Jeez Louise

[Clarkmeister]

Y'all need to stop and read the threads that are out there instead of just posting hand after hand. There are like 20% of the hands in the top 3 pages with zero-two responses and like 10-20 total views.

Slow down and go for quality over quantity, find the threads with discussion and digest them, there's some good stuff.

Just an observation from a Small Stakes lurker.

[AngryCola]

http://ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/positive4.jpg

[Evan]

Cool, maybe people will listen now that you are saying this (seriously). I have (unfortunately) stoped readin most of the SS posts because there are just too many of them to keep up with and develop any useful discussion.

responding to threads >>> starting new threads

[DMBFan23]

awesome.

[Clarkmeister]

Alright, I'm done for tonight. I hope some of you *cough* (gaming mouse) *cough* try posting a few less hands and spend more effort reading more evolved threads that have better contributions, while posting fewer yet more interesting threads yourselves.

Remember, there are like 5 pages of threads just from the last few hours. Stop and read them all and respond to a few *before* you post any new hands of your own.

[ThisHo]

I feel dirty doing this but....

what the heck is that avitar you have?

ThisHo

[J.R.]

alizee

[AngryCola]

Alizee (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1669744&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=7&o=14&fpart=1)

*EDIT*

I can't believe my avatar hasn't caught on like the Alizee pics did.

[cnfuzzd]

I hereby nominate this thread to be stickied.


peace

john nickle

[Schizo]

[ QUOTE ]
I have (unfortunately) stoped readin most of the SS posts because there are just too many of them to keep up with and develop any useful discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

How long ago did this happen?

[Moozh]

I always thought it would be nice to have some sort of unooffical rule where we should try to respond to at least twice as many hand posts as we post ourselves.

First, threads get more responses. Second, I think one can learn a lot from responding to other people's posts. Finally, it would keep people from posting tons of hands and ignoring the rest of the board.

[Evan]

Probably Novemberish. The post count in this forum just got overwhelming all of the sudden. I spend way to much time on here to start with so when I can't keep up with it I think that's a fair measure of too-many-ness.

I mainly read posts that people I know started/posted in/IM to me. That keeps me busy enough. It would be cool if I had time to write decent replies to hundreds of posts every day but as is the case I do not.

[Shillx]

2:1 wow that sounds really low. I'm running at about 200:1 now in tearms of replies:posts. Mostly useless.

Nice post Clark. I will send the micro crowd here for sure as the same problem takes place there.

Brad

[Moozh]

It doesn't have to be 2:1, it just seemed a good place to start. More important is that everyone makes a conscious effort to respond to other's posts, especially when they've been posting a lot of their own hands.

[MarkL444]

bizzump

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
Alright, I'm done for tonight. I hope some of you *cough* (gaming mouse) *cough* try posting a few less hands and spend more effort reading more evolved threads that have better contributions

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/blush.gif Sorry about that. I was having a bad session last night and posting more hands than usual. I will be more careful about starting new threads in the future.

gm

[DMBFan23]

this is another phantom bump. but I guess it's not so phantom...

[B Dids]

This thread is totally on point. Way too many hands that are basically the same being posted. Way too many people functionally spamming converted hands w/o content.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Y'all need to stop and read the threads that are out there instead of just posting hand after hand. There are like 20% of the hands in the top 3 pages with zero-two responses and like 10-20 total views.

Slow down and go for quality over quantity, find the threads with discussion and digest them, there's some good stuff.

Just an observation from a Small Stakes lurker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, Clark. This has been said before but perhaps people will listen to you. I hope so.

[DeeJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Alright, I'm done for tonight. I hope some of you *cough* (gaming mouse) *cough* try posting a few less hands and spend more effort reading more evolved threads that have better contributions, while posting fewer yet more interesting threads yourselves.

Remember, there are like 5 pages of threads just from the last few hours. Stop and read them all and respond to a few *before* you post any new hands of your own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who does this guy think he is? Clarkmeister? oh uh yeah, he is /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[habsfanca11]

Well then let me apologize in advance for contributing to additional clutter. Can you (anyone) point me to the Clarkmeister Theorem post? I have heard about it but haven't been able to locate it. Would appreciate being able to see for myself what is mentioned so often. Cheers!

