Ed Miller on the Queer Eye

[guy]

Flipping through the channels last night, I caught Ed Miller (of "Small Stakes
Hold 'Em" fame) on TV. He was on Bravo's "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." On
this show, five blatantly homosexual guys, the "fab five," help some helpless
and allegedly straight guy improve his fashion sense and his overall
appearance. 

It was Fellini-esque. I didn't know that Miller was such a mess. (I admit,
however, that I have a bias against him because of his denigrating other poker
authors, including Gary Carson.)

I wasn't expecting a Harvard professor, but I though Miller would have a better
presence. The makeover sure helped him.

The Poker tournament for Hurricane Katrina relief was nice gesture.

Although this episode held my interest, I must wonder has Poker officially
"jumped the shark?" I can tolerate very little televised Poker these days...but
the Domino championship on ESPN was pretty good (and I don't know the first
thing about dominos).

May you NEVER "seven-out,"   ...*guy 

_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

[A Man Beaten by Jacks]

Post by guy
Flipping through the channels last night, I caught Ed Miller (of "Small Stakes
Hold 'Em" fame) on TV. He was on Bravo's "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." On
this show, five blatantly homosexual guys, the "fab five," help some helpless
and allegedly straight guy improve his fashion sense and his overall
appearance. 
It was Fellini-esque. I didn't know that Miller was such a mess. (I admit,
however, that I have a bias against him because of his denigrating other poker
authors, including Gary Carson.)

Has he really? That would be kind of funny, considering how much he cribbed
from him in SSHE.

[Gary Carson]

Post by guy
It was Fellini-esque. I didn't know that Miller was such a mess. (I admit,
however, that I have a bias against him because of his denigrating other poker
authors, including Gary Carson.)

Has he really? That would be kind of funny, considering how much he cribbed
from him in SSHE.

I didn't really know he'd denigrated me, but it wouldn't suprise me at all.

I did read his response to someone on 2+2 once suggesting he debate me.  I'm not
sure what about.  HIs response was that he'd debate me anytime I wanted to (as
long as the debate was online on 2+2).  He reminds me of Bill O'Reily.

I may have asked for it however in pointing out in the past the Miller tends to
misrepresent his background.

Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com

[RazzO]

I didn't really know he'd denigrated me, but it wouldn't 'suprise' me at all.

"Suprised'? HA!
Don't be "surprized". The OP is a liar, but you wouldn't care to know the
facts, as always. Whatever fits for you, big guy. But, in the rare event
you would want to know the facts, here they are.

=====================
Lena Katz (Allin Magazine): Is there a lot of those books out there right
now?
Ed Miller: Yes, but mine is the best!
=====================

Really denigrating, isn't it? Is it that it is just another newbie who
learned fast and caught up and surpassed you in poker knowledge and,
*aHum*, book sales?

BTW, the liar OP also made it sound like Ed mentioned you by name. Nope.
So don't be to excited. The above posted quotes were all that was said
about his book that came close to the OP's lie.

I did read his response to someone on 2+2 once suggesting he debate me.  I'm not
sure what about.  HIs response was that he'd debate me anytime I wanted to (as
long as the debate was online on 2+2).  He reminds me of Bill O'Reily.

This isn't anything new to you, Gary. Aren't you the expert on
'conditions' to a challenge?
You are the Bill Reilly. You think you're never wrong. LOL.

So.... are you going to debate him? Or wuss out, because you have to
debate him on 2P2?
I know you won't.

BTW, he has two more books coming out.


RazzO
http://www.razzo.com
email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com

_______________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

[guy]

Post by RazzO

I didn't really know he'd denigrated me, but it wouldn't 'suprise' me at all.

"Suprised'? HA!
Don't be "surprized". The OP is a liar, but you wouldn't care to know the
facts, as always. >
RazzO
http://www.razzo.com/
email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com

Razzo: I have nothing against ya, but "liar" is a tad overboard. Here's a copy
of a post from  two years ago:

 Here's a quote from the 2+2 forum by an Ed Miller (6/30/4 in the
Gossip section). Is this the same Ed Miller in question here?:


"My belief is that the true value of RGP is that when you actually do
have a true poker discussion going on there you get to see the non 2+2
viewpoint of an idea.

