giving Sylvester Suzuki's book a 6 - now it should be clear that Suzuki's book is not six times as good as Buntjer's - if at all. And if I am correct, Mason also gives Reuben & Ciaffone's big-bet book a very generous rating of a 10 - now, even though I like this book a lot, there *is* a bit of questionable advice as well, and the pieces written by Mr. Reuben are often hard to follow - so for these reasons alone, I would never give this book a rating that would imply "stunning, perfect, could not be better". But as I said, my own ratings are far from perfect as well, and for those who only look at the figures of the ratings without looking at my words in the review, it will be very easy to say: Look, he rates books that are deemed trash almost as high as some of the best books in the world - what kind of clown is that? Anyway, even with all these imperfections, I always try to be as objective as I can, as difficult as this sometimes is - yes in an, as Mason has said, "sincere" manner. Now, I hope that some of you guys indeed judge it as such. Anyway, hope that this post was long enough to get you guys all sleepy - so that indeed we can close off this thread. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] Rolf Slotboom www.rolfslotboom.com
|
|
#45
06-07-2005, 05:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It is obviously true that 2+2 books are more consistent in quality than others [/ QUOTE ] I agree - so let's just close this thread in this nice & friendly manner. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] One more thing though, regarding the ratings. I probably use a slightly different rating system than most others do (definitely different than Mason's ratings), more in line I guess with the 10-point rating system that is used on schools in Europe. [/ QUOTE ] Well, in France they grade on 20, but then again, they seem to take pride in being different about things, even when it isn't necessarily better or more logical. BTW, I'd just like to comment that I wish your reviews would be a little deeper than they are. By that, I mean that when discussing SSH for example, your comments are quite general overall, despite giving it the second highest grade to date. You only really go into detail when you discuss the three points you took issue with. In fact those points easily take up 2/3rds of the entire review space. This ends up giving an odd impression since most of the review is spent criticizing the book, yet it ends up with the second highest grade to date. It would be nice to know what parts you thought were best as well as why, to deserve such high praise. Will you be reviewing King Yao's Weighing the Odds in Hold'em? Albert
|
|
#46
06-07-2005, 07:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
Hi Rolf:
I have read your explanation very carefully and hope that you take very seriously what I'm about to say. The problem with your approach is that books will now be recommended and are being recommended that will cost their users all their money if they choose to follow their advice long enough. Books that are easy to read, or nicely presented, or have a pretty cover, etc., can still be terrible books when it comes to your money. In fact, in many cases if they teach incorrect strategy that can be hard to break, they can even be a level below terrible. So in my opinion, you are doing your readers a major disservice with this approach. My advice (to you) is to reconsider and understand exactly how the given strategies in some of these books will affect the bankrolls of the people who may choose to read them. If the advice will cause the bankrolls of these potential readers to shrink, then I believe that you are doing your readers a diservice. By the way, if poor reviews makes you unpopular with some of these authors, then so be it. Best wishes, Mason PS: I too agree that the Suzuki book is not 6 times better than the Bunjter. The Suzuki book will enable its followers to play certain small stakes tournaments, especially those with progressive buy-ins, with a positive expectation. I believe the Buntjer book will turn your expectation negative in all forms of tournaments. That makes the difference much greater than 6.