[mistrpug]

Clarkmeister Theorem: If the forth flush card hits on the river and you are heads-up and first to act, bet out no matter what you have.

[Clarkmeister]

When you are out of position and headsup and the 4th card of a flush suit comes on the river, bet into your opponent no matter what you have.

[MaxPower]

I've learned much more by responding to posts than by posting my own hands. In fact, that is why I respond to posts most of the time.

I learned nothing from this response though.

[Clarkmeister]

To follow up to this. Last night I spent about 2 hours doing nothing but responding to Small Stakes posts and I was astounded at how many threads had like 0-2 posts and less than 25 views.

I responded to posts as far back as 3 pages behind, and some of those were only inactive for 3-4 hours! There were some very good discussions and threads that got buried simply because the forum gets littered with new hands so dang fast.

By the time I was done responding, the first thread I had responded to was already at the bottom of page 2! It's obvious from the views that people aren't even bothering to go that far back to read, which is a shame. These are poker hands, the discussion doesn't become invalid or "old" after a few years, let alone a few hours.

So, really, I encourage everyone here to try reading a full 3 pages back. Every thread. Respond to as many as you have questions on. Give advice. When you are done with that, and it took me well over 2 hours, then go back and post follow-ups in those threads you responded in if there are comments or questions to your posts. And *then*, post a hand or two if you still have a burning question. But many of you will learn far more from giving shitty advice to someone else and getting called on it, than you will from selectively posting hands that you know you played "sort of bad", but not "terrible".

Anyways, if everyone did this, I think they would not only learn better, it would make the forum a more condusive learning environment with less clutter. Worry more about how you can learn from what's already out there and how you can contribute to other people's threads rather than the "please everyone help me on *my* hand" concept. It's a give and take, and the more you give, the more you get out of it. If all you try and do is take, you are just cheating yourself and clutting the forum to boot.

[Clarkmeister]

No problemo. You were far from the only one I saw, unfortunately, you were just the most prolific at the time. Nothing personal.

[habsfanca11]

Sorry to be pedantic about this, but I'm trying to understand. So far in my limited experience A and K of the flush suit are sticking around to the river no matter what waiting for the 4th of the flush. Assuming I have none of that flush or something low and folding to a raise - the number of times I take this down makes the bet into my opponent worthwhile?

[DMBFan23]

in my very limited experience, the following parlay makes this bet cool.

1) if we have a flush but it's not too high, this may be a value bet.
2) we usually don't get raised unless they have at least the Q.
3) if we don't have a flush, we could get a better (but non flush) hand to fold.

[Octopus]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to be pedantic about this, but I'm trying to understand. So far in my limited experience A and K of the flush suit are sticking around to the river no matter what waiting for the 4th of the flush. Assuming I have none of that flush or something low and folding to a raise - the number of times I take this down makes the bet into my opponent worthwhile?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of those things that makes me wish I was better at poker so I could think of them. (Thanks Clarkmeister.)

The essense is that almost all opponents will fold at least as often as 1 in however big the pot is (no matter how big it is). Also, assuming you have it, most opponents will call this bet more often than they will bet themselves. (e.g. Anyone with a baby flush will call, but the same person will probably not bet. The same applies to worse hands.) So whether you have it or not, betting is better than checking.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
3) if we don't have a flush, we could get a better (but non flush) hand to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could also get a better, small flush hand, to fold. Bonus points when they fold it face up and tell you, nice catch!!!

b

[Joe Tall]

Y'all need to stop and read the threads that are out there instead of just posting hand after hand. There are like 20% of the hands in the top 3 pages with zero-two responses and like 10-20 total views.

What happened to 'props to Bisonbison's hand coverter'!?!?

[bernie]

I agree. It seems many think they have to have a hand posted to learn or get anything from it. Many seem to be afraid to be called on their shitty advice. That's one of the quickest ways to learn it. Yes, ones ego may take a beating. So what?

[ QUOTE ]
These are poker hands, the discussion doesn't become invalid or "old" after a few years, let alone a few hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Makes me long for the time when our old threads would still be going strong after a week. Now they seem to have a 2 day lifespan. Typically, when I see 5+ posts from 1 poster right next to each other, barraging the forum,I skip em all. Just like I skip the ones that post 4+ complete hands in 1 post. Except I'd give more consideration for the latter.

