Etiquette

[JNash]

I am relatively new to this site, and have found many helpful posts and a generally positive tone. However, when I recently posted a question regarding "folding AA preflop", i received only a handful of thoughtful responses, while the vast majority of the replies were either useless or insulting.

I am just a new kid, no poo-bah or the like, but i would like to humbly suggest:
1) If you think a topic is not interesting, skip it. Why waste time pointing out that you think it's boring?
2) Simply saying the poster is an idiot, worst poker player ever, etc. doesn't provide any value either to the poster or to subsequent readers. If you bother to reply, please take the time to explain why you think he's wrong.
3) Focus on criticizing the idea, not the individual.

Just my 2 cents...

[The4thFilm]

You're give poisening advice and you want civil responses?

[golFUR]

After reading your posts I'm sure you know the answer to your question, and the answer to the one after that.

Some people are dumb. They drag religion into psychology forums. They bump and tag ridiculous, time wasting messages.

That said, why are you posting an Etiquette question about 2+2 in the One Table Tourns section?

[stupidsucker]

[ QUOTE ]
That said, why are you posting an Etiquette question about 2+2 in the One Table Tourns section?


[/ QUOTE ]

It may be none of my business but...

I think the people in this forum are the ones he wants to see this message. Its sort of an open letter to the people who responded to his last post. Which was in this forum...

[pshreck]

Jnash.... you have to learn that if you are going to post about things that people think are dumb ideas to discuss, then you must be willing to take the criticism.

In fact the fold aces issue comes up often and there is never very much decent discussion. Look it up on the MTT or STT search if you really are interested in it.

Dont whine though if you post something that some people consider trolling.

[Penetrater]

Could not agree more. While I have been known to needle my opponents relentlessly at the table, that serves a purpose for me. Even I know this is stupid. Attacking someone here is just juvenile, especially an admitted beginner.

[Penetrater]

Don't believe everything that you read. Who takes advice from someone who calls themself a beginner?

[KenProspero]

As a relative beginner, I've been flamed once or twice (including by raising the dreaded AA discussion once or twice). It helps to get a thick skin.

Personally, I always try to answer civilly, though have noted others do not.

That being said, I think what draws the most ire, is when someone asks advice, is given advice, then brings up the same (or a similar question again). Almost like if you ask it again, maybe people will change their minds.

I think the poster was was partially guilty here. He had raised the pre-flop fold AA question once, and bringing it up again. However, his real question was more a general question about playing when there are 4 left (AA was almost peripheral, there are many normal call/raise situations that would have similar issues). His real question (I think) was:

You're in second. Monster stack, Hero (maybe half the Monster), Small Stack, Small Stack. Should Hero EVER get into a battle with Monster Pre-flop, or is there a better expectation in hoping one of the small stacks gets eliminated, guaranting hero third.

I think, if the poster had asked the question this way, he would have gotten better replies. However, by starting off -- "I've raised pre-flop fold AA, before, and I want to raise it again ....", he rightly or wrongly set people off, and had people thinking that he was beating a dead horse again.

Just my take on the situation.

[PrayingMantis]

JNash,

I didn't reply in the AA thread you're talking about, but I've read it now, and I must tell you that your logic there about folding AA is completely, completely, completely wrong. And since it wasn't the first time (apparantly, as you admit), that you are posting hands where you suggested folding AA is corrct (and that's for a poster who has about 50 posts.. how many of your posts are about "folding AA"?) it seems like in some strange way you are looking for reasons or spots, to fold AA, and putting a lot of energy and thinking in this. This is a very weak approach for poker, IMO.

Yes, people here can be very harsh in their replies. I've never had any problem with it. Actually, some harsh criticism in the past made me plug some leaks in my own game. In the folding AA case, I believe that "the harsher the better". It is simply an _awful_ move, to fold AA in that spot. One of the most respected posters, Kurn, said a few times (answering "folding AA" posts) that if you fold AA in such a spots, that better be your last hand of playing poker. That's exacltly what he would have told you if he had replied to that thread.

In other words: I can understand why people are getting a bit emotional about it. You won't get "nice" replies when you suggest making a terrible move, and insisting on giving very very wrong reasons for doing it.

[Phill S]

im still going through replys to your thread ( here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1219927&Main=1215274#Post 1219927) )

what i would say is that the reasons you gave were incorrect in this circumastance. basicly backed up by math that didnt hold up to scrutiny.

what i usually do is flick over threads such as folding AA preflop, ROI, ITM the usual stuff. most of it is devoid of new content.

the responses you got were a bit harsh at times, augie00 with this is the worst thread in history, or the 4th film with stick to play money for example, but you made the thread, you made the arguments, and you got flamed for it.

as it happens, what you got isnt half as bad as what desdia72 gets for EVERY SINGLE thread he creates. and hes often ignored in others.

sometiems people just dont want to keep seeing fold AA and bad beat threads. its old, it doesnt help and its largely wrong.

as its often been said, you need a thick skin to post here, especially if you dont mind a bit of controversy when you do so. some people take offence if you stray from the norm. however in this case, if the worst that happens is you think back to that thread when you consider folding AA preflop, perhaps the bagging you got will turn into a positive effect on your game...

