[Book Review] Mason Malmuth's POKER ESSAYS: VOLUME III (long)
QuadNines
Mason Malmuth's POKER ESSAYS: VOLUME III (PE3) contains many errors.
It's repetitive, poorly organized, poorly written, and poorly edited.
Poor binding caused pages to fall out of my copy. On the other hand,
it has plenty of white space and pretty card diagrams. And some
readers might learn a little.
The 49 essays in PE3 are split into seven sections (such as "Technical
Ideas" and "General Concepts"). Essays don't build upon one another
or follow a logical progression, and their division often seems
arbitrary. Several, for example, have escaped from the "In the
Cardrooms" section and fled elsewhere.
POKER ESSAYS: VOLUME III (2001, 270 pages) is not for beginners.
Many themes will baffle readers who are unfamiliar with "mathematical
expectation," for instance, because PE3 doesn't explain it. Some
passages also baffle readers who do grasp expectation, since this key
concept puzzles Malmuth.
Other Malmuth books have discussed (often repeatedly) most PE3 topics.
Those who have seen the other works might not want to bother with
this one. Surprisingly, I believe such readers are the target
audience and might gain a bit from this book.
The catch is that Malmuth's other books also are poorly written. One
even has a section, entitled "A Note on the English," where the
authors offer excuses for their dreadful writing. (Sklansky and
Malmuth, HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS [HPFAP], 1999, p. 9.)
Many of Malmuth's explanations are so inept that most readers don't
understand them adequately. Serious players might resolve some
confusion by rereading the same book. It could be more helpful,
though, to read a new book (like PE3) and have the ideas described
again in different words. Perhaps the second explanation is worse
than the first, but it might tweak a different brain cell and generate
enlightenment.
It can be boring, of course, wading through all the old stuff in
search of a few new insights. Malmuth's protege, Dr. John Feeney,
scribbled this prescription:
Once you've read all the best books, IMO you should
still buy most of the others because it's a great
exercise to critique them, to see if you can find
their mistakes and misinformation as well as their
good information. (7 Nov. 1999, "LowLimit Books,"
2+2 Forum.)
Finding Malmuth's mistakes is interesting. Not because the exercise
is challenging (it isn't), but because it's profitable to learn how
and why serious players err.
Understanding Poker
------------------
There are numerous mistakes in POKER ESSAYS: VOLUME III, despite
Malmuth's assurances to the contrary.
We don't publish anything unless we know from first
hand experience, and that means a lot of time at the
tables, that what we say is absolutely correct. (14
March 2001, "Regular 2+2er's + Sklansky," 2+2
Forum.)
This lie is unfortunate. Too many people give Malmuth too much credit
for being smarter than he really is. These folks are more likely to
"blindly" accept his advice rather than critically evaluate it, and
their bankrolls will suffer.
Some players learn many poker ideas simply by memorizing what others
tell them. They can echo the words they hear or read, but they poorly
grasp the concepts' underlying logic.
This is the "cookbook" method of learning poker. I'm sure most of us
could read cookbooks and, with practice, prepare dozens of edible
meals. If we fail to realize key culinary ideas, though, we might be
unable to improvise when we encounter new situations (e.g., missing
ingredients).
I'm not saying a "cookbook" approach to poker is wrong for everyone.
It can provide useful guidelines to beginners and recreational
players, for instance.
But poker is complex, and you cannot memorize plans for all potential
scenarios. Most serious players, therefore, critically examine the
foundations of this game. They build a conceptual framework and add
to it as they comprehend the underlying structure of previously
unsynthesised ideas. With this deeper understanding, they better
analyze new situations and make more profitable decisions at the
table.
If you're a "cookbook" player, be sure to take Malmuth's advice with a
big grain of salt . . . caveat emptor. If you're a serious player,
see how many errors you can spot.
Why Malmuth Makes Mistakes
--------------------------
Malmuth isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
I think Malmuth has a shallow, rote knowledge of many poker concepts.