I also tend to look at posts more that are posted by posters who are more involved than just in their own threads. Meaning, familiarity with knowing the poster will be more likely to be involved with his thread as he is with others. Back in the day, we were so involved in each others threads we didn't have time to post 10-20 hands a day.

Not to mention, many times the same 'type' of hand/concept is already posted in those few hours. If some just took the time to look, they can save the time typing out their hand and just join in that discussion that could be well ahead of starting a whole nother thread about it. *lightbulb clicks on*

*LB*= Maybe it was because back then we had to type out our HH (among many other things) that we were more selective. Obviously more thought goes into them when you have to type them yourself as you have to remember a bit more, or you actually try to remember more. Now with the converters, you can just cut and paste them that much faster and not really have to 'worry' about taking the time to look for a hand similar. hmm. Maybe, maybe not.

Bobbyi and me were talking the other day about the lack of quality on the boards from what it used to be. Due to the volume, as you're pointing out, many great threads are buried by the normal, run of the mill, look at my hand even though someone posted it 30 posts down with a good discussion already going threads.

Sometimes it's like watching moss grow in your yard. Their are still good threads, likely the same amount as before, but they are overrun by even much more crap.

Here's hoping this thread is like mosskiller and will let the lush grass grow a bit more.

Im not holding my breath.

b

[Moozh]

Well, an hour and a half since the last reply, and it's already on the third page. Hmmm....

[B Dids]

Bump. SHEESH.

[Clarkmeister]

You must be viewing in threaded mode. I recommend flat mode. You get 26 threads per page that way.

[illunious]

[ QUOTE ]
You must be viewing in threaded mode. I recommend flat mode. You get 26 threads per page that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

While you're there (My Home -> Display preferences)

Change "Total parent posts to show per page:" to 50.

[Freakin]

While we're on the topic, do you recommend reading others responses before posting one of your own? A lot of time I feel like I find an interesting hand, and read the responses before posting, then can't find anything unique to say because the other responses have already influenced me. Do most people mind potentially duplicate reponses?

Freakin

[Clarkmeister]

I do it both ways, depending on how much time I have.

Look at it like this, if you post a duplicate response, what's the harm?

[MaxPower]

I miss the days when Bernie would say , "it depends" and then everyone would yell at him. Then he would get really pissed off and quit the forum.

Just kidding Bernie, I'm glad you came back.

[Moozh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You must be viewing in threaded mode. I recommend flat mode. You get 26 threads per page that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

While you're there (My Home -> Display preferences)

Change "Total parent posts to show per page:" to 50.

[/ QUOTE ]

50? Wowie!

(oh, and I was set to 20/page)

[wuwei]

Thanks for dropping in, Clark. Your contributions are appreciated.

[tetonpete]

bump

[AngryCola]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v431/AngryCola/bump.jpg

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
While we're on the topic, do you recommend reading others responses before posting one of your own? A lot of time I feel like I find an interesting hand, and read the responses before posting, then can't find anything unique to say because the other responses have already influenced me. Do most people mind potentially duplicate reponses?

Freakin

[/ QUOTE ]

When I post a hand, I usually like to see several different posters chime in, even if they're thinking the same thing. if one 2+2er thinks its ok, cool, but if 5 think it's ok...cant be nuthin but good.

[EliteNinja]

[ QUOTE ]
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v431/AngryCola/bump.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

BAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif
That's a big bump!

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for dropping in, Clark. Your contributions are appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll tell you guys one thing. You can talk about Pokertracker, Playerview, etc. and how much they increase your winrate. Nothing will increase your winrate more than reading posts from guys like Clarkmeister, and going through the thought process on these hands.

I used to play EXACTLY like those people that he likes to bash at the Mirage, and he has been instrumental in helping to turn that around. I haven't fully made the transition yet (right now, I guess I'm kind of in limbo between where I was, and where I should be). Hopefully, in a few more months, I will have made the full transition to "the dark side."

So, as Clarkmeister suggested, take some more time to read and respond. Cherrypick the hands that you post (and I need to do a better job of this, also).