You do get to see the "non 2+2 viewpoint," but you also have to be
careful. A few of these guys just try to poke holes and show up David
and Mason no matter what. For instance, there was a recent thread
about kill games. Carson said that you can treat a kill pot as smaller
by the size of the kill. David corrected him by pointing out that it
is smaller only by a relatively small fraction of the kill. David was
clearly correct, but three people continued to argue with him. Now
they didn't actually dispute what David said (there was nothing to
dispute), they attacked his motives, justified their simplifications,
etc.

But if you read that thread and DIDN'T KNOW that David was
unequivocally correct, it might appear to you that the majority
disagreed with him, or at least that there was room for debate.

This happens all the time on RGP. There are certain people (whom i
won't name, so don't ask) who seem to be less intelligent than the
Gary Carson, Andrew Prock, etc. crowd... the "me too" people of RGP.
They are on the "RGP" side, but they don't know how to think about
poker clearly, and they have clearly been misled by some of the
nitpicky attacks.

If you are a beginning or intermediate player, you belong here to
learn to play poker. There is simply no source of advice even close to
this one. Once you are ADVANCED (i.e., can solidly beat mid-limit
games), then feel free to visit RGP and absorb the "non 2+2
viewpoint." But until you understand the game well yourself, I think
2+2 is certainly all you need."

I'll waste my time a look for other quotes about Lee Jones, too.

_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

[RazzO]

No, it's cool. Regarding YOUR post I actually thought you meant on last
nights show. My apologies.

Post by guy
I'll waste my time a look for other quotes about Lee Jones, too.

RazzO
http://www.razzo.com
email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com

-------- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

[guy]

Post by RazzO
No, it's cool. Regarding YOUR post I actually thought you meant on last
nights show. My apologies.

No need to apologize. Your point was well made. I feel all these guys have
contributed in a positive fashion to my general Poker knowledge. Sometimes the
petty and trivial arguments get old.

May you NEVER "seven-out,"   ...guy...

_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com

[RazzO]

That's what Ed Miller was referring to when he said the difference between
2p2 and RGP.

And it's why Gary will cave and not debate Ed on 2p2. He needs all the
Trolls to throw fuel on what could be a very warm fire, just between the
two of them, to confuse and defuse his trivial non-defense of his game.

Thank you for understanding my oversight.

Post by guy
petty and trivial arguments get old.

RazzO
http://www.razzo.com
email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com

_______________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

[Victor Victoria]

Post by RazzO
That's what Ed Miller was referring to when he said the difference between
2p2 and RGP.
And it's why Gary will cave and not debate Ed on 2p2.

Debate on 2 + 2 means you conform to the individual Moderators Rules, which are
not clearly defined anywhere, or you don't debate. That is plain and simple.
There is no debate there. There is the "2 + 2 " way and that's it. Gary doesn't
stand a chance on 2 + 2. The posters on 2 + 2 are allowed to Troll if they are
friends of the forum moderator. Others are banned. So what would happen to Gary
is that Trolls like Razzo would get to criticise him but those not welcomed by
the moderators on 2 + 2 would not have a say.  Gary would be a fool to debate
anyone on 2 + 2.  Let them debate here. Won't happen. Mason Malmuth won't allow
it

VV  

He needs all the

Post by RazzO
Trolls to throw fuel on what could be a very warm fire, just between the
two of them, to confuse and defuse his trivial non-defense of his game.
Thank you for understanding my oversight.

Post by guy
petty and trivial arguments get old.

RazzO
http://www.razzo.com/
email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com

_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

[RazzO]

As you may have read, I apologized for my comments because I thought you
meant Ed said this (or words to the effect) in last nights QEFTSG episode.

But I went to 2p2 and looked around. The post you linked below doesn't
have any denigrated comments on other authors. It's the truth.

Ed is right. That's why people like Sklansky don't post here anymore. It
didn't matter that David was right. There were posters, like Carson, who
just couldn't agree, stand corrected, and STFU.

Gary is the main guy who has chased away many great players, because he
refused to proven wrong by constant bickering and covering everything up
with his bullshit.

He has been jealous of them since day one on RGP, and always will be.

I do give Gary the credit that he posts under his real name. Same goes for
Russ. Together, IMO, they have ruined RGP for quality professional input.
Both out of selfishness and the need to fuel their egos.