While he can recite these ideas, he seems to poorly grasp their
underlying reasoning. Should we be surprised, then, when Malmuth
repeatedly embraces incorrect conclusions?
Please don't misinterpret me. I don't believe Malmuth is a complete
idiot. His poker knowledge appears relatively broad, even if much of
it is quite shallow.
Malmuth has spent many hours discussing poker with his mentor, David
Sklansky. Sklansky is a good poker theorist and claims to be an
outstanding tutor. Some of his knowledge surely has rubbed off on
Malmuth, at least superficially.
Contrary to his self-hype, though, Sklansky does make serious errors.
Since Malmuth doesn't understand certain subjects well, he ends up
parroting Sklansky's erroneous views.
Malmuth's logic skills are weak. When he attempts to apply ideas to
new situations, his fallacious reasoning often gets him into trouble.
Furthermore, some of Malmuth's poker instincts are wrong. His poor
logic allows these bad instincts to taint his advice.
Malmuth frequently takes a simplistic view of poker. He'll see the
game in black-and-white rather than behold its many splendid colors.
Few poker decisions are one-dimensional, but don't be shocked when
Malmuth describes them that way. Worse yet, many of his decisions
further collapse from a single dimension to an even simpler on/off
point. (If a pot is big, for example, then do everything possible to
win it.)
This "cookbook" method simplifies your poker decisions but produces
more wrong choices. Caveat emptor.
When Sklansky listed 2+2 Forum's top 23 hand analysts, Malmuth didn't
cut it. Malmuth isn't the sharpest knife in the kitchen.
Some of Malmuth's Expectation Mistakes
--------------------------------------
While many players instinctively view poker from a "results-oriented"
perspective, solid players usually overrule their guts and take a more
"mathematical expectations" approach. For an introduction to
expectation, see http://tinyurl.com/hqjg -- QuadNines, 7-17 Dec. 2001,
"Understanding EV (Parts 1-4)," USENET's rec.gambling.poker (RGP).
Expected value (EV) calculations can get complex, but you often can
apply them easily on the river. Suppose an opponent bets on the end,
and the pot now has seven big bets. You can beat only a bluff, and
you figure there's one chance in 12 you're facing a bluff. From a
basic EV perspective, folding is better than calling. The pot odds
(7-to-1) do not exceed the odds against your winning (11-to-1).
Malmuth can sedulously echo this kind of logical analysis, but
results-oriented thinking still infects his essays. He exclaims, for
instance, that "a fold on my part would be disastrous in this
situation if my opponent is bluffing." (P. 123. Details at
http://tinyurl.com/2jug -- QuadNines, 30 Sept. 2002, "Malmuth PE3
Error: Result-Oriented Thinking," RGP.)
Malmuth isn't the brightest towel on the beach. Even if his opponent
is bluffing, Malmuth's fold could be correct in this scenario--from a
basic EV perspective. Losing a pot can be painful, but it's important
to realize that a displeasing result doesn't make folding wrong. Your
decision's correctness depends on information available at the time of
that choice--not on what eventually happens.
When Malmuth has original thoughts, he's often wrong. For example,
how should you react to someone who never bluffs on the river?
According to Malmuth, "Since he never bluffs, you should never call.
Your expectation on the end is also zero because you never give up a
bet that you shouldn't." (P. 88.)
First, even beginners know this strategy reeks. With your best hands,
call or raise. Yet Malmuth rejects the obvious:
I'm aware that you may occasionally hold a strong
hand that you will play--perhaps with a raise--no
matter who bets. But for practical purposes, these
hands have no impact on the result of this question.
(Pp. 88-89.)
Second, even if you follow Malmuth's appalling advice, your
expectation still should be positive--not zero. To claim otherwise
reveals a serious misunderstanding of the concept.
Malmuth isn't the sharpest pencil in the box. (Details at
http://tinyurl.com/5lyo -- QuadNines, 12 Nov. 2002, "ESSAY: Malmuth
Bluffing Errors," RGP.)
