Flawed Author-Cardplayer Articles

[Ed Miller]

I too was taken aback by this passage in Barry's piece.

But I completely disagree that he is a "mediocre" writer. He and Roy Cooke are CP's best.

I've mostly gotten out of the poker strategy writings critiquing business. But I did want to address this comment, as Mr. skp is an influential figure, and I feel his point should be qualified.

While Barry may be one of CardPlayer's two best strategy writers, he has made conceptual errors regularly in the past. For instance, this article has several major problems. So caveat lector.

[Sredni Vashtar]

skp wrote, "Good post, Eddie.

Your exchanges with Jim have been pretty damn useful to all of us. Great to see two very clever guys discussing poker at such a high level and in such a classy manner.

Maybe you could encourage Jim to get back on 2+2."

While I have to confess to only barely skimming these exchanges (1), I have been impressed by the civility and class shown by both Mr. Miller and Brier. Many of the newer posters that missed all the wonderful old posts of skp, Brier, majorkong, Abdul, et al, are indeed getting a bargain.

Sredni Vashtar

(1) I pretty much can predict when I hear the question what Brier's position will be because I've read so many of his posts. It's a fun "poster" reading exercise to see a topic, look at the names posting, and predict their response. Another good thinking exercise, skp as a lawyer may appreciate this, is to argue both sides of the case. Make an honest effort to present both (or multiple sides) of the "case".

[BarronVangorToth]

I find it odd -- and maybe I'm missing the thread -- that this thread hasn't been mentioned in the CardPlayer forums. You'd think it would've come up and I'd like to know their opinions on these opinions, much as I'm sure this forum would have a thread going if there was a bit in CardPlayer about gross inaccuracies in the 2+2 magazine.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

[iversonian]

This isn't Barbara Yoon by any chance, is it?

[David Sklansky]

I would not have mentioned Ciaffone's mistake if he said 19-1 rather than 17-1. See why?

I suspect that he actually is confused and that it was Jim Brier or Stewart Ruben who wrote properly on the subject.

I continue to believe that it is a disgusting error if it wasn't just a brain fart. Matter of opinion.

In spite of the above I would have let it go except as I continued reading Cardplayer, I noticed that at least three different authors made mistakes so I includeded Ciaffone's even though I considered it least bad.

52 is better than 43. Careless errors, I make all the time. I also make rounding errors like 7.5-1. I think most people know the important difference between these kind of errors and the kind I criticize.

If Howard Lederer, did in fact make this probability error he is off my list. Replace him with Patri Friedman.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
I would not have mentioned Ciaffone's mistake if he said 19-1 rather than 17-1. See why?


[/ QUOTE ]

I do. You do. Most probably do on this board.

Unfortunately, a fact that needs to be remembered is that people who populate this board are a bit more math-oriented and -savvy than John Q. Sixpack.

There are some halfway decent John Q. Sixpack poker players who then try to talk in mathematical terms to explain their theories and come off as "bright" to other John Q. Sixpacks but are then criticized by the small group of people that actually know the difference.

I bet if you asked 100 readers of CardPlayer if they spotted the errors -- any! -- that 5% or less would be able to find anything.

It's not in their culture.

It's also a big part of the reason why so many 2+2 players do well is that knowing the math in poker is SO huge that it trumps not only the rake, but also people who have better "reads" on players and those who have been playing for years (see: majority of Senior Citizens at Foxwoods who, when asked, will say they have played poker for 50+ years but most of them are outright terrible).

Oh, yes, David, I see why -- and hopefully you see why most people will never see why.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

[Koller]

[ QUOTE ]
Stewart Ruben

[/ QUOTE ]

Reuben. Ok I'm sorry MR. Slansky [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
52 is better than 43.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dave is tricky. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
I continue to believe that it is a disgusting error if it wasn't just a brain fart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brain fart or not it is a disgusting error IMO.

[Sredni Vashtar]

DS "If Howard Lederer, did in fact make this probability error he is off my list. Replace him with Patri Friedman."

Man, its gotta be tough to be on the Sklansky list. At least Eudlid and Einstein are no longer with us, so the pressure of it didn't affect them.

But think of Lederer. Hears he made the big one, so he goes out and orders new business cards, "Number three on THE LIST", flies in family and friends to celebrate, then BAM he's off it. Just like that. Not demoted to fifth, but right damn off it! What to do with all the dom on ice?

As for the others, once they've made the list, its quite frankly best to steer clear of Sklansky or else jeopardize your standing. Kinda must suck. There you are in the buffet line and in swoops Sklansky with a devilish grin on his face. Without greeting, he immediately begins with "Assume infinite stacks..." and suddenly you are faced with a tricky game theory quiz.

Man, the life of the big listee.

SV.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]


Without greeting, he immediately begins with "Assume infinite stacks..." and suddenly you are faced with a tricky game theory quiz.

Man, the life of the big listee.

SV.

[/ QUOTE ]


In all seriousness, I'd love for David to some day run up to me and ask one of his poker theory questions ... maybe not at the buffet line itself, but once we've sat down. Maybe in April when I head out to Vegas again after my WrestleMania trip.

One can always dream.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

[skp]

Well, I don't play no limit but I can see how a few things he says there are wrong and/ or questionable although I wouldn't feel qaulified enough to offer a critique and be confident about what I am saying.

His limit advice is pretty damn good though.