Is Bill Roberties a qualified writer?

[SNOWBALL138]

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...

[amulet]

i think bill could give you a better response, however, below is my understanding.

bill is a terrific writer, if you read his other books, they are well written and well organized. they are easy to follow and learn from. even in his advanced books he explains complex concepts and makes them seem simple.

bill and dan have been friends for years. additionally, they played backgammon together for years, and i assume chess also.

with the explosion in poker dan wanted to write a book, or maybe they decided to do it together. bill played a lot. hours and hours, thousands of them. he and dan discussed hands bill played. then they began the book. by this time bill had a good understanding of the game, and being a world class backgammon player, and chess master, his understand developed quickly -- but again he played a lot.

however, the book is based on dan's thoughts, playing style, strategy, etc. dan and bill speant tremendous time discussing poker. bill organized dan's expert knowledge, into a well thought out, well organized, easy to follow book. bill may now know a lot about poker, but the books are filled with dan's knowledge, experience, and expertise. hence "harrington on hold 'em".

this is based on conversations over the past year with bill. i have inferred some of this. i may be a little off, however, i think in general i am correct.

[BarronVangorToth]

No offense intended to 2+2's Ed Miller, but it's not exactly like he has a dozen WSOP bracelets up and down his arm, and yet he wrote Small Stakes Hold 'em which is easily one of the three best poker books ever written.

In fact, most of the players (Dan Harrington NOT included) that have done real well at WSOP and other large events have written horrific books.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[SNOWBALL138]

Barron,

Ed Miller's Small Stakes Hold Em had nothing to do with tournament play. His WSOP results have no bearing on his qualifications as an author on the subject.

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
Barron,

Ed Miller's Small Stakes Hold Em had nothing to do with tournament play. His WSOP results have no bearing on his qualifications as an author on the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a silly response if ever there was one! Barron never even said or insinuated that SSH was about tournament play. The topic is about qualification as a writer. Understanding and ability to get the correct ideas across are all that matter in this regard. Barron was just pointing out that the number of WSOP results one has is irrelevant.

---Leavenfish

[Rob-L]

Tournament results have no bearing on the quality of someone's writing ability or their capacity to understand poker and poker theory. Their tournament results may not even be indicitive of their playing ability!

Sklansky and Malmuth haven't torn up the WSOP or WPT either, but their advice is great.

Here's another thought: You know all those commercial and military jets you see flying around? Most of them were designed by people who couldn't even pilot an aircraft! Yet, somehow they still understood aerodynamics.

[SNOWBALL138]

WTF are you talking about?

[SNOWBALL138]

Tournament results are an indication of someone's experience playing tournaments. Experience is a prerequisite for knowledge. Poker knowledge is different from knowledge about blackjack, because it is a people game, not a numbers or probabilities game.
Many good poker players are poor poker writers. However, there are no good poker writers who are poor poker players. I'm not the only one who has acknowledged this. Sklansky said the same thing.
Perhaps Robertie is a good cash game player, and used they experience to write about the early stages of tournament play. Furthermore, it is possible to understand some endgame plays without actually being at the late stages in a tournament.
No one expects a skilled tournament player to have consistent final table results. However, a player who has no cashes at all is either a bad player or an inexperienced player. I suppose, a la your example, Bill Robertie and Mason Malmuth fit into the latter category. Its unclear that either are qualified to write about tournament poker.

[TransientR]

[ QUOTE ]
Tournament results have no bearing on the quality of someone's writing ability or their capacity to understand poker and poker theory. Their tournament results may not even be indicitive of their playing ability!

Sklansky and Malmuth haven't torn up the WSOP or WPT either, but their advice is great.

Here's another thought: You know all those commercial and military jets you see flying around? Most of them were designed by people who couldn't even pilot an aircraft! Yet, somehow they still understood aerodynamics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the luck factor in tournaments, it isn't surprising that tourney results may not be indicative of playing ability. As Barry Greenstein says, tournaments are lotteries with a skill factor thrown in.

I've have read most of Bill Robertie's backgammon books, and articles he has written about backgammon. He is good at explicating the complexity of a game.

So I knew his and Harrington's collaboration would result in excellent work, and that is what we got.

Frank

[SNOWBALL138]

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?