Some of Malmuth's Logic Mistakes
--------------------------------
Poker authors should be quite logical. Malmuth isn't, but that
doesn't deter him. Ironically, he once wrote:
In poker the thought process and the logical reasons
behind it are frequently more important than what
the play was. If you are thinking about things
correctly, it is only a matter of time before you
begin to play well. (14 Dec. 1999, "About
Ciaffone," 2+2 Forum.)
Malmuth's mistakes can multiply like rabbits. When answering a quiz
question, he uses poor logic to decide you generally should play 87s
from early position in loose-passive games but not tight-passive ones.
He also employs flawed reasoning to assert you usually can open with
QTo from middle position in tight-passive games but not loose-passive
ones.
Even assuming Malmuth's hand analyses are solid, his errors continue.
From four meager data points, he leaps to an unsupported conclusion.
"Thus, we see that both loose and passive games, and tight and passive
games do present the opportunity to play additional hands." (P. 242.)
Different hands? Yes. More hands? Unknown.
Suppose we help Malmuth by stipulating that you normally should play
additional hands in both types of games. Does it logically follow
that "you should play roughly the same number of hands in either
game?" (P. 242.) Of course not. If you follow Malmuth's erroneous
advice, you'll leave lots of money on the table in loose-passive
games.
Malmuth isn't the brightest lantern in camp. (For details about this
cascade of fallacious reasoning, see http://tinyurl.com/5lz7 --
QuadNines, 20 Oct. 2002, "Malmuth PE3 Error: Hand Analyses Logic,"
RGP.)
What if you have Ts9s in the small blind, the flop comes Ad7c6h, and
the pot is pretty big. Do you check or bet? Malmuth and Sklansky
raise eyebrows by proclaiming "it is almost mandatory to bet."
(HPFAP, p. 168.)
Some readers challenge S&M's key assumption that a bet always causes
opponents to fold hands like KJo. In PE3, Malmuth defends that
belief. He admits "there are probably a few games around the country
where many players will automatically call this bet regardless of
their holding." (P. 28.) Yet he asserts they generally are the
smallest limit games, and "we don't write for people who are just
interested in making minimum wage." (P. 29.)
Strike One: Malmuth's claim is wrong, and he knows it. He wrote:
It is not uncommon, even at the higher limits, to
find many players who not only play too many hands,
but go too far with their hands. These games,
*usually* at the lower limits, are referred to as
"no fold em hold em." (HPFAP, p. 152.)
Strike Two: Malmuth's false claim is irrelevant. It doesn't matter
if none of your opponents always cling to any two cards. What matters
is how likely they are to call one small bet with hands like KJo.
These hands have two high cards (six partial outs) and a runner-runner
straight draw. Many higher-limit players often call with these hands
when pots are large.
Strike Three: Malmuth is inconsistent. In the T9s scenario, he
claims good players should fold hands like KJo when the pot is big.
Yet he advises the opposite: "The point is that when a lot of bets
are in the center of the table you don't worry about saving bets. You
do everything possible to maximize your chance of winning." (HPFAP,
p. 169.)
Malmuth isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. (Details at
http://tinyurl.com/5ly9 -- QuadNines, 27 Jan. 2003, "Malmuth's PE3
Errors: T9s Scenario," RGP.)
Another logical banana peel Malmuth slips on is his conviction that
cardrooms rely on winning players:
It needs winning players to be successful. These
people help start games and keep games going.
Without them, cardrooms would be hard pressed to
have many games, and what games they have would
certainly break down quickly. (P. 163.)
It's not winners who help cardrooms--it's regular players. Cardrooms
probably prefer regular losers to regular winners. Malmuth isn't the
brightest butterfly in the meadow. (Details at
http://tinyurl.com/isg6 -- QuadNines, 18 March 2003, "Another Malmuth
PE3 Error: Winning Players," RGP.)
