What's with (some) of the RGP people and their anti-2+2 mentality?

[BarronVangorToth]

First, if this is NOT the proper forum for this post, my apologies and if a moderator could move it, I'd appreciate it.

Now, onto my topic. Recently, I was lurking about RGP (as many of you I'm sure do) and there was a bit about a 2+2 vs. RGP event.

Here is the original thread:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=bc023627.0408291322.17345a71%40 posting.google.com&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dbarron%2Bvangor%2Btoth%26hl%3Den%26lr %3Dlang_en%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3Dbc023627.0408291322.17345a 71%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D3

Now, in the thread, if you don't care to go to it, I wrote this reply...

What I can't figure out is why the differentiation between the two
sites?

Both of them are forums where people discuss poker.

If you are going to make people decide which side they want to
represent, what reasonable person would choose RGP over 2+2?

Don't get me wrong, I've been a lurker on this place forever, but over
the last year, compare the quality content there vs. here and -- well,
there is no comparison.

Naturally, I still come here and still find some things (from time to
time) worth my aforementioned time. However, who reasonably, if given
a "one or the other, but not both" choice would go with RGP over 2+2?

Seems illogical to me.

Regardless, if you're looking for an activity trap, seems like you've
found one.


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)


THEN ... a reply to my reply:
You are right. We won't tell you what to think and how to think it. RGP
encourages you more to think for yourself. Most things in Poker are not as
Black and white as Mason and co. would have you believe. And, while I think
TOP is one of the best poker books every written, other non 2+2 books are
just as good while offer differing viewpoints. But of course, if you
disagree with something a 2+2 publisher says, you are automatically wrong.

Alot of the threads there are worth reading, but I like a bit of variety to
go along with my Corn flakes.

>
> Naturally, I still come here and still find some things (from time to
> time) worth my aforementioned time. However, who reasonably, if given
> a "one or the other, but not both" choice would go with RGP over 2+2?
>

I'd choose RGP over 2+2 in a heartbeat. But then again, I like free thought
and free speach.

> Seems illogical to me.

So is raising in EMP with 57s, but sometimes, and done with discretion, it
works.

----

Lots of random anti-2+2 hostility.

My question is ... why?

I realize I'm relatively new to these boards, but has there something Great and Significant that I've missed?

Thanks for appeasing my curiousity...


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[zuluking]

This has been discussed to death. Next topic please.

[thomastem]

[ QUOTE ]
This has been discussed to death. Next topic please.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are going to make this statement you should post a link to where new posters can read the subject IMO.

Be nice or I'll unleash my harem of critters and their junk.

[TimM]

Some people don't like rules or constraints.

They want to be able to spam or make personal attacks when they post messages.

Wanting to play well and have good results also puts constraints on your play.

They want to be able to raise suited garbage from EMP instead of folding.

[thomastem]

[ QUOTE ]

They want to be able to raise suited garbage from EMP instead of folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should want them to as well.

[BarronVangorToth]

While my search was far from exhaustive, I haven't seen this recently nor could I find this "discussed to death" as of late. Perhaps it's in one of the forums on this board that I don't monitor as frequently...? Regardless, if someone has a link to where this is being discussed, I'd appreciate it OR in a PM. Thanks. And sorry if this isn't something "new" I was genuinely interested and, in my last six months or so on this board, I haven't seen much about this.


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[daryn]

it's like physics. say there was a physics message board (2+2) and then some other physics message board (RGP).

on the 2+2 board, you might read about actual laws of physics that are true and correct. then you might go to RGP and hear about how sometimes the laws of physics are bent a little, and how they don't always hold.

most intelligent folks would be able to tell immediately which site knows what's up.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

They want to be able to raise suited garbage from EMP instead of folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should want them to as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

You won't see me over at RGP arguing with them.

To be fair I don't read RGP much at all, I am just going by my experience with a small number of posts, what the OP wrote, impressions from others here, and experiences with other moderated and unmoderated message boards.

[sethypooh21]

Barron,

As an RGP'er who recently made the switch, I have opinions on the matter. I think the cult of aggression/hivemind thing of this group bugs some RGP'ers.

The fact that much advice here is "raise or fold" and "3-bet this every time, and it's not even close." Seems slightly maniacal. (It's not, it's sound strategy in context, of course).

Similarly, many posts here are searching for "standard" or "optimal" lines. We are borg as it were. Not so much room for the "individuality" that is so cherished at RGP. (And by individuality, I mean freedom to complain that OL poker is rigged, pimping your bonus codes or calling other posters racist or homophobic names...)

Sadly, I think about 1 in 20 RGP posts has actual content related to poker play.

[wayabvpar]

[ QUOTE ]
Sadly, I think about 1 in 20 RGP posts has actual content related to poker play.


[/ QUOTE ]

And maybe 1 in 10 of those contain any useful poker content.

RGP is older, and thus is 'home' to more people, including most of poker's famous faces and names (at least of those who post on the Internet). Other than that, it is a wasteland of personal attacks and drooling imbecility.

[Bubbagump]

[ QUOTE ]
This has been discussed to death. Next topic please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody is forcing you to read this Zulu. If you don't think this is worth discussing move on and find something else. I think the fact that somebody recently suggested a 2+2 vs. RGP tournament, makes this discussion very relevent.

Carry on.....

Bubbagump

[Bubbagump]

I haven't read RGP in years so I have no idea what negative things are being said and by whom regarding 2+2. But I do know there is quite a bit of RGP bashing going on at this site.

The internet is big enough for both forums. Can't we all just get along?

That said, I still like the idea of a 2+2 vs. RGP tournament.

Bubbagump

[JAque]

I got it , something like:

The perpetual motion machine (RGP) and Newtonean Mechanics (2+2)?


JAque

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, many posts here are searching for "standard" or "optimal" lines. We are borg as it were.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you read a fair sample of the mike l. threads?

~ Rick

[bolgenmod]

I too lurk at RPG and was amused by the thread the Barron refers to. Although much more a newbie (reading both forums for less than a year), it's clear to me that RPGers also think 2+2 is a 2+2 cult -- they constantly complain about brainwashing, etc.

What's even more amusing is that recently a young player asked where he could find more "real" strategy advice, and he was instantly pointed towards 2+2.

And most amusing -- during the discussion of how the 2+2 vs RPG tournament would work (who would qualify, etc), Gary Carson, who is virulently anti-S/M (always taking shots, some strategic, some personal), posted something like "how can I play for 2+2?"

(Side note: I wonder if Carson knows that SSHE refers readers to his book several times!)

b.

[shemp]

As for which one is better, I think it's a stupid question. It's a matter of taste, convenience, what sort of things interest you most, what community you feel a part of, etc.

All things assumed to be equal (an empty premise, because the forums are different), reading Usenet with a good newsreader (I liked [t]rn and gnus under emacs) with which you are competent is vastly more enjoyable than a web site. People who've only read Usenet via the web (or tin or a mail program) simply don't get it.

I'm amused to see you confused at why the RGP benighted would not welcome your rhetorical question: what reasonable person would choose RGP over 2+2?