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

[chaos]

Mason,

Are there other changes to Gambling Theory and Other Topics besides the updated reviews in the 2004 edition? I'm wondering if I should update my original copy.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Chaos:

No. The only change besides the additional reviews was one footnote that was added to the text.

Best wishes,
Mason

[NoSoup4U]

[ 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 happen to own both editions of this book and I looked at them when I read this thread. The sentence was not "removed" it was rewritten. When I get home from work I can post the exact change, if it wasn't already covered here. When I read it, it seemed more like a clarified version than a dramatically changed one to me. It does appear to be in responce to Mason's critique, IMHO.

[NoSoup4U]

[ QUOTE ]
I've commented many times on these forums that Hilger copied much material from Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players and Middle Limit Poker and gave virtually no credit to his sources. In this section is one of the most flagrant examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

Things seem much less clear to me than they do to you. Although I am sure that these are essentially the same concepts, I am not so sure that this leads to conclusion that the material was borrowed from your book. Hilger claims that his hand examples were taken from actual hands that he played in, so it is certainly possible that a strikingly similar situation came up for him in 2000 as came up for you in 1986 and that he came to the same conclusions that you did.

Perhaps you are aware of a great many of these similar examples and in the aggregate they lead you to conclude that it cannot be coincidence. If many such examples were posted, I would be forced to re-evaluate this question.

A problem however, is that I believe that many smart people come to similar tactical conclusions because certain situations occur often and there is only one correct decision. Given that many of your books were the first ones to address many (most?) of these situations, it may be that seemingly derivitive material is inevitable in future works by other authors.

[gusly]

[ QUOTE ]
I happen to own both editions of this book and I looked at them when I read this thread. The sentence was not "removed" it was rewritten. When I get home from work I can post the exact change, if it wasn't already covered here. When I read it, it seemed more like a clarified version than a dramatically changed one to me. It does appear to be in responce to Mason's critique, IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious... did Hilger make changes to that section other than the sentence in question?

Also, past a certain point, rewriting becomes removal. I think Hilger rewrote it to the point where his original assertion was changed. He changed an absolute statement into a relative statement. The underlying concept remains the same, the problem is with the presentation, and the impression that the reader gets.

This is how Miller refers to the same concept in SSHE:

"If you think there is some chance all your opponents will fold, you should consider betting. For instance, say you have...."

Here's the original sentence from the 1st edition of ITH that sparked this discussion:

"Trying for free cards works best when there is some chance that your opponents will fold, since you now have two ways for your raise to be successful."

The phrase "works best when" is the fundamental problem with the statement, IMHO. Of course, I know that SSHE and ITH have different target audiences and Hilger wants to keep things simple. However, simplifying to the point where something becomes incorrect is not good practice.

Hilger's revised sentence: "Note that whenever there is even a small chance that your opponent might fold with a hand like middle pair, you have even more reasons to try for a free card." And the context of this statement is a specific hand example where the player is against one opponent. Pretty big change from the original, don't you think?

BTW, I think ITH is a really good book.

[mchilger]

With well over 200 hand examples in my book, I am not surprised that some of the hand examples in my book will be similar to examples from other poker books. Any similarities are purely coincidental. All of the examples in my book were taken from actual hands I played on the Internet or from hand histories from friends. PokerStat was invaluable in giving me a large database where I literally went through thousands of hand histories to choose hands which demonstrated particular concepts.

It just so happens in this particular case that play between the button and blinds leads to a perfect example for showing when to induce a bluff or call. Each player is playing with relatively little information since both players could be playing a wide variety of hands. This leads to a scenario where you are way ahead or way behind when holding a pair of aces with a weak kicker. I suspect this is why both Mason and I chose similar hand examples to explain a common concept.

Everything written in my book is simply a combination of all the knowledge I have gained through poker books, Forums, magazines, discussions with buddies, and most importantly live experience. Pinpointing where that knowledge came from is not an easy chore since it is really a combination of so many things.