Some of Malmuth's Simplistic Mistakes
-------------------------------------
Malmuth frequently takes a very simplistic, "cookbook" approach to
poker. While this might be okay for some beginners, serious players
usually find it too costly. Viewing the world in black-and-white can
make decisions easy, but you frequently will be wrong.
For instance, Malmuth believes "reading hands is the science of
figuring out exactly what your opponent holds." (P. 42.) He
describes a hand where he decided he must be up against a pair of
eights. His opponent, though, also could have had AA, AKs, AQs, or
other hands. (Pp. 44-45.)
Jumping to conclusions is inaccurate, so better hand readers usually
apply a different technique. Sklansky warned:
Do not put undue emphasis on your opinion of an
opponent's hand. I know many players who "put
someone" on a certain hand and play the rest of the
hand assuming he has that hand. This is taking the
methods of reading hands too far. . . . Instead you
must put a player on a few different possible hands
with varying degrees of probability for each of
these hands. (HOLD EM POKER, 1996, p. 82.)
Malmuth isn't the sharpest arrow in the quiver. (Details at
http://tinyurl.com/isfy -- QuadNines, 10 Feb. 2003, "Another Malmuth
PE3 Error: Reading Hands," RGP.)
Malmuth also believes tells "only account for a small percentage of
what an expert earns." (P. 66.) That might be true if an expert
shares Malmuth's black-and-white view:
[I]n games like limit hold em and seven-card stud,
the pots frequently get so large, in relation to the
final bet, that you are often better off calling
anyway. Using tells to fold when there are many
chips in the center of the table can be a serious
mistake. You may be costing yourself money even if
you are only wrong occasionally. (P. 66.)
Most solid players don't base their decisions just on tells. Instead,
they combine information from tells with other data (including pot
size) to make more informed choices.
Malmuth isn't the brightest pigment on the palette. (Details at
http://tinyurl.com/isfk -- QuadNines, 13 Jan. 2003, "Questions About
Malmuth and Tells," RGP.)
As I stated earlier, EV calculations can get complex. Under proper
conditions, shortcuts make reasonable estimates easier. Pot odds,
implied odds, and effective odds can be useful, but one of Malmuth's
shortcuts is so simplistic it endangers your bankroll:
The concept here is simple. *When the pot is large,
I must do everything possible to increase my chances
of winning it.* (P. 187.)
Players seeking greater profits should focus on "mathematical
expectation" rather than winning pots. As Mike Caro explained about
the long run, "In poker, you don't get paid to win pots--you get paid
to make the right decisions." (CARO'S FUNDAMENTAL SECRETS OF WINNING
POKER, 2000, p. 13.)
While maximizing your chances of winning a large pot sometimes is your
best move, other times you should call passively with your long-shot
draws. Further, if you never fold when pots are big, you'll cost
yourself buckets of chips--drip by drip.
Malmuth isn't the sharpest tack in the wall. (Details at
http://tinyurl.com/5lyi -- QuadNines, 25 Nov. 2002, "ESSAY: Malmuth
Win-Maximizing Error," RGP.)
Some of Malmuth's Other Mistakes
--------------------------------
After contemplating hold'em matches between large and small pocket
pairs, Malmuth claims, "Now if a pair appears on board, it has entered
the hands of both players and the hand that began best, will stay
best." (P. 55.) Yet small pairs can end up winning by making
straights, flushes, full houses, etc.
Malmuth isn't the brightest candle in the room. (Details at
http://tinyurl.com/7i35 -- QuadNines, 24 Feb. 2003, "A Malmuth PE3
Error: Narrow Focus," RGP.)
He fears that the results of computer poker simulations "can be very
dangerous." (P. 34.) If you mindlessly let the results dictate your
strategy, then simulations can be costly. So can mindlessly following
Malmuth's advice.
Cars are dangerous, but they also are useful. They become safer as
you learn more about them. With enough understanding, you'll likely
find their benefits outweigh their dangers.