[The Goober]

Maybe this is wrong place to bring this up, but I've been thinking lately that it would make sense to split Small Stakes (and maybe Mid/High? I dunno) into two forums - one for live and one for online. I think for me (since I only play live) it would be easier to find relevant threads (rather than post my own) if I could skip all of threads that focus on PT reads and the peculiarities of PP fish. It seems like splitting into two forums could only reduce the clutter.

just a thought

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
one for live and one for online

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm against the idea.

Because once you go down that road, all the poker forums would deserve seperation between live and online.

It's just too much.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
one for live and one for online

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm against the idea.

Because once you go down that road, all the poker forums would deserve seperation between live and online.

It's just too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm against it, also. There's no need for it if people will stop taking the assembly line approach to cranking out hands with that hand converter. They do the same thing in the mid/high stakes forum with the Party 15/30 hands.

[bernie]

The golden age of the forum.

I still think that was, so far, the most productive time of the forum for me. But Im also a little biased. It 'depends' on how you look at it. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

b

btw...That wasn't why I quit the forum. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[bernie]

Ive always thought of it as kind of a test. Put your answer down with the reasoning behind it, then check the others. If you're wrong, so what? Others will correct you and explain it to you or you can correct yourself later on in the thread. You may also bring up a point no one thought to cover that you may forget about yourself after reading all the other responses.

Respond when your ideas are fresh from reading the post in question. Then it's not tainted.

[ QUOTE ]
Do most people mind potentially duplicate reponses?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most aren't reading every response unless the thread really interests them. They'll read the more familiar names to them. Or just the first few responses. Then they'll read if there's an indepth discussion taking off where the ideas are being hashed out.

It's also not about being the one with the 'unique' response for the sake of being unique. But if an different idea pops up, throw it out there.

b

[zephed56]

[ QUOTE ]
When you are out of position and headsup and the 4th card of a flush suit comes on the river, bet into your opponent no matter what you have.

[/ QUOTE ]
What if the pot is tiny (checked thru flop and turn), and you have something like 3rd pair, or rivered second pair? (Don't ask me how this would happen)

What I'm asking is if there is a threshold of worth to this play?

How small does the pot have to be to make this an -EV play? Or do you think it is always profitable?

I'm sure this doesn't come up enough to make much of a difference to my wallet, but I think these are good questions to understanding this "line".

Eh, I think I have this all wrong now after thinking about it. The bet in itself still has value.

Somebody tell me what they think about this.

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
Probably Novemberish. The post count in this forum just got overwhelming all of the sudden. I spend way to much time on here to start with so when I can't keep up with it I think that's a fair measure of too-many-ness.

I mainly read posts that people I know started/posted in/IM to me. That keeps me busy enough. It would be cool if I had time to write decent replies to hundreds of posts every day but as is the case I do not.

[/ QUOTE ]


ironic how that's exactly the time you started playing 6-max... hmmmm...

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
Probably Novemberish. The post count in this forum just got overwhelming all of the sudden. I spend way to much time on here to start with so when I can't keep up with it I think that's a fair measure of too-many-ness.

I mainly read posts that people I know started/posted in/IM to me. That keeps me busy enough. It would be cool if I had time to write decent replies to hundreds of posts every day but as is the case I do not.

[/ QUOTE ]


i guess it's a coincidence that that's exactly the time you started playing 6-max... hmmmm... conclusion: i pwn evan

[zephed56]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to be pedantic about this, but I'm trying to understand. So far in my limited experience A and K of the flush suit are sticking around to the river no matter what waiting for the 4th of the flush. Assuming I have none of that flush or something low and folding to a raise - the number of times I take this down makes the bet into my opponent worthwhile?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what happens when you check it to your opponent on the river:
-They will take a free showdown with hands that you beat.
-Your winners are going to be shown down without a bet on the river. This is bad, you miss many value bets this way.
-When they bet, it is more likely that they have you beat (fear of a small flush calling their pair, or the nut flush checkraising them).
-You have to pay to showdown when you are beat, and they get a free showdown when you are ahead.

Okay, so I repeated the same thing over and over. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

By betting out, you will insure that you get paid when your hands are good, and lose the same amount you did if you check-called. Check-calling rarely gets money in for your best hands.