|
|
#47
06-08-2005, 12:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another Slotboom Misconception
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, in many cases if they teach incorrect strategy that can be hard to break, they can even be a level below terrible. [/ QUOTE ] Rolf, I have enjoyed reading your writings on plo for several years and respect you a great deal. I hope however, that you take this point that Mason has made. Just because some of those books are easy to digest for a beginner and do give him a moderate edge over the unschooled, Mason's point about getting into hard to break habits, especially those that affect one's strategic view of things, can really lead to losing a great deal of money when later that beginner moves up to play with even better players, but has not acheieved the competence to be able to tell the good from bad advice in books because once having read such a work, he does not continue to study other works and re-evaluate what previously seemed good advice. Regarding your comments on Reuben & Ciaffone's book, I think Mason's rating is correct, it is simply the best overall book on big bet poker, especially the sections dealing with betting and pot management. Also, Mason's review of it in which he stated that he wished the authors had shared more secrets they seemed to be holding back, always refelected my sentiments as well. Nonetheless, it is a treasure trove, and if a thinking player analyzes it in detail he will deduce many of those secrets. Regarding Reuben's writing, he may not be as accomplished as Ciaffone, but just as 2+2 writers have stated that they are not primarily professional writers but poker theorists using writing as a teaching medium, such writing still is able to impart valuable advice even if it is not as polished as it could be. Finally, regarding the issue of whether you did or not attack the integrity of 2+2 authors, please keep in mind that Mason was referring to your comment about how David Sklansky would know about whether it was possible to make a certain amount multitabling online. This in fact was an attack on his integrity, as he would not have stated it without being able to prove it, even if such proof was not based on his own playing experience at that level, since that is not the only way to know either theoretically or empirically that such a thing is possible, and even if he did not give the proof of same in that writing, since such explanations of all such statements would undoubtedly lead to having to print much larger works. The point is whether it is an accurate statement, which I know it to be, not how such proof is derived or whether it is demonstrated in that context.
|
|
#48
06-08-2005, 04:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Advice for Rolf and Mason
Well...this has indeed turned out to be an interesting thread.
Somewhat reminiscent of the whole Lee Jones vs. S&M war that broke out last year....but not quite as nasty thankfully. I do agree with most of the comments made by Tipper. I do think Mason is over-reacting a bit here and that his personal attacks on Rolf were worse than any attacks Rolf had on S&M&M. The bit about whether Rolf even bothered to read it struck me as especially and unnecessarily nasty. I also wonder why a non-2+2 author who is critical of 2+2 works is subject to much harsher criticism and sometimes even personal attacks more than some random 2+2 poster. Some guy comes on here and says, "I don't SSHE works. Here's why I think the concepts are bad" and then Ed comes on and calmly explains one aspect or another about which they were confused. An author comes on and perhaps says that SSHE doesn't apply for whatever reason and they practically get told something along the lines of, "well...if you had bothered to even read the book you would see...." I also noticed that Ed seemed to be very professional and polite in his acceptance of Rolf's criticisms. He specifically addressed one of them and even said that it was a point that troubled him some. Ed then thanked Rolf for the otherwise glowing review. Ed obviously doesn't share Mason's view on attacking back at those who have some criticisms of him. ---------------------------------- Rolf is not the first one to have asked about the whole $50k/yr bit and 'how would david know'. I agree it's not the smartest statement in the world...but am just pointing out that he's not the first to have asked this. ---------------------- Rolf somewhere in there said that almost all of the books that he rates fall between 5.5 and 8.5. This means that he isn't REALLY rating them on a 1-10 scale. He is rating them on a 5.5-8.5 scale which is just silly. I mean...I could write a poker book that is just one page and says, "Play tight and aggressive and you'll win lots of money eventually." How would this rate? It's accurate. The advice I give certainly isn't terrible. But will it help you become a winning player? Of course not since I'm not showing you how to do that. Thus, even though my 'book' is completely, 100% accurate this book would deserve a rating of 1 since it has no practical value whatsoever (maybe 1.5 just for the humor of creating such a short book). Basically...the book just flat-out is NOT worth buying...so rate it a 1. The mcEvoy and Cloutier book has some cute little anecdotes scattered about it...but the actual poker advice is pretty bad in places. It will not really help your game. There's a good chance it will hurt your game. More to the point...it's NOT worth buying. Since it just flat-out isn't worth buying I believe that Mason was correct to rate it a 1. SSHE I give a 9 to 9.5. I too am reluctant to give out 10's when I see possible ways that I believe it can still be improved (just my own opinion obviously). For SSHE I think cleaning up the 'flow' in some places might be helpful. Foot-noted passages that are 12 lines long and have to be continued on the next page do NOT flow very well. There are just too many damned foot-notes in the book and I don't like it (for whatever that is worth....I'm not sure many people care one way or the other). Otherwise, it helped my game a ton obviously and I would recommend it to anyone who wants to be a winning poker player. I have not read the Rolf review on SSHE except for a few quoted passages here. I do agree that if he thinks so positively about it then most of the write-up should have been about everything that he LIKES about it.
|
|
#49
06-08-2005, 05:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Advice for Rolf and Mason
I've been posting on this forum a whole 5 minutes (fig. speaking) and Ed Miller seems like a class act. He takes every criticism on board about SSHE and personally I can't wait to get my copy. (it's in the post!)