Post by guy
 Here's a quote from the 2+2 forum by an Ed Miller (6/30/4 in the
"My belief is that the true value of RGP is that when you actually do
have a true poker discussion going on there you get to see the non 2+2
viewpoint of an idea.
You do get to see the "non 2+2 viewpoint," but you also have to be
careful. A few of these guys just try to poke holes and show up David
and Mason no matter what. For instance, there was a recent thread
about kill games. Carson said that you can treat a kill pot as smaller
by the size of the kill. David corrected him by pointing out that it
is smaller only by a relatively small fraction of the kill. David was
clearly correct, but three people continued to argue with him. Now
they didn't actually dispute what David said (there was nothing to
dispute), they attacked his motives, justified their simplifications,
etc.
But if you read that thread and DIDN'T KNOW that David was
unequivocally correct, it might appear to you that the majority
disagreed with him, or at least that there was room for debate.
This happens all the time on RGP. There are certain people (whom i
won't name, so don't ask) who seem to be less intelligent than the
Gary Carson, Andrew Prock, etc. crowd... the "me too" people of RGP.
They are on the "RGP" side, but they don't know how to think about
poker clearly, and they have clearly been misled by some of the
nitpicky attacks.
If you are a beginning or intermediate player, you belong here to
learn to play poker. There is simply no source of advice even close to
this one. Once you are ADVANCED (i.e., can solidly beat mid-limit
games), then feel free to visit RGP and absorb the "non 2+2
viewpoint." But until you understand the game well yourself, I think
2+2 is certainly all you need."
I'll waste my time a look for other quotes about Lee Jones, too.

RazzO
http://www.razzo.com
email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com

______________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

[guy]

Post by RazzO
But I went to 2p2 and looked around. The post you linked below doesn't
have any denigrated comments on other authors. It's the truth.
RazzO
http://www.razzo.com/
email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com

RazzO: I believe my quote from Ed Miller was taken directly from 2+2. The quote
from Sklansky, however, was taken from another thread on rgp. I cannot vouch for
the validity of the Sklansky quote about Lee Jones, although it seems to reflect
his sometimes arrogant attitude. 

As far as the Miller quote, I'm rather certain it came from 2+2. Whether or
not they were really Miller's thoughts or opinions, I'll never know.

Rather then acknowledging some of the work by previous non-2+2 authors, the 2+2
team seem to have a need to belittle these authors' books and viewpoints. Just
my opinion.   

May you NEVER "seven-out,"   ...*guy...




Subject: Lee Jones vs S&M on the 2+2 forum,Carson should love it.  ?subject=FWD:
Lee Jones vs S&M on the 2+2 forum,Carson should love it.&body=-----Original
Message----- From:   Sent: Jul 11 2004 8:44 PM  Author:
javascript:popup_window(%20710,%20430,%20 ( ***@aol.com)Post Options: Hide



_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com

[Victor Victoria]

Post by RazzO
As you may have read, I apologized for my comments because I thought you
meant Ed said this (or words to the effect) in last nights QEFTSG episode.
But I went to 2p2 and looked around. The post you linked below doesn't
have any denigrated comments on other authors. It's the truth.
Ed is right. That's why people like Sklansky don't post here anymore. It
didn't matter that David was right. There were posters, like Carson, who
just couldn't agree, stand corrected, and STFU.

This is just so much bull! Sklansky loved posting here! He doesn't post here
anymore because Mason told him not to. It's not good business to have Sklansky
posting on a forum that Mason thinks is competition.

VV

_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com

[Susan]

sweetie - common English usage is surprise - NOT surprize Before you
criticize someone elses spelling, a little spell check might be in order.

Post by RazzO

I didn't really know he'd denigrated me, but it wouldn't 'suprise' me at all.

"Suprised'? HA!
Don't be "surprized". The OP is a liar, but you wouldn't care to know the
facts, as always. Whatever fits for you, big guy. But, in the rare event
you would want to know the facts, here they are.
=====================
Lena Katz (Allin Magazine): Is there a lot of those books out there right
now?
Ed Miller: Yes, but mine is the best!
=====================
Really denigrating, isn't it? Is it that it is just another newbie who
learned fast and caught up and surpassed you in poker knowledge and,
*aHum*, book sales?
BTW, the liar OP also made it sound like Ed mentioned you by name. Nope.
So don't be to excited. The above posted quotes were all that was said
about his book that came close to the OP's lie.