Another thing that occurs when you bet into your opponent out of position is that a river bet on a 4 flush board will act as a "blocking" bet for you. It "blocks" you from getting raised.

It's hard to raise the river in this spot without the A or K of that suit. Less frequently you will see the third nuts raise the river. So when you do get raised, you can safely fold your hand (or not, depending on your read of course).

You don't have to fear the 6th nut flush raising your 7th nut flush or 2 pair.

I may be missing some other finer points, so if you spot it, chime in. I hope this helps you understand the play.

[BottlesOf]

Get your misguided crusade out of here. [censored] the Pats.

[Six_of_One]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You must be viewing in threaded mode. I recommend flat mode. You get 26 threads per page that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

While you're there (My Home -> Display preferences)

Change "Total parent posts to show per page:" to 50.

[/ QUOTE ]

50? Wowie!

(oh, and I was set to 20/page)

[/ QUOTE ]

Set it to 99, and you'll really be set.

[Joe Tall]

Get your misguided crusade out of here. [censored] the Pats.

Given this thread and the results of the superbowl, it's obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Love,
Joe Tall

[sthief09]

anyone else notice the amount of 10-30 reply threads that are all over the board. ni han clark

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[censored] the Pats.

[/ QUOTE ]

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[censored] the Pats.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
To follow up to this. Last night I spent about 2 hours doing nothing but responding to Small Stakes posts and I was astounded at how many threads had like 0-2 posts and less than 25 views.

I responded to posts as far back as 3 pages behind, and some of those were only inactive for 3-4 hours! There were some very good discussions and threads that got buried simply because the forum gets littered with new hands so dang fast.

By the time I was done responding, the first thread I had responded to was already at the bottom of page 2! It's obvious from the views that people aren't even bothering to go that far back to read, which is a shame. These are poker hands, the discussion doesn't become invalid or "old" after a few years, let alone a few hours.

So, really, I encourage everyone here to try reading a full 3 pages back. Every thread. Respond to as many as you have questions on. Give advice. When you are done with that, and it took me well over 2 hours, then go back and post follow-ups in those threads you responded in if there are comments or questions to your posts. And *then*, post a hand or two if you still have a burning question. But many of you will learn far more from giving shitty advice to someone else and getting called on it, than you will from selectively posting hands that you know you played "sort of bad", but not "terrible".

Anyways, if everyone did this, I think they would not only learn better, it would make the forum a more condusive learning environment with less clutter. Worry more about how you can learn from what's already out there and how you can contribute to other people's threads rather than the "please everyone help me on *my* hand" concept. It's a give and take, and the more you give, the more you get out of it. If all you try and do is take, you are just cheating yourself and clutting the forum to boot.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Joe Tall]

really, I encourage everyone here to try reading a full 3 pages back

How many posts do you go per page? I go 30 per page, post-bisonbison's converter.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[Clarkmeister]

25/page for me.

[BottlesOf]

I'll grant you half. The other half you as much conceded in a conversation months ago, and I don't see the need to rehash it.

[BottlesOf]

Yes, and the converter has not even been removed. How 'bout that?

[Richard Berg]

The only time I'd check-call in a Clark Situation is when I had a decent flush (say 5th nuts) against a tight player who liked to bluff.

[Festus22]

Thank you for posting this, Clark.

The quality of this forum has taken a dive lately. I hope something like this will be a wakeup call.

[mr pink]

.

[college_boy]

Good post........Bump

[DMBFan23]

bumpity bumpity

[Trix]

Converters dont post hands /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[sfer]

n/m

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To follow up to this. Last night I spent about 2 hours doing nothing but responding to Small Stakes posts and I was astounded at how many threads had like 0-2 posts and less than 25 views.

I responded to posts as far back as 3 pages behind, and some of those were only inactive for 3-4 hours! There were some very good discussions and threads that got buried simply because the forum gets littered with new hands so dang fast.

By the time I was done responding, the first thread I had responded to was already at the bottom of page 2! It's obvious from the views that people aren't even bothering to go that far back to read, which is a shame. These are poker hands, the discussion doesn't become invalid or "old" after a few years, let alone a few hours.