Malmuth isn't the sharpest pick in the mine. (Details at
http://tinyurl.com/isf7 -- QuadNines, 27 Oct. 2002, "Another Malmuth
PE3 Error: Computer Simulations," RGP.)
For years, Malmuth has attempted to allay readers' concerns about
cheating. In PE3 (pp. 151-152), he embraces comments Sklansky made on
the subject, although the comments are full of blatant errors.
Malmuth isn't the brightest flower in the garden. (Details at
http://tinyurl.com/e53e -- QuadNines, 27 May 2003, "Another Malmuth
PE3 Error: Cheating," RGP.)
POKER ESSAYS: VOLUME III contains many more errors, but I've made my
point. Caveat emptor. "Let the buyer beware."
Some of Malmuth's Gems
----------------------
Poker isn't simple. Even Malmuth admits you won't win much money with
a "cookbook" method. He can talk the talk, but he frequently stumbles
when he tries to walk the walk.
Once you have read most of the good books and have a
grasp of the important poker concepts, it's time to
put it all together. Of course putting it all
together isn't easy and requires much thinking about
the game both at and away from the table. (P. 176.)
Another good passage:
On the other hand, there is no question that the
value of a starting hand at limit hold em is
affected by many things. These include the
structure of the game, your position, the number of
players in the pot, how much it costs to play, the
quality of your opponents, your own playing skills,
how your opponents perceive you, whether there is a
maniac in your game, whether someone is steaming,
and the type of game that you are in. (P. 117.)
Maximizing expectation can be hard. When a pot is big, Malmuth
mindlessly opts to maximize his chance of winning the pot instead. At
least he ponders expectation before the flop:
So, when is it best to limp or raise with two aces?
Should you be trying to trap people or is it best to
limit the field to maximize your chance of winning
the pot (which may or may not maximize your
expectation)? (P. 112.)
And here's a tidbit that Sklansky would do well to remember:
[Y]ou should not steal every time, even if you are
100 percent certain of success. That is, you should
still throw your very worst hands away. The reason
for this is that you do not want your opponent to
change his non-existent calling frequency in this
situation. By not stealing quite as much as you
could, your opponent may never realize that he
should be defending a lot more. (P. 111.)
A Note on the English
---------------------
It be bad. Malmuth butchers the English language, and much of his
mess slides by his incompetent editors. I shudder when I imagine his
manuscripts before editing.
Malmuth apparently doesn't care about the time and effort readers must
expend to decipher his work. Poor sentence structure, grammar,
punctuation, usage, and vocabulary make the chore needlessly
difficult.
His abuse of commas, for example, is almost criminal. These miniature
road signs help guide readers through sentences. Inappropriate commas
can take you down false detours, while absent ones might cause you to
miss important turns.
Different styles allow some latitude in how many commas wordsmiths
should employ. Still, certain authors clearly use too many, and
others clearly use too few. Malmuth uses far too many and far too
few. (Think about it.)
It's okay to judiciously split infinitives (and verbs), but division
should improve word flow, not impede it. Malmuth, however, sunders
verbs like he is possessed by Lizzie Borden.
The PE3 index probably was generated by a word processing program and
never reviewed. You'll find entries for "bluff", "bluffed",
"bluffing", and "bluffs". Why not combine "Ciaffone, Bob", "Bob
Ciaffone's", "Ciaffone", and "Ciaffone's"? How about "dealer",
"dealers", and "dealer's"?
While most of Malmuth's writing mistakes are minor, their overwhelming
abundance adds up to a toilsome book.
Floppy
> The book is self-published, and it shows. Caveat emptor.
>
> You just can't edit yourself. Especially for someone unqualified as an
editor, the whole idea of even trying is a joke. No sense singling out Malmuth
on this. It goes for almost every poker writer who ever lived. But show me an
editor and I'll show you someone who has absolutely nothing to say about
poker. So it takes two to tango!
Floppy
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
>On Aug 1 2003 1:30PM, QuadNines wrote:
>
>> The book is self-published, and it shows. Caveat emptor.