I did read his response to someone on 2+2 once suggesting he debate me.
I'm

not

sure what about. HIs response was that he'd debate me anytime I wanted to

(as

long as the debate was online on 2+2). He reminds me of Bill O'Reily.

This isn't anything new to you, Gary. Aren't you the expert on
'conditions' to a challenge?
You are the Bill Reilly. You think you're never wrong. LOL.
So.... are you going to debate him? Or wuss out, because you have to
debate him on 2P2?
I know you won't.
BTW, he has two more books coming out.
RazzO
http://www.razzo.com
email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com
_______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

[RazzO]

Touche', Susan.

I did use spell checker. I guess because it was in parenthesis it went
through (recgroups), or I overlooked it.

I assume you offer Gary the same advice. That ol genius. For a guy that
wrote books and has college degrees you wouldn't think he had so many
typos.

I did notice you used incorrect English (at least I think) in one of your
recent postings. No big deal. However, if I am wrong I apologize in
advance.

Post by Susan
sweetie - common English usage is surprise - NOT surprize Before you
criticize someone elses spelling, a little spell check might be in order.

RazzO
http://www.razzo.com
email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com

----- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

[Susan]

No RazzO - Why would I point it out to Gary? He doesn't criticize others
for their spelling. I don't always spell correctly, or use perfect grammar
because I really don't give a shit. The only time I would point it out is
when YOU (or anyone else) criticize someone for their spelling.

Post by RazzO
I assume you offer Gary the same advice. That ol genius. For a guy that
wrote books and has college degrees you wouldn't think he had so many
typos.

[RazzO]

Point well taken. I hit the 'z' key instead is the 's'. Came back to bite
me in the azz.

Post by Susan
No RazzO - Why would I point it out to Gary? He doesn't criticize others
for their spelling. I don't always spell correctly, or use perfect grammar
because I really don't give a shit. The only time I would point it out is
when YOU (or anyone else) criticize someone for their spelling.

Post by RazzO
I assume you offer Gary the same advice. That ol genius. For a guy that
wrote books and has college degrees you wouldn't think he had so many
typos.

RazzO
http://www.razzo.com
email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com

------ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

[Victor Victoria]

Post by guy
It was Fellini-esque. I didn't know that Miller was such a mess. (I admit,
however, that I have a bias against him because of his denigrating other
poker authors, including Gary Carson.)

Bias? Are you serious? Ed is a 2 + 2 Author. No more, no less. Mason Malmuth
runs 2 + 2. Gary Carson and Mason Malmuth are not lovers....errrrr far from it.

BTW- I thought you had to be straight for those queer guys to fix you up. How
did Ed get on the show?  Maybe it should be Queer Eye for the "class less" Queer
Guy. :)

VV 

_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

[Victor Victoria]

Post by Gary Carson
I did read his response to someone on 2+2 once suggesting he debate me.  I'm
not sure what about.  HIs response was that he'd debate me anytime I wanted to
(as long as the debate was online on 2+2).  He reminds me of Bill O'Reily

No f....ing way! He would never debate you on 2 + 2! Never! You are an automatic
ban! If you don't believe me go up there and disagree with him and you will find
yourself GONE!  Especailly Gary Carson!

The 2 + 2 Forum is no longer run by Poker Players! The manager of the Forum's
name is Sklansky but it is not David. The manager does not play poker and
probably never has.  I believe the same is true for quite a few of their
moderators. The forum is now a "We are Two Plus Two and Don't screw with us"
site.

VV

_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com

[Gary Carson]

I got banned from 2+2 just for saying I didn't want to post on 2+2.

But, Mason promised me he'd lift the ban if I promised to be nice to him.

I'm not making that up.

