Is Bill Roberties a qualified writer?

[RowdyZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Bill Robertie is a wellknown backgammon player, and writer. His magazine work on backgammon, and his book are well regarded. But, what are his qualifications to write about poker tournaments?

I checked him out on the Hendon mob database, and it looks like he hasn't even cashed in a major event. Does he play cash games or tournaments regularly? If so, for how long has he played and at what stakes or buy-in?

Could anyone explain what his role was in co-writing HOH?Please don't say he was in charge of editing...

[/ QUOTE ]

Bill Roberties is a expert in Game Therory. His approach from that end and Harrington coming from the handson side made a killer team writting a book, also his experience writing texts for other games help Dan but his thoughts and ideas down in a way others could understand them.

RZ

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
So, I could write an expert guide to tantra even if I was a virgin?

or an expert guide to playing heads up if I had never won a heads up match before?

wtf are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually, yes. I think you'll find that the best books on most subjects were written by people with little experience actually doing what they were writing about. Books are written by writers. Some people who are good at something may also be good at writing, but probably not nearly as good as a professional writer.

The earlier poster's comment about engineers and airplanes also answers your question. I doubt many of them are commercial pilots.

[SNOWBALL138]

Name one well respected poker author who has no meaningful experience in the game that he/she writes about.

[pastabatman]

Give it a rest. Sheesh. It is very obvious that Bill is the 'writer' and Dan is the 'expert'. A very potent combination.

[Malachii]

Harrington and Robertie were able to produce an extremely high quality product as a result of their mutual efforts, so yes, obviously he's qualified.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


Could anyone explain what his role was in co-writing HOH?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why???

Except for a few nits about editing and text errors, these two books have been generally acknowledged to be far and away the best work ever done on tournament poker.

The only rational basis for even asking the question would be if there was some indication that the books would have been better without Robertie. I have not heard of such a theory, even from the most extreme lunatic fringe of the poker community. They are a team, and they produced a winner. It's called synergy.

I just realized that I have wasted several minutes discussing an inane topic, time that could be better spent reading HOH.

Bye.

[Rob-L]

In the interest of friendly debate let me say this:

What you don't want to seem to acknowledge is that just because someone doesn't have many cash finishes in major tournaments, doesn't mean that he doesn't have tournament experience. There are many minor tournaments that get no coverage. There are also tournaments in other parts of the world that we never hear about in the US (Major and minor). I don't know what Bill Robertie's tournamnet record is, or if he even plays tournaments. What I do know about Mr. Robertie is this; he is known for his clear writing on backgammon and he is an excellent, top rated backgammon player. Thus, he clearly has a mind that can think strategically and has the capacity to understand games in great depth.

He also competes in backgammon tournaments, and tournaments have several common things among them regardless of what is being contested. Beating large fields, adjusting to opponents and conditions, over coming nerves, etc. All this can translate in some aspect to poker and can definitely translate in the ability to take ideas (his or Harrington's) and write them in a clear and meaningful manner.

I think it is safe to assume that Dan Harrington is contributing the strategy and advice and Robertie is on hand for his writing ability. Also, Dan Harrington is a well respected tournament player. I don't think Harrington is going to take the time to put his ideas out into the public and choose a co-writer that has absolutely no clue about poker. He'd *have* to have some clue in order to convey Harrington's strategy into coherent writing.

The bottom line is this: If you feel Bill Robertie is not a worthy writer, that is fine. No one (at least not me) is not going to put you down for your opinion. Just don't read the books!

[Alex/Mugaaz]

The book is excellent. I don't care if Sylvester Stallone wrote it, if it's correct it's correct. If you disagree with something, post what and why. Thank you.

I've no idea of his expertise as a poker player, but I have followed his backgammon books.

He is a good writer. His BG books are entertaining and well worth reading. I believe there was some controversy over the 1st editions of his Advanced Backgammon books.

After computers got good enough, somebody went back and analysed the problems and found about 25% of the solutions were wrong. Apparently Robertie was pretty pissed and threatened to sue for beach of copyright when the analysis was put on the web.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

Great first post. Seriously, if this is true, by all means post it, but at least include some links. Otherwise - SHH!