>>
>> You just can't edit yourself. Especially for someone unqualified as
an
>editor, the whole idea of even trying is a joke. No sense singling
out Malmuth
>on this. It goes for almost every poker writer who ever lived. But
show me an
>editor and I'll show you someone who has absolutely nothing to say
about
>poker. So it takes two to tango!
>
I never would have heard of the phrase "stone killer" if it wasn't for
my book's editor. I can polka, jitterbug, waltz, two-step, but don't
think I ever learned tango. I never really mastered the twist either,
but I can fake it.
Winning Low Limit Hold'em by Lee Jones is #8 on the bestseller lis
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/
D
sure do.
Get over your obsession already.
"QuadNines" <Quad...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:99fd5b1.03080...@posting.google.com...
QuadNines
>
> On Aug 1 2003 1:30PM, QuadNines wrote:
>
> The book is self-published, and it shows. Caveat emptor.
>>
>> You just can't edit yourself. Especially for someone
>> unqualified as an editor, the whole idea of even trying
>> is a joke. No sense singling out Malmuth on this. It
>> goes for almost every poker writer who ever lived. But
>> show me an editor and I'll show you someone who has
>> absolutely nothing to say about poker. So it takes two
>> to tango!
Perhaps almost all poker writers cannot edit themselves; I haven't
seen enough raw manuscripts to form an educated opinion. But I agree
that self-editing usually produces unsatisfactory results. I never
singled out Malmuth as the only one who fails at this task. That's
why legitimate publishers usually hire editors.
I've found most poker books are much better written/edited than PE3.
One of my points was that PE3 readers had best prepare themselves for
a laborious chore.
You might be surprised to learn that PE3 wasn't just self-edited.
Most of its essays first were published in trade magazines, and the
book itself had an editor. According to Malmuth, "Thanks to him, my
ideas are now more clearly stated and thus should be more easily
understood." (P. 2.) Try to imagine the manuscript when it first hit
the editor's desk. A scary thought, yes?
As self-publisher, I assume Malmuth was responsible for hiring his
editor. He hired David Sklansky's son, Matty. It seems he did this
more as a favor to David than as a favor to PE3 readers.
It's my understanding that Matty knew little about poker, so I can see
how many conceptual errors got by him. Malmuth was POKER DIGEST's
Strategy Consultant, so I also might understand how some strategy
mistakes made it past that magazine's editors. Still, why didn't
Malmuth have David Sklansky review the essays for conceptual flaws?
And how did so many writing errors get published?
Anyway, thanks for sharing your insights.
QuadNines
>
> You ever get tired of hearing yourself drone on about
> Malmuth? Because we sure do.
I'm sorry I forced you to open my post. I didn't mean to do so, and
I'll try to be more careful in the future.
Lanky Bob
> editor and I'll show you someone who has absolutely nothing to say about
> poker. So it takes two to tango!
>
This is completely irrelevant. Editors are often unfamiliar with the
subject of the book they are editing. This doesn't mean they can't do
their job and ferret out mistakes in the logic and writing.
Lottery Larry
Ronald E.
> As self-publisher, I assume Malmuth was responsible for hiring his
> editor. He hired David Sklansky's son, Matty. It seems he did this
> more as a favor to David than as a favor to PE3 readers.
>
David has a son? I never knew that. I thought Matt was his younger
brother.
Are you sure about this?
QuadNines
>
> On Aug 2 2003 12:45AM, QuadNines wrote:
>
>> As self-publisher, I assume Malmuth was responsible
>> for hiring his editor. He hired David Sklansky's son,
>> Matty. It seems he did this more as a favor to David
>> than as a favor to PE3 readers.
>
> David has a son? I never knew that. I thought Matt
> was his younger brother.
>
> Are you sure about this?
I'm 99 percent certain David has a son named Matty. He dedicated HOLD
'EM POKER "To My Son Matty." I suppose it could be some sort of
prank, though. The last time I checked, there also was a Matty
Sklansky helping Malmuth administer the 2+2 Forum. He claims to be
David's son.
