Mason's Book Review

[southerndog]

In Mason's review of WLLH, he makes this commeent

[ QUOTE ]
Another inconsistency is that on one hand the author wants to get as many bets as possible in on the flop to punish the draws but he also recommends that you “bet or raise your draws for value.” Well you can’t have it both ways, and Jones doesn’t seem to recognize the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does Mason say this? Isn't the point that if there are additional people that are along for the ride, then you AND the person in the lead can both profit from those that are in 2nd, 3rd, etc...

Did Mason mean to say that Jones doesn't EXPLAIN it, or just that Jones is wrong?

[sthief09]

Think of it logically. He's saying that Jones suggests:

- When you have a draw, get as many bets in as possible for value
- When you don't have a draw, get as many bets in as possible to punish the draws


So, according to this logic, when you don't have a draw, you should raise to punish draws, but the draws are gaining value by you raising.

I don't really know what a paradox is, but I think that might be one...

[Chris Daddy Cool]

Jones also mentions in WLLH that both players with the top hand or the flush draw are correct by putting money into the pot because they are both punishing the weaker draws such as gutshots and random 2 pairs and the like.

[BeerMoney]

It's not a paradox, because when there are other people in the pot, you both gain from their bets. That's possible.

[benfranklin]

What is presented here is 2nd or 3rd hand information, and the context is not clear. If Jones advocates fast playing a big hand (AA, AK, etc) on the flop to drive out drawing hands, that is correct play.

If Jones advocates strongly betting a straight or flush draw preflop, that is not correct play. But it is not clear that this is what is being said here. You don't value bet before the flop, and I don't recall Jones recommending that you do so. With a drawing hand, you want to see the flop cheaply as possible, and you want a lot of players in the pot. On the other hand, value betting a drawing hand is correct play postflop.

[lostinthought]

[ QUOTE ]
If Jones advocates strongly betting a straight or flush draw preflop, that is not correct play. But it is not clear that this is what is being said here.

[/ QUOTE ]

how can one have a straight or flush draw pre-flop with only two cards?

Do you mean starting hands that lead to these draws, e.g. Axs and (suited) connectors?

Be careful and have some precision in your language..

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not a paradox, because when there are other people in the pot, you both gain from their bets. That's possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
[ QUOTE ]
1 : a tenet contrary to received opinion
2 a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true b : a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true c : an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises
3 : one that possesses seemingly contradictory qualities or phases

[/ QUOTE ]

Given you explanation of why this is not a paradox and by definition 2.a, I would say that this definitely is a paradox. It seems contradictory, but it is not.

[southerndog]

I thought a paradox sort of was some inexplicable flaw in logic, like the Russel's Paradox "if the barber of Seville is a
man who shaves all men in Seville who don't shave themselves,
and only those men, who shaves the barber?"

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought a paradox sort of was some inexplicable flaw in logic,

[/ QUOTE ]
It has multiple definitions. I believe the primary meaning is the concept of a situation that appears contradictory but truly is not. However, it's meaning has been hijacked by society's incomplete understanding of the word, so it is now generally accepted to mean anything contradictory at all.
[ QUOTE ]
"if the barber of Seville is a
man who shaves all men in Seville who don't shave themselves,
and only those men, who shaves the barber?"

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said he shaves at all?

[Sooga]

Hate to be a nitpicker, but that's not quite right. Using your example, the Barber could be shaved by anyone else. Your wording needs to be prefaced by the condition that all residents of Seville either 1) are shaved by the barber, or 2) shave themselves.

[ QUOTE ]


I thought a paradox sort of was some inexplicable flaw in logic, like the Russel's Paradox "if the barber of Seville is a
man who shaves all men in Seville who don't shave themselves,
and only those men, who shaves the barber?"

[/ QUOTE ]