Ed Miller's book "versus" WLLH

[PseudoPserious]

It's funnier to think of it as a Family Guy joke. I'm going to ignore your post.

PP

[Syntax]

Ed, I thought your explanation was excellent for the most part, but this is a little confusing:

[ QUOTE ]
There are two reasons you should be more willing to check this board (remember, we are discussing what to do on the TURN after betting the flop and getting one or two callers).

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the turn card? Did you mean flop? I dont think it was a typo because you empasized TURN and betting the flop.

If you check the turn and someone bets out on the river is it an automatic fold unless you hit? I think by checking, you are just asking for them to bet on the river with anything.

If you are going to call a river bet, why not just bet the turn and if you get checkraised you can be confident to dump the hand.

If you bet and are called, you can check the river, same amount of bets either way, but you can win an extra one if you hit and you don't leave yourself open to being bluffed out or giving the free river for someone to spike their card.

[David Steele]

Those who think that an MIT graduate would not be much more likely to correctly analyze the profitabiliy of poker plays, (if they put their mind to such a task), than members of the general population, are engaging in wishfull thinking.

Lee is a specific individual, not a sampling of the general population.
It is a prejudicial mistake to assume an MIT graduate is automatically right.

You might be able to correctly conclude that any MIT graduate will be more of an egomaniac.

ps. I also find it particularly small to keep harping on the jackpot note error in his book. It had zero effect on most players.

In terms of costing weak thinking players the most money HPFAP must be in first place even though it is a masterpiece. I'll let others elaborate.

D.

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
It's funnier to think of it as a Family Guy joke. I'm going to ignore your post.


[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely much funnier.

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, I'm sure somebody will say "Er, Lee, shouldn't you be the one doing this research?" Yes, I'd love to. And some day I may take on such a project - I think it would be fascinating. And I have actually discussed with PokerStars management the possibility of doing such a thing.

no doubt it would be fascinating to you, but i sincerely hope that you won't do such a thing. most of the poker sites are now sitting on "the solution" to poker right now. if the information is made public, bots will quickly ruin online poker. if it is used privately, it is ridiculously advantageous for those with access.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now to me this would be an interesting debate. The reason is if you or I also knew the "solution", we could certainly beat a "bot" playing solely by the solution, right? In other words, part of the game is constantly adjusting to opponents and I don't believe there is any one "solution" to such a game. However I agree that proper analysis of such a large database would be a HUGE advantage. I also believe that this would change many opinions on what are now viewed as some SOP plays although I won't even pretend to have an idea of what plays would be influenced by such a complete analysis. Anyways, interesting thought.

[Michael Davis]

I agree with your statement in general. Of course it was tactless.

However, if you are implying that Miller's status as a graduate of MIT makes it 100-1 more likely that he is correct, that is just wrong. You might be able to give some credence to this fact, but not much. There are MIT graduates out there losing their asses at the poker table right now. If one of these dopes was to suggest that calling two bets cold with any suited connector is always correct, we would not say that his advice is 100-1 in favor of being right over my own opinion as a mere member of the general population.

Your numbers are correct because it is Ed Miller we are talking about, not Ed Miller, MIT graduate.

-Michael

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
Those who think that an MIT graduate would not be much more likely to correctly analyze the profitabiliy of poker plays, (if they put their mind to such a task), than members of the general population, are engaging in wishfull thinking. I am not talking simply math here either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? What college did Doyle Brunson graduate from? What about Johnny Chan? Daniel Negreanu? Erik Seidel? Johnny Moss? Barry Greenstein? Getting the point yet?

You don't need a big name fancy college on your degree to be smart or be a good poker player or writer. There are plenty of very smart people out there not going to big name colleges. Also, as far as poker goes, what school you went to means crap. To judge someone as a poker player or writer based on that quality is ridiculous.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
We are talking about an MIT graduate vs someoneone who once wrote that you shouldn't change your play regardless of the size of a jackpot.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is what the great David Sklansky offers as the final word on any debate between Ed Miller and Lee Jones? Is this some kind of joke that I'm not getting?

If not then I find it amazing how such a pillar of logic and deductive reasoning can make such an irrational statement.

[David Sklansky]

"Lee is a specific individual, not a sampling of the general population.
It is a prejudicial mistake to assume an MIT graduate is automatically right.

You might be able to correctly conclude that any MIT graduate will be more of an egomaniac.

ps. I also find it particularly small to keep harping on the jackpot note error in his book. It had zero effect on most players."


The error about jackpots is very relevant because it could not have been made by somebody who understood gambling or poker well, or for that matter, by anybody who was adept at logical- mathematical thinking.

And when a MIT student disagrees about an anlytical concept that he has investigated thouroughly, he is, while not automatically right, almost cetainly right if someone disagrees. It isn't necessary that the other person be a member of the general population for this to be so. If his adversary was a graduate of Purdue (or for that matter a Harvard Englsh major) it would still be true.

[Ed Miller]

You might be able to correctly conclude that any MIT graduate will be more of an egomaniac.

...

Not quite sure how I went from critic to egomaniac.