Editing in Getting Started in Hold 'Em

[ronniejames]

I should begin by mentioning that I am one of the two people who have proofread all three editions of Don Schlesinger's classic, Blackjack Attack. The significance of this spectacularly uninteresting observation is that Don is the sort of guy who gets exasperated if the third number following a decimal point differs from what appeared in the previous edition. If you miss that sort of thing, or allow a comma to slip by in a spot that cried out for a semi-colon, you can feel the hot breath of his disapproval on the back of your neck. So, when I read in the "Acknowledgements" that Ed Miller is indebted to several very bright people for "their hours of diligent editing and proofreading," I expected fastidiousness in the smallest details and I'm just anal enough to note that they overlooked the misspelling of "Acknowledgments" (trivial, but it's part of a proofreader's job) and wonder how all of them could concur that 6+8=12 (not quite as trivial). Take a look at the discussion of Hand Six-Middle Position (page 80): A four-player pot contains a little over six big bets. The turn has produced a King, the four-outer that fills the straight that you, the reader, were drawing to. Ed writes: "The preflop raiser bets. Both players call. You raise. Everyone calls. The pot contains 12 big bets now." This book is intended for complete beginners. What happens when one of them starts counting on his fingers--uh, one bet, followed by two calls, that's three altogether; I put in two more, making a total of five; all of my opponents call; that's three more, making a grand total of eight bets, no? Well, yes. Miller finishes the hand by adding three more bets on the river, which, he claims, yields "a 15 big bet pot." Only, it's a 17 big bet pot. If you think I'm nitpicking, then you need to explain what the duties of a proofreader are supposed to be. While we're examining Hand Six, please notice that every item in the chart comparing the number of outs to the break-even pot odds is slightly off. If you have one out, the odds against hitting your hand are, obviously, 46-to-1, not 45-to-1. Everything in Miller's chart assumes 46 unknown cards--fine for river situations, but the context makes it clear that he's talking about the turn. Incidentally, why should a rank beginner find memorizing these charts easier than setting up some simple ratios? Why not explain that you know five cards, the two in your hand and the three on the board, so the next card will be one of the forty-seven you don't know. Compare the number of cards that help to the number that don't and you can always figure out the pot odds. All in all, I highly recommend Ed Miller's book as an excellent primer. He teaches the basic strategy of Hold 'Em, something most authors gloss over, and does it in a clear, methodical manner that novices will be able to comprehend. I just wish that someone had taken the trouble to catch a few of the gremlins that plague every manuscript.

[tpir90036]

I just proofread your post. It needs paragraph breaks.

[benfranklin]

I would suggest a return to proof reading school for a little remedial work in run-on sentences and the proper use of paragraphs. Can't comment on the content, the format made it too difficult to read.

[ronniejames]

A rather unintelligent contribution. There are no run-on sentences and I usually don't bother with paragraph breaks in hastily written comments posted on the net. Probably I'm just lazy. I guess some of us may be curious to learn how the absence of paragraph breaks prevents you from comprehending the content.

[Ed Miller]

Hey Ronnie,

Thank you for catching the pot size problem in hand 6. As for the chart, that's not a goof, but rather a questionable, but conscious decision.

I didn't want to explain the math (you have two, there are forty-seven unseen, etc.) because of what I wanted the book to be (as non-mathy as possible). I just wanted to plop a chart down and say "memorize" for now. And I DEFINITELY didn't want two different charts, one for the turn and one for the river.

So I picked one, the river, and went with it for three reasons:

1. The numbers for the turn and river are so close that you can play for months and never once change your play due to the difference.

2. When I err, I'd like to err to make calling look MORE correct, because new players who learn to count outs and compare to pot odds tend to do so TOO TIGHTLY. That is, they end up folding hands they shouldn't because they have more outs than they think they do (a concept I call "hidden outs" in SSH). So the once-in-three-months time the slight change in numbers will make a difference, I think the turn numbers actually will make them MORE likely to make the right decision.

