My Take on the Magazine

[Ed Miller]

Hey,

I wanted to make sure you guys know that 2+2 approaches the magazine a little differently than it approaches books.

Books are to be accurate, and the advice contained therein is to be correct and valuable. There's a lot of ideas and theories that we might include in books that we don't because we want to maintain that bright line of unquestionable accuracy.

The magazine works differently. This is the place for "edgy" ideas and theories. We're willing to take more risks, create more controversy, and allow people a place to propose some non-traditional ideas.

Now that doesn't mean we'll publish just any nonsense in the magazine. I've rejected plenty of articles for being mistaken, usually in a demonstrable, mathematical way.

It does mean that an excellent poker player could disagree with some of our magazine articles, and that would be ok with us. In fact, just because we print it doesn't necessarily mean that we (Mason and I) agree with it. We print it because we think it is interesting and may educate people and provoke discussion.

So basically, if you don't like something you read in the magazine, feel free to post your thoughts in the forum or write a counter-article.

(Obviously, Barron's article created the most controversy this issue. I have thoughts on the play described in the article, but I'd prefer to keep them to myself. Frankly, I don't really think my thoughts are relevant. But publishing it, or any other magazine article, doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with it. Just that I thought it was worth publishing.)

[nolanfan34]

This is somewhat different than what Mason has indicated in the past, in my opinion.

He's been clear that he expects the 2+2 magazine to be the highest quality publication. That includes having better advice than a certain other magazine. I know I've seen threads in the past where authors here have criticized the play of hands by other mag authors, for being incorrect advice, -EV, etc.

So how is that different in this case? Presenting a different line is one thing. Publishing an article that seems to rely on some very shaky assumptions in order to make the math work, is something else.

I'm not being critical here really. Just expressing my thoughts. I do think as editor that if you have thoughts on the article, you are somewhat obligated to explain what concepts it included to make it worth publishing.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
He's been clear that he expects the 2+2 magazine to be the highest quality publication.

[/ QUOTE ]
A poker magazine that doesn't publish cutting-edge stuff may always be correct but it doesn't meet my definition of the highest quality. Doing something new and nonobvious means being wrong sometimes.

[andyfox]

Seems to me there is a difference between a 2+2 book that says, "You should raise here because x,y,z," and an article by somebody that says, "I raised here because x,y,z." A 2+2 book is saying how you should play whereas the article is saying how the particular author played.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
The magazine works differently. This is the place for "edgy" ideas and theories. We're willing to take more risks, create more controversy, and allow people a place to propose some non-traditional ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you will post [censored] thats wrong. too bad.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The magazine works differently. This is the place for "edgy" ideas and theories. We're willing to take more risks, create more controversy, and allow people a place to propose some non-traditional ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you will post [censored] thats wrong. too bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think thats a good thing.

Barron's article basically said, "I took an unusual line that was somewhat risky, because of the opponent. And you should think about how you might do the same thing sometime"

That aspect of the article was great.

Unfortunately, the message that came thru to people after the posts/discussion seems to be more "given this opponent, my line is a good one". And in my opinion (like most others) this second piece is wrong.

But the core idea of showing an unusual line and why it MIGHT be good in a particular situation and what FACTORS that situation has is exactly the kind of edgy top quality thing 2+2 SHOULD be doing.

-G

[ QUOTE ]

Barron's article basically said, "I took an unusual line that was somewhat risky, because of the opponent. And you should think about how you might do the same thing sometime"


[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that the essence of good play? Mixing it up at times? Keeping the other guy guessing?

I think that's why, unlike chess, the AI programs used in computer v. human poker matches will never be so dominating.

The chess game(s) all seem to use X offense, countered with Y defense, followed with Z counter-attack, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Every master chess player knows every written move. Everything every great player did. And it's all been put in the computer.

Poker, OTH, is so variable. Sure, in situation "this," the smartest play is "that," but maybe I'll do "the other" this time. P. Hellmouth, as a prime example, screams, "You donk! You called with XX? How stupid is that? You were a dog at....."

But the donk play took the pot. PH used straight line thinking. Sometimes you have to think outside the box. If you get predictable, I take your chips. I get predictable, you take my chips.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that's why, unlike chess, the AI programs used in computer v. human poker matches will never be so dominating.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between poker and chess, is lack of complete information.

Why do you think a computer AI can't be programmed to mix up its play?

[ QUOTE ]

Why do you think a computer AI can't be programmed to mix up its play?


[/ QUOTE ]

Was that rhetorical?

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

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Was that rhetorical?

[/ QUOTE ]

NO... a computer can be programmed to play exactly the same way as you would play... and evaluate more factors faster!