Post by Victor Victoria

Post by Gary Carson
I did read his response to someone on 2+2 once suggesting he debate me.  I'm
not sure what about.  HIs response was that he'd debate me anytime I wanted to
(as long as the debate was online on 2+2).  He reminds me of Bill O'Reily

No f....ing way! He would never debate you on 2 + 2! Never! You are an automatic
ban! If you don't believe me go up there and disagree with him and you will find
yourself GONE!  Especailly Gary Carson!
The 2 + 2 Forum is no longer run by Poker Players! The manager of the Forum's
name is Sklansky but it is not David. The manager does not play poker and
probably never has.  I believe the same is true for quite a few of their
moderators. The forum is now a "We are Two Plus Two and Don't screw with us"
site.
VV

Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

[Victor Victoria]

Post by Gary Carson
I got banned from 2+2 just for saying I didn't want to post on 2+2.
But, Mason promised me he'd lift the ban if I promised to be nice to him.
I'm not making that up.

This post could have been made by Paul Phillips.

VV

_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

[RazzO]

Yea, right, just like you read that Ed Miller wanted to debate you.

I told everyone you're a liar in half or more of what you say. *DING*

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=6283127&Main=6281250#Post6283127

Post by Gary Carson
But, Mason promised me he'd lift the ban if I promised to be nice to him.
I'm not making that up.

RazzO
http://www.razzo.com
email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com

------ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

[Travel]

Miller etc. didn't even know about the "poker craze loose games" unti
it was well under way and commonplace in casino poker rooms.

Common sense would suggest that it's highly suspect when, new phenomen
in poker occurs, (loose games, a violent departure from the traditional
rock, or tight agggresive games; within a few months) and guess what
the 20/40 player, Sklansky, is the last word expert on the subject.

HTF did that happen?

Gee, I did't know Sklansky and Miller had not only been playing loos
game 2/4 and 4/8 all this time, but had become experts on the subjec
in a few short months, did you?... fricken amazing!

What a coincidence!; and they publish poker books, too! How's that fo
luck? Will the success stories never cease.


In other words, they knew absolutely nothing about loose games. Th
only qualification they have is the fact that thev've written othe
hold 'em books. They were the least qualified of poker book writers t
write on the subject.

Whatever they wrote was either "hurry up and find out so we can cash i
on this", or they ripped it off. They ripped off Gary Carson's ideas
and that's why they mentioned his book...they had to cover their as
for the obvious.

And the denigrating of Lee Jones was a cheap shot. Lee Jones wrot
about soft low limit games, not the "poker craze" loose game variety
and they knew that.

They also got their information about loose games right here on RGP.

And as likely with any sham, and having no experience or first han
knowledge, they still got it wrong. Their recommendations on raising
for example, is a joke; clearly superficial guesswork

--
Trave
- http://www.pokerhelper.com RGP Access News Forums - Report Spam to ***@pokerhelper.co

[JvilleWhip]

Has poker jumped the shark?  I don't think so...I do think that it's a critical
time for some form of media to step up and steer this traffic in to better
direction.  I really believe the room for improvement from a television
perspective is huge.  I do not think ESPN will get it right.  WPT/Travel
channel, perhaps.  NBC?  Not any time soon. 

There is such room for improved viewing that I still remain eager for quality
programming.  Will they hold my attention?  Probably not for long.

I'm just waiting for my cable company to offer a poker exclusive channel.  That
very well may be the shark jumping moment for me.

Appreciate the Happy Days reference btw...
-------------------------
-JvilleWhip
Blog: http://adamlabare.blogspot.com/
Today's Topic: Poker Catalysts

Post by guy
Flipping through the channels last night, I caught Ed Miller (of "Small Stakes
Hold 'Em" fame) on TV. He was on Bravo's "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." On
this show, five blatantly homosexual guys, the "fab five," help some helpless
and allegedly straight guy improve his fashion sense and his overall
appearance. 
It was Fellini-esque. I didn't know that Miller was such a mess. (I admit,
however, that I have a bias against him because of his denigrating other poker
authors, including Gary Carson.)
I wasn't expecting a Harvard professor, but I though Miller would have a better
presence. The makeover sure helped him.
The Poker tournament for Hurricane Katrina relief was nice gesture.
Although this episode held my interest, I must wonder has Poker officially
"jumped the shark?" I can tolerate very little televised Poker these days...but
the Domino championship on ESPN was pretty good (and I don't know the first
thing about dominos).
May you NEVER "seven-out,"   ...*guy 

_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com

[Chris in Texas]

Post by guy
It was Fellini-esque. I didn't know that Miller was such a mess. (I admit,
however, that I have a bias against him because of his denigrating other poker
authors, including Gary Carson.)

