Some responses in that 5 thread
Here's the first three threads of that 2+2 thread about me I mentioned earlier.
I don't know what those 1st two responses mean. The first one is some kind of sarcasm, but I don't really get it because it's accurate, it's what the original question is. The question is why does 2+2 leave my body of work to speak for itself?
But point 2 of the 3rd is partly accurate, partly not. It's probably true that there are far better things to discuss on 2+2 than my work. I'm not so sure he got the reasons for that right though.
There are two parts to the general theme of my hold'em book that have not been eclipsed by subsequent work or by events. That's my general idea that there is no baseline theory of poker which should be modified to exploit situations, there's a collection of independent, unrelated theories that should be cherry-picked from. The other is the idea of making observations about table conditions as the guide to cherry-pick from those different theories.
Before my book, and to some extent subsequently, the idea of exploitation has been that you start with a baseline equilibrium (often called optimal but not actually optimal) and modify to exploit specific opponent mistakes.
That approach works under some game conditions. But under general game conditions it doesn't work, it can make you exploitable by other players at the table. By responding to the table conditions rather than to specific opponent mistakes you aren't exploitable.
I maintained that general theme in my casino poker book, although I didn't really expand on it.
That part of my work hasn't been marginalized at all, not by subsequent works and not by events such as the near death of limit hold'em.
Nobody really discusses it because it's hard. At least that's why I think nobody really discusses it. It's part of the reason I haven't followed through with the ideas myself. There are other reasons that I haven't that I'll talk about later, when I get to some of the later responses in the thread.
I think the last statement about Mason not really being a fan of my work is funny.
In an old 2+2 thread that later became Chapter 27 Playing a Draw in my book, Mason said that anybody that paid any attention to anything I was saying would quickly go broke. That was before he decided that it was a good idea to put his name as an author of Miller's book was a good idea.
His willingness to list himself as an author on that work just tells the world how intellectually dishonest Mason and family actually is. None of them have a lick of intellectual honesty.
I'll get back to this later.
Anybody have any comments on that thread? Or comments on my comments about the thread?
We let his body of work speak for itself.
What an illuminating response, and one that ironically exceeds my expectations for this forum.
1st - dont be a jerk, you will get better responses when you dont lash out at people who volenteer their opinion even if you don't think its worthy.
2nd - Gary Carson doesnt matter anymore, his work has been eclipsed, there are far batter things to discuss now than his books. Yes there was a time when there was bad blood, but it doesn't matter anymore because his body of work has become marginalized by the books that have come out by both 2+2 and non-2+2 publishing companies since his works were originally released.
Its interesting to note that 2+2 gave Gary credit in the footnotes of Small Stakes Hold'em numerous times even though Mason was not a huge fan of his overall work.
I don't know what those 1st two responses mean. The first one is some kind of sarcasm, but I don't really get it because it's accurate, it's what the original question is. The question is why does 2+2 leave my body of work to speak for itself?
But point 2 of the 3rd is partly accurate, partly not. It's probably true that there are far better things to discuss on 2+2 than my work. I'm not so sure he got the reasons for that right though.
There are two parts to the general theme of my hold'em book that have not been eclipsed by subsequent work or by events. That's my general idea that there is no baseline theory of poker which should be modified to exploit situations, there's a collection of independent, unrelated theories that should be cherry-picked from. The other is the idea of making observations about table conditions as the guide to cherry-pick from those different theories.
Before my book, and to some extent subsequently, the idea of exploitation has been that you start with a baseline equilibrium (often called optimal but not actually optimal) and modify to exploit specific opponent mistakes.
That approach works under some game conditions. But under general game conditions it doesn't work, it can make you exploitable by other players at the table. By responding to the table conditions rather than to specific opponent mistakes you aren't exploitable.
I maintained that general theme in my casino poker book, although I didn't really expand on it.
That part of my work hasn't been marginalized at all, not by subsequent works and not by events such as the near death of limit hold'em.
Nobody really discusses it because it's hard. At least that's why I think nobody really discusses it. It's part of the reason I haven't followed through with the ideas myself. There are other reasons that I haven't that I'll talk about later, when I get to some of the later responses in the thread.
I think the last statement about Mason not really being a fan of my work is funny.
In an old 2+2 thread that later became Chapter 27 Playing a Draw in my book, Mason said that anybody that paid any attention to anything I was saying would quickly go broke. That was before he decided that it was a good idea to put his name as an author of Miller's book was a good idea.
His willingness to list himself as an author on that work just tells the world how intellectually dishonest Mason and family actually is. None of them have a lick of intellectual honesty.
I'll get back to this later.
Anybody have any comments on that thread? Or comments on my comments about the thread?
Labels: Twoplustwo thread on Gary Carson
posted by Gary Carson at 6:19 PM
3 Comments:
Yeah, I have some comments. For starters, you quoted one of their mods known as SS*.
- Next to SS, Mason Malmuth looks like and ACLU lawyer. SS is the worst censor on 4, he even censored that thread to remove a remark that mocked him.
- You and Mason had a "falling out." So you were buddies before that?
- There haven't been books from 4 on your game theories because they wouldn't read those books, much less know how to write them. They want manuals that tell them what the correct play is.
See my Aug 10th entry at deadmonywalking.livejournal.com for an example.
"- Next to SS, Mason Malmuth looks like and ACLU lawyer. SS is the worst censor on 4, he even censored that thread to remove a remark that mocked him. "
I'm not sure I understand your point here. The 2+2 forums is run by idiots. That's been the case for a long time.
"- You and Mason had a "falling out." So you were buddies before that? "
We didn't have a falling out.
"- There haven't been books from 4 on your game theories because they wouldn't read those books, much less know how to write them. They want manuals that tell them what the correct play is."
I understand that. I wrote both my books for a limited audience and I knew that when I wrote them. I wrote what I wanted to say, not what I thought somebody else wanted to hear. That will limit potential sales. But I thought there was a market for what I had to say, and in the case of the hold'em book I was right. Not so much in the other book.
If I wanted to write a best seller I'd write on how a low carb diet creates better sex, not a poker book.
My books never got much discussion on 2+2, even when they were new. There were two reasons for that. One was the one you suggest, 2+2 posters just wasn't my audience. The other was self-censoring from fear of offending Mason.
Mason was on record as thinking my book was crap, even before I wrote it. He didn't know I hadn't written it. He knew I'd sold the book, and he thought that meant I'd written it.
Gary, I'm a fan of your notion that one should pick and choose ideas. I go for the ones that work and discard those that don't. Or try to.
Have you read Arnold Snyder's book? He has the temerity to dispute Mason's chip model. I'd be very interested in your view on that. If you haven't read Snyder's book, your views on the chip model that 2+2 uses would be valuable. I'm not entirely likely to remember where this comment is, so you could really oblige me by making a post about it, if you felt the urge.
Post a Comment
<< Home