Ed Miller's book "versus" WLLH

[Lee Jones]

Hi all -
I've been reading the posts about Ed's new book (but haven't gotten my hands on a copy yet). I expect that many of you would like to have him and me initiate some debate on points on which we disagree.

I think that would be an interesting and informative thing for all. However, I'm uncomfortable with the tenor of some of Ed's posts. Here's why:

He says things such as my book is "full of errors" and is (in places) "plain wrong".

I tend to use words like "error" and "wrong" when dealing with facts. I am extremely hesitant to use those words when what we're talking about are opinions, intuitions, experieces, etc.

Now, does this make me a weak-tight author? I don't think so. Unless Ed has gotten access to a large database of online hand histories and done a statistical analysis to see whether his ideas or mine are "correct", then he is offering his opinion and intuition and experience. Just as I did when I wrote WLLH.

If I got the "pot odds" numbers wrong, if I had mis-stated the probability of flopping a set - those are "errors". I think it's irresponsible, and not constructive to the conversation, to couch much else on the topic of (e.g.) post-flop hold'em play as "right" or "wrong".

That said, I will, time permitting, be happy to discuss any specific technical points on which Ed and I disagree, though we should probably take those discussions over to Small Stakes Hold'em, n'est-ce pas?

Regards, Lee

[Syntax]

Lee, I have been swearing by your book for years. I have won over 15k playing up to 2/4 holdem online by using the strategies in WLLH. I've used you ideas in SNG's quite effectivly as well.

A couple months ago, I took a couple of Ed's quizes and scored like 8-9/10 on each one. The ones I got wrong all involved playing a little more passively when he advises I should have been raising. Since then I have taken Ed's advice very seriously and raised many more pots I would have only called with in the past. My results have improved significantly. I was probably one of the first pre-orders for the book. I anticipate Ed's book to be the finest on loose games out there. I think WLLH will still be better for a new player just starting out because Ed's concepts rely heavily on odds and may hurt a new player thinking they can raise ATs anytime. I think Ed's book will take low limit holdem to the next level.

[astroglide]

Unless Ed has gotten access to a large database of online hand histories and done a statistical analysis to see whether his ideas or mine are "correct"

is this something you have done or intend to do with your access to pokerstars?

[Easy E]

In one corner, our reiging champion, Lee "Second Time was the NUTS!" Jones ! <font color="blue"> [cue crowd roaring] </font>

In the other corner, Ed "New Ruler of Low-Limit" Miller! <font color="blue"> [more crowd noise] </font>

A heads up holdem $2/4 match to the death, to determine WHO is the true low-limit author god!


<font color="blue"> Now, do we schedule this match BEFORE or AFTER July 15th? If before, and the reigning champ retains his title, will we have to use the EM book as toliet paper, ala Dances with Wolves ?? </font>

and, waiting in the wings.... Randy "I bit*h-slapped Mason's momma!" Burgess!!

<font color="gray"> (hey, if it works for JV and Dynasty.... )

[colgin]

Lee,

It is great to see you post here. I can't thank you enough for writing Winning Low Limit Hold 'Em. Your book helped me invaluably in moving from a break-even to a winning player at low limit hold 'em and I still refer back to it. You will also be happy to know that I regularly recommend your book to friends who ask me about purchasing a book on Hold 'Em. While I have very high expectations for Ed's book based on his posts here (and have already pre-ordered my copy), I have no doubt that I will continue to wholeheartedly recommend your book regardless of which book I end up thinking is better or more correct.

I think it is great if you want to discuss or debate different ideas that you may have from Ed. I think that this site in general, and the Small Stakes forum in particular, can only benefit from your participation. I hope that you can find the time to participate more in that forum generally and not just in the context of Ed's new book. I am sure most of us would be thrilled if you could chime in more often on hands that get posted there.

Having said all of that (and meaning it in the most genuine way), I can't agree with you with regard to your take on opinions/facts when it comes to hold 'em. While there are many decisions that are close between alternate courses of action, there are many many post-flop decisions that are not close. I don't come to this forum just to hear people's "opinions, intuitions and experiences" but to find out the "correct" answer to the way a hand should be played. Now we can all debate what the best play in a certain situation is, and everyone at the end of the day is entitled to their own opinion and ultimately can play any way they want, but I would say that in many situations there is, in fact, a best play. If there were not then why debate with Ed or anyone else. It would all just be differing opinions. If Ed says you are wrong, or vice versa, presumably any debate you have you believe at least theoretically is susceptible to being proven. The fact that the nature of the evidence in support of a particular play, e.g., logical reasoning, hand database review, simulations and calculation of mathematical expectation, is not as straightforward or as exact as your calculating pot odds example, does not mean that such a play is not more correct or incorrect than other possible plays. This is not to denigrate the experience that someone brings to such a discussion. Of course a good player's experience should correlate with correct decisions and better plays. However, if experience was all that mattered then the poeple who have been playing poker longer would invariably be better and this is clearly not the case. There are many young posters on this site who have been playing only a few years at most and who beat the game soundly and I would submit that is because they are consistently making objectively better more +EV decisions than their opponents.