If I recall correctly in SSHE Miller et al were complimentary towards Carson,
referring to his CBHE at least twice.   Though they didn't name him, it did seem
they took strong jabs at Lee Jones.

_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com

[A Man Beaten by Jacks]

Post by Chris in Texas

Post by guy
It was Fellini-esque. I didn't know that Miller was such a mess. (I admit,
however, that I have a bias against him because of his denigrating other poker
authors, including Gary Carson.)

If I recall correctly in SSHE Miller et al were complimentary towards Carson,
referring to his CBHE at least twice.   Though they didn't name him, it did seem
they took strong jabs at Lee Jones.

I'm not sure it was that harsh. After all, Jones didn't really write a book on
how to extract the most money possible from loose, low-limit games. He
wrote a book on getting started and winning, for beginners. His book will
take a beginning player and make them a winning player. SSHE helps a
winning player make even more.

[RazzO]

Here is a 2P2 (Mason) review on both Lee Jones and Gary's books.

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=450677&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&vc=1

Post by A Man Beaten by Jacks

Post by Chris in Texas
If I recall correctly in SSHE Miller et al were complimentary towards Carson,
referring to his CBHE at least twice.   Though they didn't name him, it did seem
they took strong jabs at Lee Jones.

I'm not sure it was that harsh. After all, Jones didn't really write a book on
how to extract the most money possible from loose, low-limit games. He
wrote a book on getting started and winning, for beginners. His book will
take a beginning player and make them a winning player. SSHE helps a
winning player make even more.

RazzO
http://www.razzo.com
email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com

____________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

[guy]

Post by RazzO
Here is a 2P2 (Mason) review on both Lee Jones and Gary's books.
http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=450677&page=&vie
w=&sb=5&o=&vc=1
RazzO
http://www.razzo.com/
email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com

You are right, Razzo! Here's another example of the high esteem that Sklansky
and company hold for other Poker authors.

From Sklansky

Because logic and the application of Baye's Theorem can often lead you to
the almost undisputably correct play. And because Ed Miller is not going
to suggest Lee Jones is wrong unless he is convinced of that, there is no
reason to believe that you couldn't lay 100-1 on Ed vs Lee regarding any
poker play dispute Ed feels sure about. We are talking about an MIT
graduate vs someoneone who once wrote that you shouldn't change your play
regardless of the size of a jackpot.


Those who think that an MIT graduate would not be much more likely to
correctly analyze the profitabiliy of poker plays, (if they put their mind
to such a task), than members of the general population, are engaging in
wishfull thinking. I am not talking simply math here either.

and

Reason being that it my pet peeve that people fight so hard to deny the
reality that the type of thinking taught at the best science and math
institutions is as important to getting things right as it is.

And when a MIT student disagrees about an anlytical concept that he has
investigated thouroughly, he is, while not automatically right, almost
cetainly right if someone disagrees. It isn't necessary that the other
person be a member of the general population for this to be so. If his
adversary was a graduate of Purdue (or for that matter a Harvard Englsh
major) it would still be true.


Simple precise question. You hear two people arguing about a poker play.
One where the right answer can eventually be determined. You know only a
few things about the debaters. One is a math grad from MIT who has made a
study of poker and is quite certain he is right about this particular
argument. The other person once wrote that the size of a jackpot should
never change your strategy.

At this point you must make a price as to who is right about the argument.
What would you say that is? And as long as you agree it is over 50% in
favor of the MIT guy you cannot say I am making a personal attack or
appealing to authority. (My figure is 98% by the way. What's yours?)

is important that I go on record as saying that I believe that it is
almost impossible that Lee could be right about anything that Ed (or me or
Mason) strongly disagrees with regarding poker. If I didn't think so it
would have been wrong for us to collaborate with Ed on our book. It is
also important that I explain that the reason I am so sure that Ed will
turn out right on every point is because he is both a great player and a
great thinker. And it bothers me that many people somehow believe that it
is still quite possible that someone who both plays worse and thinks less
brilliantly could still be right when disagreeing about a poker play even
when the first guy is SURE.