So, really, I encourage everyone here to try reading a full 3 pages back. Every thread. Respond to as many as you have questions on. Give advice. When you are done with that, and it took me well over 2 hours, then go back and post follow-ups in those threads you responded in if there are comments or questions to your posts. And *then*, post a hand or two if you still have a burning question. But many of you will learn far more from giving shitty advice to someone else and getting called on it, than you will from selectively posting hands that you know you played "sort of bad", but not "terrible".

Anyways, if everyone did this, I think they would not only learn better, it would make the forum a more condusive learning environment with less clutter. Worry more about how you can learn from what's already out there and how you can contribute to other people's threads rather than the "please everyone help me on *my* hand" concept. It's a give and take, and the more you give, the more you get out of it. If all you try and do is take, you are just cheating yourself and clutting the forum to boot.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[Jules22]

Sir, i salute you. I'm going to spend the next couple hours looking at hands and responding /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[jgorham]

Bump

[listen_folks]

Holy [censored] you guys *bump*

[B Dids]

Bump.

[jason_t]

Bizzle. Some haven't caught on yet.

[B Dids]

This probably warrents bumping.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
This probably warrents bumping.

[/ QUOTE ]

[DMBFan23]

fo shizzle.

[mikeyvegas]

[ QUOTE ]
But many of you will learn far more from giving shitty advice to someone else and getting called on it, than you will from selectively posting hands that you know you played "sort of bad", but not "terrible".

[/ QUOTE ]

This is awesome.

[TripleH68]

I thought it appropriate to put my 1,000th post here.

I still remember the day last year I looked at the back of my TOP and read this statement:

"For the best discussion of poker on the internet, visit our website at www.twoplustwo.com. (http://www.twoplustwo.com.)"

This forum rocks. Sincere thanks to all.

[Moyer]

Bump in honor of B Dids who wanted to bitch slap me after the one and only time I took the "mass production" approach with the hand converter. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[rmarotti]

Bump for a couple of our newer posters. *ahem*

[TomBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
do you recommend reading others responses before posting one of your own?

[/ QUOTE ]
I usually don't because I feel I learn more by thinking about the hand myself and figuring it all out than I do by reading the other replies. This way I benefit from making a response as well as the OP I'm responding to. Sometimes my response is not so good. Then I benefit and the OP doesn't. Sorry.

[Wepeel]

I was looking for a place to post this and I didn't want to make a new thread for obvious reasons. But, I think there are way too many AA hands that are useless to post. They are some of the easiest hands to play, they are highly dependent on player reads if you could ever toss them of which is hard for the forum to know, and I believe 90% of them are posted because people aces can't lose. That is all.

[Saint_D]

I am all for this. I don't like making new posts much anyway.

In fact, I am so all for this, I vote for a limit placed on newbie accounts. No new posts till you have replied 200 times. (I am only at 126, so this means me). When you have a social problem and people won't listen, make the solution techno-logical.

[cold_cash]

I'm bumping this.

[Clarkmeister]

If people just went with the "I must respond to 5 threads before I post a new one" rule, both they and the forum would be better off.

[mmbt0ne]

As a SS reader and a mainly micro poster I just wanted to chime in and say that the signal to noise ratio in the micros forum is better than up here now, and that's sad. Of course, down there the questions may be simpler, and the advice may not be as good all of the time, but overall there seems to be a lot more meaningful discussion.

[DMBFan23]

sigh.

[Stack]

5/1 ratio is the way to go.

Just a suggestion to the more exprienced ones: Please please follow up with your own responses. When you give us starters an advice, please make sure you go back to that thread later; we might have not completely underestood you, then ask you about it, but you never show up again. (Don't get me wrong, your first response is highly appreciated)

A lot of the more experienced posters do that. They keep the conversation going, and I thank you.

[ErrantNight]

as hopeless as imagining a world without your avatar?

[DMBFan23]

12 more days...

[Argus]

I think everyone would benefit if instead of a 5:1 replies written to hands posted ratio, everyone tried to develop a 5:1 Peter_Rus (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/dosearch.php?Cat=&Forum=All_Forums&Name=10605&Sear chpage=0&Limit=25&) or StellarWind (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/dosearch.php?Cat=&Forum=All_Forums&Name=7907&Searc hpage=0&Limit=25&) posts read to replies written ratio.