Now if you feel that Ed has made ad hominem attacks on you that is quite another thing and I could see you taking issue with that. (FWIW, I have never interpreted his comments that way.) But if he says you are "wrong" with respect to some advice then I think his statement is susceptible to being proven or disproven, although in some cases a definitive proof will be elusive (in others I think it won't). If you disagree by all means debate the point, but do so with an eye towards proving Ed wrong and not just offering up an opinion on the matter.

I certainly don't see the upcoming publication of Ed's book as leading to a "Ed Miller 'versus' WLLH" situation. While I look forward to any debate or discussion you and Ed may have, I believe that your book will be a continuing contribution to the poker world while Ed's will be a new one.

I hope that you take this post in the spirit it was written.

All the best,

Colgin

[avatar77]

A discussion or debate between Ed and Lee would be an excellent learning forum.

Unlike some, I wouldn't be interested in deciding for myself who is right and wrong about what but to listen to two bright poker minds make their arguments and constructively debate on different styles of play.

Don't we all agree that there are no absolute rights or wrongs on certain aspects of poker? Sure, there are facts on percentages and odds and basic strategies but the decision making process in poker is very complex, dynamic and based on so many variables that it would be impossible to identify a perfect strategy for every situation even for low limit.

I have Lee's book and I am convinced that it advanced my playing level significantly faster than if if I hadn't had it.

But I have also pre-ordered Ed's book because I too believe that he a lot of important things to say.

I also have books by Krieger, Hellmuth, Carson and yikes..even Warren. Despite the negative feedback on some of these authors, I have learned something from all these players because each of these players are very successful players who developed a style and thinking process that worked for them. My rational is that if I can get something, anything out of a book that will one day win me a couple of pots, then the book would have already paid itself off.

Both Lee and Ed are very successful limit players so who is to say one's way is correct and the other isn't.

In sports, there are great golfers, basketball players, hockey players - each with his own distinct style. Can't we say the same for poker players? Look at the No-Limit players like Hellmuth and Lederer....

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Lee:

I agree completely with Ed Miller's criticisms. In his posts concerning your book he has posted specifics. You may want to go back and look at some of those posts and address the specifics if you feel your advice is accurate.

If you will do this, you should discover that

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to use words like "error" and "wrong" when dealing with facts. I am extremely hesitant to use those words when what we're talking about are opinions, intuitions, experieces, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

is not only in error but wrong as well. You will see that he is not talking about opinions, intuitions, experiences, etc.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Clarkmeister]

Lee,

I think that it's a mistake to look at it as "Lee vs. Ed". I've discussed your book with Ed, as well as several other books occupying the same general space. I don't think your books really have the same target market. Due to the similar titles, the comparisons will be inevitable, but I think that's unfortunate. They really IMO try and hit two different audiences.

I would classify your book as a beginner book. It is, in fact, the first book that I had my girlfriend read when she was learning to play holdem. I have read Ed's book 3 times now and would still recommend she read your book (and sections of Carson's book) prior to reading Ed's.

Ed's book is the book that takes you from "beginner to big winner". Your book stops the bleeding, and without input from other sources should turn a studious loser into a small winner. I think that Ed's book takes the reader past your book into some more advanced concepts that should pick up and turn someone from a small winner, say 1sb/hr in a B&amp;M game, into a 1BB+ winner.

I think that when Ed cites examples that he disagrees with from your book, he is merely trying to explain exactly why some of the advice in your book is fine for a beginner, but not optimal for a more experienced player trying to maximize his earn.

Just a few thoughts from a guy who respects both of you.

Dave

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Syntax:

I think you have it about right. My opinion is that the current edition of WLLH is okay for someone starting out (while the previous edition was well below the okay level). SSH will show how to play these games at an optimum level, but it is not a beginner's book.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi astroglide:

You make a very good point. I think it's safe to assume that Jones didn't do this either when he produced his first book. I also don't think he did it when the second edition came along either.

Best wishes,
Mason