The point is that if Lee Jones decides to debate specific poker points
with Ed I am sure he will be thoroughly vanquished (to the satisfaction of
the readers of this forum and without help from me). Maybe I should not
have butt in simply to increase the chances that the debacle would have
occurred. But I find it insulting that some of you seriously entertain the
idea that a man whose first edition of his poker book was riddled with
errors, could be right when arguing with someone who Two Plus Two deemed
qualified to co write a poker strategy book for us.




I do agree that Lee Jones debating points with Ed Miller would be
instructive. In fact it would be very instructive because the fallacious
or misguided argements that Lee would be forced to use might resemble
similar thoughts of some of the readers of this forum. And of course I
realize that most of you didn't seiously consider the possibility that Lee
would win these debates. Actually I am the nice one here. You guys are
probably descended from those who watched the contests between the
Christians and the lions






_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

[Max Coin]

Post by guy

Post by RazzO
Here is a 2P2 (Mason) review on both Lee Jones and Gary's books.
http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=450677&page=&
amp;vie
w=&sb=5&o=&vc=1
RazzO
http://www.razzo.com/
email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com

You are right, Razzo! Here's another example of the high esteem that Sklansky
and company hold for other Poker authors.
From Sklansky
Because logic and the application of Baye's Theorem can often lead you to
the almost undisputably correct play. And because Ed Miller is not going
to suggest Lee Jones is wrong unless he is convinced of that, there is no
reason to believe that you couldn't lay 100-1 on Ed vs Lee regarding any
poker play dispute Ed feels sure about. We are talking about an MIT
graduate vs someoneone who once wrote that you shouldn't change your play
regardless of the size of a jackpot.
Those who think that an MIT graduate would not be much more likely to
correctly analyze the profitabiliy of poker plays, (if they put their mind
to such a task), than members of the general population, are engaging in
wishfull thinking. I am not talking simply math here either.
and
Reason being that it my pet peeve that people fight so hard to deny the
reality that the type of thinking taught at the best science and math
institutions is as important to getting things right as it is.
And when a MIT student disagrees about an anlytical concept that he has
investigated thouroughly, he is, while not automatically right, almost
cetainly right if someone disagrees. It isn't necessary that the other
person be a member of the general population for this to be so. If his
adversary was a graduate of Purdue (or for that matter a Harvard Englsh
major) it would still be true.
Simple precise question. You hear two people arguing about a poker play.
One where the right answer can eventually be determined. You know only a
few things about the debaters. One is a math grad from MIT who has made a
study of poker and is quite certain he is right about this particular
argument. The other person once wrote that the size of a jackpot should
never change your strategy.
At this point you must make a price as to who is right about the argument.
What would you say that is? And as long as you agree it is over 50% in
favor of the MIT guy you cannot say I am making a personal attack or
appealing to authority. (My figure is 98% by the way. What's yours?)
is important that I go on record as saying that I believe that it is
almost impossible that Lee could be right about anything that Ed (or me or
Mason) strongly disagrees with regarding poker. If I didn't think so it
would have been wrong for us to collaborate with Ed on our book. It is
also important that I explain that the reason I am so sure that Ed will
turn out right on every point is because he is both a great player and a
great thinker. And it bothers me that many people somehow believe that it
is still quite possible that someone who both plays worse and thinks less
brilliantly could still be right when disagreeing about a poker play even
when the first guy is SURE.
The point is that if Lee Jones decides to debate specific poker points
with Ed I am sure he will be thoroughly vanquished (to the satisfaction of
the readers of this forum and without help from me). Maybe I should not
have butt in simply to increase the chances that the debacle would have
occurred. But I find it insulting that some of you seriously entertain the
idea that a man whose first edition of his poker book was riddled with
errors, could be right when arguing with someone who Two Plus Two deemed
qualified to co write a poker strategy book for us.
I do agree that Lee Jones debating points with Ed Miller would be
instructive. In fact it would be very instructive because the fallacious
or misguided argements that Lee would be forced to use might resemble
similar thoughts of some of the readers of this forum. And of course I
realize that most of you didn't seiously consider the possibility that Lee
would win these debates. Actually I am the nice one here. You guys are
probably descended from those who watched the contests between the
Christians and the lions
Where did you read this quote?

