Self serving magazine articles

[wdeadwyler]

I don't want to name names and get people mad at me, but sometimes I feel that some of the articles are just egoist self serving loads of crap. The writer's analyze a hand, making sure to drop any names they feel, then tout their superb play, and it all works out well in the hand. While some of the writers are self critical and comprehensive, I feel around 1/3 of the articles are self-serving or just boring and basic. I would like to see more interesting articles, but I don't want to criticize anyone in particular at this point. Does anyone else feel this way or am I alone here?

[chris_a]

What would you consider to be a "more interesting article"?

[David Sklansky]

Name names.

[Pyromaniac]

ask for a refund.

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[wdeadwyler]

Are you serious or kidding? You might feel that way but I doubt others dol.

[wdeadwyler]

Perhaps more no limit articles.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to name names and get people mad at me, but sometimes I feel that some of the articles are just egoist self serving loads of crap. The writer's analyze a hand, making sure to drop any names they feel, then tout their superb play, and it all works out well in the hand. While some of the writers are self critical and comprehensive, I feel around 1/3 of the articles are self-serving or just boring and basic. I would like to see more interesting articles, but I don't want to criticize anyone in particular at this point. Does anyone else feel this way or am I alone here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who submits an article and has it published should be ready to accept both praise and criticism. Instead of generalizing in your post, come right out and discuss/critique the article(s) you have a problem with. That's exactly what this forum is for.

Also, you are welcome to write a (better) article yourself.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you serious or kidding? You might feel that way but I doubt others dol.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure he was serious, and people here aren't all that thin-skinned or they don't stay in the forums very long.

But by your own statement, you believe the content to fluff ratio in the 2+2 mag is about 2-1, and think that's not high enough. Even if that were true, and I don't believe it is, then how does that stack up to the competition is the question. My answer is that in the best issue of the year the competition has an inverse of that ratio, not to mention articles that contain mathematically and strategically flawed advice. And when you say some articles are boring, then you mean they don't interest you or deal with forms of poker you mostly play. But so what? You don't read all the forums here do you? And as alluded to by the other poster, it's all free. Plus I think that many players really don't appreciate how valuable some advice is just because the examples used deal with a form of poker they don't commonly play, when the theoretical points are applicable to other forms as well. All the negative responses to Barry Greenstein's book in the books forum has shown me that many posters here are just incapable of recognizing a lot of good advice.

I can't say that the topics of all the articles in each issue interest me, and quite a few don't. But I am grateful to be able to read those that do. There has only been one article in an issue in which I was actually disappointed and it was the interview by deacsoft with Jennifer Harman-Traniello. The reason I was disapointed was because she only gave one line responses to each question and never discussed anything in depth. For that reason if I had been the editor, I probably would not have published it.

Also you have to keep in mind that other than the articles written by 2+2 authors, the editors depend upon posters to submit prospective articles and thus that is dependent upon what various posters are interested in writing about, and also what they are willing to share.

[nate1729]

I'm with Sklansky on this one: give some specific examples here. By the way, feel free to criticize me, but be sure to look at my August article before you do.

--Nate

[PokerHorse]

baron von whatever, this is the first article i read by him, but i thought it was very substandard and was suprised it made it in. i realize its hard to get new stuff thats not rehashed, but his logic in this last article was flawed imo and should not have been published.