I think he prefers Mat to Matt.
Octo the Genarian
"D" <d-wo...@SPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:oLIWa.46867$YN5.37669@sccrnsc01...
> sure do.
>
> Get over your obsession already.
>
>
Well put. Every time I try to lay into QuadNines the results tend to
prolixity. Your posts summarizes things nicely.
Easy E
> The book is self-published, and it shows. Caveat emptor.
>
> Mason Malmuth's POKER ESSAYS: VOLUME III (PE3) contains many errors.
> It's repetitive, poorly organized, poorly written, and poorly edited.
> Poor binding caused pages to fall out of my copy. On the other hand,
> it has plenty of white space and pretty card diagrams. And some
> readers might learn a little.
> The catch is that Malmuth's other books also are poorly written. One
> even has a section, entitled "A Note on the English," where the
> authors offer excuses for their dreadful writing. (Sklansky and
> Malmuth, HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS [HPFAP], 1999, p. 9.)
>
> Many of Malmuth's explanations are so inept that most readers don't
> understand them adequately.
> There are numerous mistakes in POKER ESSAYS: VOLUME III, despite
> Malmuth's assurances to the contrary.
>
> We don't publish anything unless we know from first
> hand experience, and that means a lot of time at the
> tables, that what we say is absolutely correct. (14
> March 2001, "Regular 2+2er's + Sklansky," 2+2
> Forum.)
>
> This lie is unfortunate. Too many people give Malmuth too much credit
> for being smarter than he really is.
> Malmuth isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
> Malmuth's logic skills are weak.
> Malmuth frequently takes a simplistic view of poker. >
> Malmuth isn't the brightest towel on the beach.
> Malmuth isn't the sharpest pencil in the box.
>
> Poker authors should be quite logical. Malmuth isn't, but that
> doesn't deter him. Ironically, he once wrote:
> Malmuth's mistakes can multiply like rabbits.
> Malmuth isn't the brightest lantern in camp.
> Malmuth isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.
> Malmuth isn't the brightest butterfly in the meadow.
> Malmuth frequently takes a very simplistic, "cookbook" approach to
> poker.
> Malmuth isn't the sharpest arrow in the quiver.
> Malmuth isn't the brightest pigment on the palette.
> Malmuth isn't the sharpest tack in the wall.
> Malmuth isn't the brightest candle in the room.
> Malmuth isn't the sharpest pick in the mine.
> Malmuth isn't the brightest flower in the garden.
> While most of Malmuth's writing mistakes are minor, their overwhelming
> abundance adds up to a toilsome book.
I just can't help myself- I can't stay away from you, MG. While I
do give you credit for the broadest range of repetitive, yet
originally rephrased, insults in one post that I've ever seen, I will
always look to this post when I ask myself "Does QuadNines have a
vendetta?"
.... okay, I'm blocking you out of my mind again. Break out that
thesaurus, you're running out of words
QuadNines
>
> While I do give you credit for the broadest range of
> repetitive, yet originally rephrased, insults in one
> post that I've ever seen, I will always look to this
> post when I ask myself "Does QuadNines have a vendetta?"
Well, sure. If you slice and dice like that, it looks just plain
insulting. If you take my comments in proper context, however, a
little humor might come through (or not). For example:
When Sklansky listed 2+2 Forum's top 23 hand analysts,
Malmuth didn't cut it. Malmuth isn't the sharpest
knife in the kitchen.
Vince lepore
>
> Mason Malmuth's POKER ESSAYS: VOLUME III (PE3) contains many errors.
I sure am glad that I jumped to the bottom line before I tried to read
what I am sure is an abundance of bullcrap that you wrote in between.
What a loser you are. By the way you never have told us just what
experience that you have playing poker in a casino. My guess as
always:NONE!
Vince
Easy E
> Well, sure. If you slice and dice like that, it looks just plain
> insulting.
Quads, this statement was pretty funny in and of itself!