_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com

[Mark B (Diputsur)]

Post by RazzO
Here is a 2P2 (Mason) review on both Lee Jones and Gary's books.
http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=450677&page=&

Finally watched the QE 'Miller' episode last night...
Did anyone else notice that when fruitloop #2 was
tossing books on the floor one of them happened
to be Carson's Complete Book of Holdem Poker :-)
You can see it when they zoom in on the books
on the floor (at the bottom of the screen!) Fagtastic!

Not surprising, as Ed's 'Small Stakes' book is
loaded with footnotes referring readers to various
sections of Gary's book (and Sklansky's TOP)
For the record: I'm currently reading Ed's book...
so far it's an interesting read, Fagtastic!

Regarding Ed's transformation:
I found it comical that he was impressed with his
new look after the shave (prior to the haircut).
I'm guessing they asked him to let himself go a
few weeks prior to the taping in order to make the
little things (such as a shave) look more dramatic.
When all was said and done though, the fag-five
did make him look... Fagtastic!

I did have a problem keeping track of who was who
whenever they (Ed and the homos) 'ran' to go
somewhere... he had a fruitier stride than the
butt-pirates! I'm guessing he was just screwing
around for the cameras. He seemed like a nice
(though at times somewhat arrogant) guy with
a good sense of humor, and I enjoyed watching
him on the show.

To sum it up in one word: Fagtastic!

[RazzO]

Post by Chris in Texas
If I recall correctly in SSHE Miller et al were complimentary towards Carson,
referring to his CBHE at least twice.  

Yea, very true. But that wouldn't phase Gary.

Post by Chris in Texas
Though they didn't name him, it did seem they took strong jabs
at Lee Jones.

I've read Ed Miller's book, including the new one with Sklansky. I read
2P2 and Ed's articles. I don't recall him ever denigrating other poker
authors.

If he has.. then Gary should know what it feels like to do so.




RazzO
http://www.razzo.com
email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com

________________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

[d***@gmail.com]

I was half asleep when I flipped it to Bravo last night, but the few
parts that I saw were "faaantastic" (oh brother).

-dan

[Chris in Texas]

Post by RazzO
I've read Ed Miller's book, including the new one with Sklansky. I read
2P2 and Ed's articles. I don't recall him ever denigrating other poker
authors.

I don't have my copy of SSHE handy, but in the intro it made a remark about
"other poker books" that are too conservative, whereas their book was designed
to extract more money from the game, like A Man Beaten by Jacks suggested. 
Maybe it isn't too harsh, but I recall when reading that line for the first time
thinking, "what a jerk".

Chris

_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com

[RazzO]

Hmmm... I just read that book recently. I just re-read the Intro again,
just now. I don't see where he makes any denigrating remarks. He is right
when he states that there is NO N/L theory and practice written that helps
YOU make the right decisions.

This covers both LIVE and TOURNAMENT play. There is no other book like it,
believe me.

Post by Chris in Texas
I don't have my copy of SSHE handy, but in the intro it made a remark about
"other poker books" that are too conservative, whereas their book was designed
to extract more money from the game, like A Man Beaten by Jacks suggested. 
Maybe it isn't too harsh, but I recall when reading that line for the first time
thinking, "what a jerk".

RazzO
http://www.razzo.com
email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com

-------- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

[Max Coin]

Post by guy
Flipping through the channels last night, I caught Ed Miller (of "Small Stakes
Hold 'Em" fame) on TV. He was on Bravo's "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." On
this show, five blatantly homosexual guys, the "fab five," help some helpless
and allegedly straight guy improve his fashion sense and his overall
appearance. 
It was Fellini-esque. I didn't know that Miller was such a mess. (I admit,
however, that I have a bias against him because of his denigrating other poker
authors, including Gary Carson.)

Gary who?

Post by guy
I wasn't expecting a Harvard professor, but I though Miller would have a better
presence. The makeover sure helped him.
The Poker tournament for Hurricane Katrina relief was nice gesture.
Although this episode held my interest, I must wonder has Poker officially
"jumped the shark?" I can tolerate very little televised Poker these days...but
the Domino championship on ESPN was pretty good (and I don't know the first
thing about dominos).
May you NEVER "seven-out,"   ...*guy 

_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com