Conclusions from the Lee Jones / Ed Miller thread

[Toonces]

- Lee Jones would like a forum to defend or discuss his positions in WLLH that are contradicted in SSHE. This is why he posted this topic in the first place.
- Ed Miller is willing to defend his critiques of WLLH strategy in this forum.
- Lee Jones contends that many/most poker situations don't have 1 "right" way to play the hand, save extensive poker simulation.
- Ed Miller believes that one can use logic, probability and application of Bayes' Theorem to determine that some WLLH advice is flawed, or at least contradictory.
- Many readers of this site have used WLLH as their original poker bible. While we have read other books in the meantime, many of us still follow many philosophies that are tought in WLLH.
- Many of the philosophies in WLLH will likely be contradicted in SSHE. Those of us that have grown up using WLLH will not know what to make of it, and will not be sure which strategy is correct for them, without both authors having a chance to defend their opinions.
- The best way to help small stakes players to reconcile this contradiction is to hear the arguments in a direct debate so that players can hear both sides and decide for themselves whether one philosophy or the other is flawed.
- It is critical that this debate be a forum of ideas and logic, and not one built on straw man attacks, ad hominem attacks, or attacking previous statements that the author no longer believes.

I hope that despite the bad blood that occured in the prior thread that Lee and Ed can sit down and have a discussion that many of the rest of us would find critically important as we try to reconcile contradictory advice given by WLLH and SSHE.

[Mark Walkley]

I dont think it's such a big deal as has been made out.
Lee Jones' book was the first one I read and having played
a bit before and lost it plugged many leaks. As has been
said before the emphasis on good starting hands is correct,
but what I believe Ed Miller is contesting with most of his
examples is that the "fit-or-fold" approach on the flop
is way too tight and many profitable situations are given
up. What I hope to see in his book is a lot more emphasis
on post-flop play rather than pre-flop. Lee Jones gives a
pretty automatic play-style post-flop, and for a complete
beginner I think that is great. This new book will hopefully
emphasise more advanced play on the flop and give improving
players a bit more insight into decision making. I'm looking
forward to reading it.

I dont think it's necessary to rubbish the
previous text for the benefit of the newer one.
Lee Jones target was beginners and he necessarily
avoided over-complicating things. I would still give
that book to anyone I knew who wanted to start playing
from scratch.

[Ed Miller]

I hope that despite the bad blood that occured in the prior thread that Lee and Ed can sit down and have a discussion that many of the rest of us would find critically important as we try to reconcile contradictory advice given by WLLH and SSHE.

Ok guys. Enough melodrama. Before Lee wrote his post, NO ONE told me that they were utterly confused by what I had to say about WLLH. NO ONE said, "It's critically important to my understanding of poker that you and Lee have a public debate. Due to the events of the last few days, I have been forever relegated to a poker limbo, a no man's land of poker indecision. I've been broken... left indecisive, unsure, a shadow of my former poker-playing self."

Before you start crying in your beer about what might have been, please just wait a week and actually READ my book. If you are still hopelessly confused, then come back to this forum and post your questions. Hopefully sans melodrama.

[Toonces]

Ed, the issue is not a sense of confusion about what you have to say. The issue, and it seems like this is an issue for many of us, is that your book makes an argument that a lot of us good (though not great) players should make a somewhat drastic switch in our thought process when playing poker. And while I have no doubt that the book will give reasoned arguments in this area, a critical thinker should not be willing to take the Skalsky edict of "Wherever Jones and Miller disagree, just assume Miller is correct" as the sole basis for resolving this.

And while one option is to just follow the arguments in the book, I think that it is a lot more convincing that we should follow SSHE philosophy by listening to how those opinions hold up against an opposing author today than simply the critique of a 10-year old book (somewhat revised 4 years ago) that can't respond back.

[David Sklansky]

It is frustrating that I have not gotten my point across.

Lee Jone's first book taught things that would improve a beginners game. He taught some things that were wrong for more advanced players but were possibly the better strategy for beginners. The problem was that many of the strategies that were wrong, but OK for rank beginners, HE THOUGHT were right for everybody. I can't be sure of that but I can deduce it from other things he said that were flat out wrong for everybody.

That doesn't change the fact that the book was usefull. (His second edition is supposedly a lot better.) I once learned to be decent at backgammon from a book written by someone who I later learned was pretty bad at the game by pro's standards. Yet he helped me immensely in spite of occasional incorrect advice. The majority of his advice was right. Still I know that if he ever got into an argument with some of the top backgammon pros I have come to know, he would almost certainly be wrong, especially if the pro was sure.

The fact is that those who don't fully agree with the above statement are confused about a concept that they should know if they are to become good gamblers. Somebody posted that this was some sort of logical fallacy "appealing to authority" or something like that. Nonsense. If ten percent of A's statements are wrong and one percent of B's statements are wrong then when they disagree it is approximately 10-1 that B is right.

Yes I could have waited to express these ideas AFTER Lee and Ed debated their points. That would have been the Machievellian thing to do. But I guessed it bothered me too much that so many of you did not realize that Lee Jones is in the same category as many other authors who are not experts in poker (though strangely at this late date he may become one). That he is in the category of someone who will almost always be wrong if he disagrees with an idea we have thought about and hold strongly (whether to play 22 under the gun is not one of them by the way.)

I suspect that part of the reason so many of you do not put him in that category was because his book helped you so much. Just like that backgammon book helped me.

[Duggers]

I think a lot of the frustration everyone was expessing has to do with the fact that you were making statements based on your personal opinion of Lee's vs. Ed's poker knowledge, yet posting it in a more general manner (i.e. MIT vs whatever). Since many of the posters here have no such certainty of the suggested discrepency, they are going to give you push back.

Also, even if what you say is correct regarding the two authors, it is not constructive to post on the thread since it eliminated the possibility of a debate. Even if we all know for certain that Ed is correct before the arguement takes place, we all can learn a lot by hearing the thought process that would each author goes through in order to defend their position.

I don't think posters don't understand your point, they just cannot see how it is a productive one for their learning.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of the frustration everyone was expessing has to do with the fact that you were making statements based on your personal opinion of Lee's vs. Ed's poker knowledge, yet posting it in a more general manner (i.e. MIT vs whatever).

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that's probably right. There may be specific reasons to think Ed is a 49-1 favorite to be correct when he disagrees with Lee on an element of poker strategy Ed say's he's sure about; but one of those reasons is not that Ed went to MIT. Generalizations like that are useless where more specific information is available.

It's like saying Bill Clinton is probably taller than Britney Spears because Clinton is male and Spears is female, and males tend to be taller on average. The conclusion may be correct, but that's pretty weak reasoning since we've got a lot more to go on than just their sex.

But DS already stated he wished he hadn't mentioned MIT, so we may as well move on to other issues.

Anyone got any pics of Shana Hiatt?

[ThePimpulator]

I think there is a conspiracy between EM, DS, MM, and LJ to cause controversy and boost book sales! How much dirty stinking money are getting for your part in this Lee?!?!?!

Hehe.

[Beach-Whale]

Yeah - I'm so sick of all this spam about this book that I am refusing to ever read it, even if it would make me a ton of money.

[Cptkernow]

The logical fallacy you made was comparing Quantative data (Sat scores) with Qualative data (MIT Graduate)

I would have thought it would have been of utmost importance to gamblers to know the difference between quantative data and qualative data.

Your books have helped me alot, but im not letting that one go.