Here's to you Ed (raises Beer), if I ever meet ya the beers are on me mate. Cheers, SDM [ QUOTE ] Well...this has indeed turned out to be an interesting thread. Somewhat reminiscent of the whole Lee Jones vs. S&M war that broke out last year....but not quite as nasty thankfully. I do agree with most of the comments made by Tipper. I do think Mason is over-reacting a bit here and that his personal attacks on Rolf were worse than any attacks Rolf had on S&M&M. The bit about whether Rolf even bothered to read it struck me as especially and unnecessarily nasty. I also wonder why a non-2+2 author who is critical of 2+2 works is subject to much harsher criticism and sometimes even personal attacks more than some random 2+2 poster. Some guy comes on here and says, "I don't SSHE works. Here's why I think the concepts are bad" and then Ed comes on and calmly explains one aspect or another about which they were confused. An author comes on and perhaps says that SSHE doesn't apply for whatever reason and they practically get told something along the lines of, "well...if you had bothered to even read the book you would see...." I also noticed that Ed seemed to be very professional and polite in his acceptance of Rolf's criticisms. He specifically addressed one of them and even said that it was a point that troubled him some. Ed then thanked Rolf for the otherwise glowing review. Ed obviously doesn't share Mason's view on attacking back at those who have some criticisms of him. ---------------------------------- Rolf is not the first one to have asked about the whole $50k/yr bit and 'how would david know'. I agree it's not the smartest statement in the world...but am just pointing out that he's not the first to have asked this. ---------------------- Rolf somewhere in there said that almost all of the books that he rates fall between 5.5 and 8.5. This means that he isn't REALLY rating them on a 1-10 scale. He is rating them on a 5.5-8.5 scale which is just silly. I mean...I could write a poker book that is just one page and says, "Play tight and aggressive and you'll win lots of money eventually." How would this rate? It's accurate. The advice I give certainly isn't terrible. But will it help you become a winning player? Of course not since I'm not showing you how to do that. Thus, even though my 'book' is completely, 100% accurate this book would deserve a rating of 1 since it has no practical value whatsoever (maybe 1.5 just for the humor of creating such a short book). Basically...the book just flat-out is NOT worth buying...so rate it a 1. The mcEvoy and Cloutier book has some cute little anecdotes scattered about it...but the actual poker advice is pretty bad in places. It will not really help your game. There's a good chance it will hurt your game. More to the point...it's NOT worth buying. Since it just flat-out isn't worth buying I believe that Mason was correct to rate it a 1. SSHE I give a 9 to 9.5. I too am reluctant to give out 10's when I see possible ways that I believe it can still be improved (just my own opinion obviously). For SSHE I think cleaning up the 'flow' in some places might be helpful. Foot-noted passages that are 12 lines long and have to be continued on the next page do NOT flow very well. There are just too many damned foot-notes in the book and I don't like it (for whatever that is worth....I'm not sure many people care one way or the other). Otherwise, it helped my game a ton obviously and I would recommend it to anyone who wants to be a winning poker player. I have not read the Rolf review on SSHE except for a few quoted passages here. I do agree that if he thinks so positively about it then most of the write-up should have been about everything that he LIKES about it. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#50
06-10-2005, 12:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
These are moderators?
I own many 2+2 books and will continue to purchase them because they are quite valuable to me.
But the way Sklansky and Malmuth conduct their message board blows my mind. I've been active on dozens of Internet message forums and mailing lists (covering a variety of subjects) since 1990. This is the only one I've ever seen where the moderators actually start threads for the sole purpose of inciting a personal argument.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