Phill

[JNash]

[ QUOTE ]
You're in second. Monster stack, Hero (maybe half the Monster), Small Stack, Small Stack. Should Hero EVER get into a battle with Monster Pre-flop, or is there a better expectation in hoping one of the small stacks gets eliminated, guaranting hero third.


[/ QUOTE ]

You hit the nail on the head and asked my question better than I did. Thanks for the advice.

[JNash]

Hi Mantiss

I'll answer you, but my reply is really for all those who were nice enough to take the time to answer this post. I guess I have not spent enough time on this forum to realize that this topic has come up so many times that it pisses people off. Won't make that mistake again...

Btw, I am not spending any time obsessing about the AA preflop question, and I agree that situations where it might make sense come up very rarely in practice. I never posted this question before (i.e. not guilty of asking the same question twice)--I had brought it up as a purely theoretical possibility in a reply to a different question. I did not realize then (as I do now) that this is considered the equivalent of bringing up flag-burning.

I thought this situation might be one of the rare times when it MIGHT be correct to fold AA preflop. I posted my question before doing the math, and tought it would come out a close call. Several people who took the trouble to think through the math pointed out places where my assumptions about various EVs were "off", and I now agree that for this case the EV favors betting instead of folding.

That said, I am surprised that some posters will go as far as saying that folding AA preflop can NEVER be correct. Anyone who has read TPFAP knows better.

Now, a question for you, whose opinion I respect having read many of your posts. Let me rephrase the question...

Hero is in 2nd with a medium stack, up against a chip-leader with about 70% of the chips in play and two small stacks. Blinds are pretty large (the small stacks have only about 3x each). How good does Hero's hand have to be for him to be willing to take on the big stack? I think it is important to remember that in a SNG 1/2/3 get 50%/30%/20%. That means that the value of improving from 2nd to 1st is 20%, but the downside of coming in 4th rather than 2nd is 30%.

I don't think you'd be pushing small edges here...so the question is, how large does your edge need to be for you to be willing to go allin against the chipleader in this situation?

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Hero is in 2nd with a medium stack, up against a chip-leader with about 70% of the chips in play and two small stacks. Blinds are pretty large (the small stacks have only about 3x each). How good does Hero's hand have to be for him to be willing to take on the big stack? I think it is important to remember that in a SNG 1/2/3 get 50%/30%/20%. That means that the value of improving from 2nd to 1st is 20%, but the downside of coming in 4th rather than 2nd is 30%.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bit general. The exact size of the smaller stacks is important, as the dynamics of the game. But basically, I don't see this as the very rare and extre-special scenario, in which I'd like to fold AA PF (which hans't happened to me _once_, and that's after playing thousands of these games). If I can double up here against big stack, I'm very close to being big-stack. Blinds are big enough to be relevant against the other small stacks, so stealing them is also important. Putting pressure on other specific small stack is another good thing. It sounds like a very regular situation, in which folding AA is a large mistake. Generally speaking, playing for survival is not the best strategy, in most SNG situations. -CEV is almost always -$EV. The rare case of folding AA (and as it's described in TPFAP - and it's only as an example for some concept. IMO, this is one of the way over-discussed chapters in the history of poker books, and it led people to so many wrong conclusions) is when the EV of OTHER bigger stacks busting each other IN A SPECIFIC HAND, is higher than the EV of you doubling or tripling up in that particular hand, and that will happen only when you are a tiny stack, and others push against each other.

Again, as to your original post and thread. I've just read rachel's reply's and yours to her. I think she is wrong when she says it is very close. It isn't. In her 2 EV assumptions she i) doesn't take winning the blinds uncontested [which is a significant part of the EV, for _every_ hand you push with], and if big-stack calls with "any two" as you say (but it is NEVER true), you are still very much ahead in this spot, and ii) she makes a rather problematic use of the ICM, IMO [although she agrees that according to the model folding AA is wrong], which is only a very mechanical tool (it's the independant chip model), and is based upon many general assumptions, one of them is "equally skilled" players. However, folding AA in such a spot is an indication for a rather weak player, which might very well not stand as equal to others, who play more loose aggressive on the bubble (as they should), and therefore folding AA might even be a BIGGER mistake for him, than what the ICM shows.