Having said this, THFAP and TOP were the first two poker books I read and therefore were the first to introduce to me in text form many of the common poker concepts. Having read THFAP so many times when starting out, I am sure that this has played a significant role in my development as a poker player and subsequently my writing (this is not the case with Middle Limit which I have only read once but was pleased to finally read a poker book with lots of hand examples).

As a result, it was and is my intention to give them all proper credit for their influence on me as a poker writer. All three of these are recommended in the back of the book including a brief synopsis of each of them. I only mention four books in my recommendations so I felt this was a strong endorsement and gave credit to those particular authors (Lee Jones is the other and although I read it after I completed the text of ITH I felt it was worthwhile as a mention).

It seems that Mason would prefer direct references in the text for certain parts of the book. I have been considering eliminating the book recommendations anyhow for the 2nd edition planned for next year as I don’t want to have to constantly update the text in coming years. Direct references within the text would be a logical step in doing so. For example, I thank Ciaffone a lot for encouraging authors to include lots of hand examples which has been a big selling point of my book. If similarities do exist between the text in my books and other poker books, it is just the result of me being familiar with their books after multiple readings rather than any intentional effort to copy their work. In any case, I am open to referencing other books if they refer to concepts which are truly unique in the poker literature.

I will say that I think there is a fine line when considering references to works when it deals with common knowledge. Hold’em is not rocket science. If this was the case then every book would be filled with references to the first book explaining the concept of position, for example.

Best regards, Matthew

[mchilger]

I have received many questions and comments about the book over the last year and am always open to suggestions. Whenever I see that someone didn’t fully understand a particular passage or misinterpreted it then I always go back and see if maybe there is a better way to explain the concept. As a result there have been several small wording changes made over the last year to try and improve how the book reads.

In the first edition there is the following passage, “Trying for free cards works best when there is some chance that your opponents will fold, since you now have two ways for your raise to be successful.” Mason put in his review “The problem here is that buying a free card, as the author points out, is essentially a flop play, and it is very unusual for someone to bet the flop and then fold for one small bet.”

The first thing to realize is that on the page before (p. 62) I list out the main advantages for trying for a free card. The statement on p. 63 is a secondary statement explaining one additional thought to think about in a specific situation. When taken out of context it makes it appear that this was the only situation where I indicate one should try for a free card.

Mason is correct in that it is not common that players will bet and then fold but that doesn’t make my statement an error. Sometimes your opponent will fold and you can win the pot immediately. This chance, although small, could be the difference when you have a borderline decision on whether or not to try for a free card. So I disagree with Mason that the concept is incorrect but his comment made me take a second look at the text to see if it could be more specific or clear.

I therefore changed the text to “Note that whenever there is even a small chance that your opponent might fold with a hand like middle pair you have even more reasons to try for a free card.” The concept has not changed but I just give a more specific example for when it might apply.


Matthew

[luckydog]

If someone is willing to lead the discussion like UW Madtown I would certainly follow it to a new site.
There is no point in trying a new thread here since it will only be hijacked again by the grammer police.

Luckydog

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
Direct references within the text would be a logical step in doing so.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is certainly what I believe needs to be done. For example, in the example that I gave if you would have written something like "What follows is an example similar to what appears in HPFAP..." I would have no complaint.

You need to understand that doing this sort of thing will enhance your work, not take away from it, and it will make you welcome on forums such as these and allow you to deal in a more direct way with authors and publishers such as myself.

So please let me know when the next printing/edition of your book is available. By the way, if you need an example book where lots of references are made you might want to look at my Gambling Theory and Other Topics. You will see that by doing this it not only made the text better, but it gave me more credibility as a serious author in this field.

Best wishes,
Mason

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
First off, this statement is clearly wrong. Players who are already in for one bet on the flop almost never fold for one more bet. (He states on the previous page "In Hold'em, you normally try for a free card by either betting or raising on the flop..." so he is clearly addressing the flop.)



[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if he's talking about betting as well as raising then there is a definite chance that an opponent or 2 might fold. Why did you slip in the assumption that others have already bet and called? Furthermore, I have raised the flop in live games and folded a lone opponent who was already in for 1 bet many times.