Internet Texas Hold'em: Poker Concepts II (pg 51-72) - Page 8

MEbenhoe · #71 11-03-2004, 04:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Malmuth,

You may be right or you may be wrong, I don't know and I don't care. Frankly, I doubt very much that more than a handful of us care.

What amazes me is that you don't seem to be aware of how bad your attitude is, or even care that you are alienating a lot of people.

And I can't believe that your colleagues, Mr. Sklansky and Mr. Miller (who is guilty to a certain extent himself), are not advising you of how you "sound" to the people that read your words, time after time.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the fact that most 2+2ers agree with Mason on this subject. Most of the people disagreeing with him are newly registered, and it seems many of them came over merely for the ITH discussion. This group of people who seem to think ITH is this infallible book that is not even close to being are judging Mason for sticking up for something he believes in. His qualifications speak for themselves, and maybe rather than ripping him you should take some time and check out all the valuable advice he has to offer.

littledave · #72 11-03-2004, 04:27 PM

Actually I was here before the discussion was announced. I disagree with you about your idea that most 2+2ers agree with Mr. Malmuth. I think that's something that we can't possibly measure without a legitimate poll. Even then it doesn't really matter.

I don't necessarily think that ITH is infallable, any more than any of the others are. Each has its own contribution. I am not in position to judge which contributes more, and frankly neither are you, since you freely admit you haven't read the book and don't even intend to. That's ok for you, fine.

Furthermore, I do not fault Mr. Malmuth for sticking up for his beliefs, I did not discount his qualifications, and I did not even begin to say that he doesn't have valuable advice to give.

I merely said that I couldn't believe he was so unaware of how bad his attitude sounds, and I also said that I also was amazed that he isn't being cautioned by his colleagues.

And finally, I am not a died-in-the-wool ITH champion. On the contrary, my replacement copy of SSH arrived from Amazon about a half-hour ago - it's quite used and starting to fall apart. It's one of several 2+2 books that I own, along with ITH and WLLH.

But I think the saddest thing is that what could have been a beneficial discussion has been derailed. I think that even you were hopeful of a success for the discussion. It could have helped not only many of the 2+2 beginners, but also could have helped those from the ITH website that came over to lurk.

And an opportunity to make regulars out of the ITH lurkers was lost also.

Mason Malmuth · #73 11-03-2004, 04:41 PM

Hi MEbenhoe:

First, thanks for the support.

This is an important issue to us that we take very seriously.

Best wishes,
Mason

Mason Malmuth · #74 11-03-2004, 05:00 PM

Littledave:

Let me explain something to you about us. We don't care if you like us or not, and we don't care what you think about our attitude. We do care very much about putting out top notch material. There are plenty of other writers in the field who concentrate on being everyone's best friend. If that's important to you fine, follow their advice the next time you play poker.

MM

Leavenfish · #75 11-03-2004, 05:32 PM

Mason,
I agree with you in some respects and understand your need to speak about this…but I also have to agree with Littledave: the reason for this thread was to discuss the merits of the book, Internet Texas Hold’em and learn from it and compare it’s advice to that of others. The purpose was not to jump in and start accusing (however right or wrong) Hilger of “copying” your work and it is plain to anyone that this seems to have played a role in derailing the discussion—and just when it was getting to the good stuff IMO: starting hands, the hand examples, things people have wondered about on this board.

I would have thought it more appropriate had you started a different thread for the tangential argument. Ya think?

In any case, I would have to say that the reason we have not proceeded to the next sections seems to me to be the moderators fault alone. He’s disappeared and his schedule has come off the rails. Where the heck is UM Madtown??

Thanks,
Leavenfish

blackaces13 · #76 11-03-2004, 06:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Hilger deserves to get attacked. He brought it on himself. That's what you get for stealing ideas from other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do know that Sklansky and Malmuth didn't invent poker right? As another poster already pointed out Mason generally points out and attacks any strategical advise that deviates from what 2+2 books (namely HPFAP) advise while at the same time crying foul about similarities that go unreferenced. Its pretty convenient.

blackaces13 · #77 11-03-2004, 06:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Littledave:

Let me explain something to you about us. We don't care if you like us or not, and we don't care what you think about our attitude. We do care very much about putting out top notch material. There are plenty of other writers in the field who concentrate on being everyone's best friend. If that's important to you fine, follow their advice the next time you play poker.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

So in other words, as long as you explain poker well it is perfectly acceptable to be an absolutely repugnant person who runs author after author from your own boards while at the same time ruining any chance of discussions that most of your readers (who you allegedly care so much about) would be extremely interested in and benefit greatly from. Is that about right?

I wasn't aware that knowing about poker and being a likable human being were mutually exclusive.

banditdad · #78 11-03-2004, 06:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Littledave:

Let me explain something to you about us. We don't care if you like us or not, and we don't care what you think about our attitude. We do care very much about putting out top notch material. There are plenty of other writers in the field who concentrate on being everyone's best friend. If that's important to you fine, follow their advice the next time you play poker.
MM

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone wants you to be their best friend. But how about a certain level of civility from the person who owns the forum? If you didn't want the book discussed you should have PM'd the discussion leader and told him that. Instead you used the discussion to take the opportunity to trash the author. It makes you look petulant and childish.

jeffnc · #79 11-03-2004, 07:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
...judging Mason for sticking up for something he believes in.

[/ QUOTE ]

And we're not?

[ QUOTE ]
His qualifications speak for themselves...

[/ QUOTE ]

He is desperately stretching his critique of ITH for some personal reason, which has no business in professional writing. Take his example that a particular statement in ITH was "clearly wrong". He's grasping at straws to bolster his "case", and frankly if that's one reason he took points off of the book, then his review is flawed, not the book, in that respect. This places all his reviews in a questionable light IMO. So much for "top notch material".

Mason Malmuth · #80 11-03-2004, 07:18 PM

Hi banditdad:

I don't object to the book being discussed. In fact, we have always encouraged vigorous debate on these forums and if others want to pick up that aspect of the discussion, you are welcome to do so.

Similarly we don't object to Hilger purchasing advertising on these forums. In fact, if he's being treated so badly here, why doesn't he drop his advertising. We'll gladly refund any money that would be due him.

But if you will go back and read my earlier post where I give a specific example, you will see exactly what I'm objecting to. Furthermore, this is a very serious issue to us.

Finally, Hilger did post a possible solution to my objections and I have stated that would be satisfactory with us. If he would go ahead and pledge that he will put appropriate references throughout the book for it's next printing, I would consider this issue ended.

Best wishes,
Mason