[SippinSoma]

Back to the top.

[SippinSoma]

[ QUOTE ]
Back to the top.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Aces_up07]

[ QUOTE ]
To follow up to this. Last night I spent about 2 hours doing nothing but responding to Small Stakes posts and I was astounded at how many threads had like 0-2 posts and less than 25 views.

I responded to posts as far back as 3 pages behind, and some of those were only inactive for 3-4 hours! There were some very good discussions and threads that got buried simply because the forum gets littered with new hands so dang fast.

By the time I was done responding, the first thread I had responded to was already at the bottom of page 2! It's obvious from the views that people aren't even bothering to go that far back to read, which is a shame. These are poker hands, the discussion doesn't become invalid or "old" after a few years, let alone a few hours.

So, really, I encourage everyone here to try reading a full 3 pages back. Every thread. Respond to as many as you have questions on. Give advice. When you are done with that, and it took me well over 2 hours, then go back and post follow-ups in those threads you responded in if there are comments or questions to your posts. And *then*, post a hand or two if you still have a burning question. But many of you will learn far more from giving shitty advice to someone else and getting called on it, than you will from selectively posting hands that you know you played "sort of bad", but not "terrible".

Anyways, if everyone did this, I think they would not only learn better, it would make the forum a more condusive learning environment with less clutter. Worry more about how you can learn from what's already out there and how you can contribute to other people's threads rather than the "please everyone help me on *my* hand" concept. It's a give and take, and the more you give, the more you get out of it. If all you try and do is take, you are just cheating yourself and clutting the forum to boot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd looooooooooove to do this, but I don't understand how people have the time. Whenever I sign on it seems like I spend anywhere between 3-6 hours just reading, and that's without adding many replies or new posts of my own.

[Felipe]

[ QUOTE ]
Y'all need to stop and read the threads that are out there instead of just posting hand after hand. There are like 20% of the hands in the top 3 pages with zero-two responses and like 10-20 total views.

Slow down and go for quality over quantity, find the threads with discussion and digest them, there's some good stuff.

Just an observation from a Small Stakes lurker.

[/ QUOTE ]

no one can control these sorts of things. let it be.

felipe

[SippinSoma]

Open up a hand at random. Read the hand. Do NOT read the comments. Immediately click reply. If you would have played it the same way, say so. If you would have played it differently, say how and why. Do not worry about being right or wrong - like a poker hand, you will not always have the best outcome. Hit submit. Read the replies. If you agreed, great. If you disagreed, find out why. Next thread.

Reading posts is passive learning. It's a lot like listening to conversations in a foreign language. Everyone non puo parlare italiano molto bene or no habla espanol bien at one point. Just don't be afraid to get your hands dirty.

[SippinSoma]

We can't control the outcome, but we can use every edge we have to get the highest EV.

[Number4]

[ QUOTE ]
no one can control these sorts of things. let it be.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly the point - we can control it. Just reply more and post new topics less. And don't be afraid to use the search function.

[wildwood]

bump

[jason_t]

Bump.

[SippinSoma]

[ QUOTE ]
Bump.

[/ QUOTE ]

[KDawgCometh]

kinda pointless to cite the thread without giving it the bump. just something for us all to consider

[SippinSoma]

Bump for Hellite.

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
Bump for Hellite.

[/ QUOTE ]

SippinSoma = legit dude

[jgorham]

Anyone seen the bump?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone seen the bump?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did

[brettbrettr]

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Its you, CMI, who are too active on this board. No one else.

[jskills]

Best
Avatar
Ever

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
HAHAHAHAHAHA. Its you, CMI, who are too active on this board. No one else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I yelled at him earlier this week that he has to come back.

Biggest laugh I've had all day

[SackUp]

I wish we could get back so many of the people who posted in this thread.

Please come back! I will personally end the lives of people who do not conform! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[WillMagic]

Seriously guys. I feel like I'm suffocating.

Will

[ErrantNight]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously guys. I feel like I'm suffocating.

Will

[/ QUOTE ]

[Dagger78]

Can we sticky?

[jason_t]

Bumpzor.

[SippinSoma]

[ QUOTE ]
Bumpzor.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Jake (The Snake)]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bumpzor.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]