3. The chart is the exact same one from SSH. Using the same chart builds continuity between the books.

Not to mention that fudging the numbers 2% is not nearly the most egregious mathematical "compromise" I made in the book... or even in the chapter. In fact, the whole process of counting outs and comparing them to the pot odds on the turn is fundamentally flawed because there's another card to come, and you might see it for free (and for many other reasons having to do with another card coming).

You are right that I plop the chart down in context of the turn, but the numbers are for the river... which I grant is more than a little awkward. But that was a call I made consciously.

In any event, I absolutely appreciate the time you spent looking through the book. I didn't want to publish with any errors, but it seems some have slipped through. I'm cataloging them for fixing in the next printing.

[razor]

It's not an unintelligent contribution. The poster didn't say he had trouble "comprehending the content" he said "the format made it too difficult to read" and he is correct. That much text in that format is difficult to read.


edit: notice how Ed's post is much easier to read

[ronniejames]

Ed,
I probably should have prefaced my criticisms with a resounding statement of overall approval. You've written a very good book, one that I'd heartily recommend to anyone seeking to learn to play, as Don Schlesinger would put it, the right way. Your desire to publish an error-free book is commendable, but unrealistic. Someone (I wish I could remember who) said that excellence is attainable; perfection is not. You've achieved the former, and that's pretty damn good.

Truthfully, did you really have the river in mind when you presented those break-even pot odds? I know it's not a big deal, and nobody will get hurt by regarding a 10.75-to-1 shot as 10.5-to-1--still, you WERE talking about the turn.

Recently, in a column for a chess magazine, Squares, I rebuked the two authors of a popular book on tactics, a Grandmaster and an International Master, for committing to print a fairly obvious blunder. I categorized such slips as Inexplicable Errors and likened them to flies in a sealed, air-conditioned room. I mean, how exactly did they get in? It's a hobbyhorse of mine, but I'm always baffled when some glaring typo or mistake in arithmetic eludes several pairs of critical eyes.

Please don't let me ruin your day. The book is fine. Next time, sprinkle in some intentional errors and see how many your editors find...BEFORE it gets published.

Ron

[ronniejames]

Well, you're right. My excuse--laziness-is a bad one. I will be more attentive to the appearance of my text in the future. In my defense, I once separated paragraphs with great care for a posting on a Yahoo discussion group. The post appeared with no breaks. Nobody said anything and I acquired a bad habit from the experience.

My e-mails contain a dismaying abundance of typos. Different, stricter, standards should be applied to published material.

Ron

[Noobee]

I rather consider myself the epitome of the target audience for this particular book so I will present a question, not sure whether to Ed or Ronnie but....

In a game of mathimatical estimations are the variances we are discussing here really all that relevent?

Does a card here or there really matter when it's based on a guestimation that my hand will win agaisnt a guestimation of a range of hands my opponants may theoretically have should my possible draw come in and comparing it to implied pot odds ( another guestimation )?

I wonder if we aren't hashing over a rather irrelevent number like the 11th decimal place of PI.

[Mason Malmuth]

I need to comment on this. No publishing company in poker works as hard as we do in terms of getting things right. Ed Miller, Dan Harrington/Bill Robertie, David Sklansky, myself, or any of our other authors both present and future doesn't just write a book and we print it. There's a long and thorough review process and the author will often find himself rewriting some of his material to make it even better. Not only does no other publisher (as far as I can tell) do this, but no other publisher in this field has the expertise nor the desire to pull this off.

In the case of Getting Started in Hold 'em all material that appears in the books was reviewed in detail many times by both David and myself, and Dr. Schoonmaker worked with Ed on getting the English as good as possible. Any author of ours will tell you that working with us is a tough process as we challenge that author to make their book even better.

If you have any doubts in this area, I suggest you look at books by other publishers. You should see a dramatic difference. If you want me to get more specific, look at Super/System 2.

So this should answer your question, did Ed really have the river in mind?

Best wishes,
Mason