DasLeben
06-14-2005, 02:34 AM
It's pretty rare that I go and post something this long, but I felt that this subject is long overdue to be discussed. That subject, as the title suggests, is about how to form and convey an effective critique. In this case, I'll be discussing proper methods for critiquing a person's play.
Why do I think this post is necessary? I've been noticing an alarming trend of very good posters giving advice in hands and 1. Not providing a solid backing to their arguments, and 2. Pointing out a poster's mistakes, but giving no mention of what they did well. Of course, the latter isn't always applicable, but the situation comes up enough to be discussed. Now, I'm not going to hold myself blameless. I've been guilty of both of these problems, among others, when it comes to my own critiques on this board. I'm currently doing my best to change that, and I hope that other posters will follow suit.
Of course, I'm not going to write this post without providing some backup/background on my own experience. The last thing I'd like to do is provide some information and have it dismissed as amateur, just because I didn't let people know where I'm coming from. I'm an FAA certificated Flight Instructor, with experience teaching flight students in a variety of situations. I've had experience giving pilots rental checkouts in flight school aircraft, to instruction in advanced instrument flight. Whatever the case may be, I've been called upon to deliver clear, concise, and effective critiques of student performance.
So, I'm going to start with the key points that I find the most relevant, and work my way down.
Critique Specificity: As a given, a poster's recommendations and advice for a person's question(s) should be specific, not general and sprawling. For example, if a poster comes and asks a question such as "Should I raise pocket fives in late position with limpers in front?" an answer such as "Limp" will have little value to the original poster. The poster might get the correct answer, however, the answer given is not concrete. It does not tell the poster why such an answer is correct. An answer such as "Limping behind is correct due to the high implied odds of hitting a set" is a much more adequate answer than the first example. It gives the poster an idea of what he might have done wrong in the hand, as well as a solid understanding on what he needs to do to improve.
Critique Thoughtfulness: This is one of the more rampant problems that this board has seen recently. Much of the time, a person who posts a bad play may become the target of ridicule or be otherwise unfairly treated. One of the worst ones I see is the one-line answer: "find a new hobby," when a play is especially bad. If a posted hand is badly played, a critique is certainly needed in order to correct the poster's actions. However, berating the player is the worst possible course of action. This type of treatment leads to resentment, anger, and disrespect for the poster who answered. This is, of course, not going to effectively change the original poster's outlook on the hand.
In summary, berating a player's play in a hand is not an appropriate and/or effective way of communicating an idea, no matter what people may believe. This does not bolster a person's drive to improve, but rather can destroy a person's confidence and cause them to lose focus on their goals. It is very important for a person delivering a critique to constructively point out problem areas, as well as point out things that you genuinely liked about the play. Doing so will help the poster improve more effectively. Don't be sparing on saying "good job." Just say it only when you mean it!
Critique Flexibility: This aspect is best conveyed by using an example. Let's say that a known solid player posts a hand where he limped J9o in middle position in level 2 of a Party SNG. The player hasn't had a problem with hand selection in the past, but this time he made an improper judgement call. In a case like this, telling the player that he should "fold preflop" probably has no meaning to a solid player, since he knows that his play was incorrect already. Pointing this out to him does nothing to help the poster learn from his mistakes. In essence, a good critique should allow for different variables based on the poster's past behavior. A critiquer should have an idea what to omit, what to stress, and what to minimize based on the poster.
Of course there are more aspects to giving an effective critique, but I felt that touching on these three will give people a solid foundation on which to build from. Feel free to ask questions on anything I've written, and don't forget to say "good job" every once in a while. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
DasLeben
Several sources taken from the Aviation Instructor's Handbook.
Why do I think this post is necessary? I've been noticing an alarming trend of very good posters giving advice in hands and 1. Not providing a solid backing to their arguments, and 2. Pointing out a poster's mistakes, but giving no mention of what they did well. Of course, the latter isn't always applicable, but the situation comes up enough to be discussed. Now, I'm not going to hold myself blameless. I've been guilty of both of these problems, among others, when it comes to my own critiques on this board. I'm currently doing my best to change that, and I hope that other posters will follow suit.
Of course, I'm not going to write this post without providing some backup/background on my own experience. The last thing I'd like to do is provide some information and have it dismissed as amateur, just because I didn't let people know where I'm coming from. I'm an FAA certificated Flight Instructor, with experience teaching flight students in a variety of situations. I've had experience giving pilots rental checkouts in flight school aircraft, to instruction in advanced instrument flight. Whatever the case may be, I've been called upon to deliver clear, concise, and effective critiques of student performance.
So, I'm going to start with the key points that I find the most relevant, and work my way down.
Critique Specificity: As a given, a poster's recommendations and advice for a person's question(s) should be specific, not general and sprawling. For example, if a poster comes and asks a question such as "Should I raise pocket fives in late position with limpers in front?" an answer such as "Limp" will have little value to the original poster. The poster might get the correct answer, however, the answer given is not concrete. It does not tell the poster why such an answer is correct. An answer such as "Limping behind is correct due to the high implied odds of hitting a set" is a much more adequate answer than the first example. It gives the poster an idea of what he might have done wrong in the hand, as well as a solid understanding on what he needs to do to improve.
Critique Thoughtfulness: This is one of the more rampant problems that this board has seen recently. Much of the time, a person who posts a bad play may become the target of ridicule or be otherwise unfairly treated. One of the worst ones I see is the one-line answer: "find a new hobby," when a play is especially bad. If a posted hand is badly played, a critique is certainly needed in order to correct the poster's actions. However, berating the player is the worst possible course of action. This type of treatment leads to resentment, anger, and disrespect for the poster who answered. This is, of course, not going to effectively change the original poster's outlook on the hand.
In summary, berating a player's play in a hand is not an appropriate and/or effective way of communicating an idea, no matter what people may believe. This does not bolster a person's drive to improve, but rather can destroy a person's confidence and cause them to lose focus on their goals. It is very important for a person delivering a critique to constructively point out problem areas, as well as point out things that you genuinely liked about the play. Doing so will help the poster improve more effectively. Don't be sparing on saying "good job." Just say it only when you mean it!
Critique Flexibility: This aspect is best conveyed by using an example. Let's say that a known solid player posts a hand where he limped J9o in middle position in level 2 of a Party SNG. The player hasn't had a problem with hand selection in the past, but this time he made an improper judgement call. In a case like this, telling the player that he should "fold preflop" probably has no meaning to a solid player, since he knows that his play was incorrect already. Pointing this out to him does nothing to help the poster learn from his mistakes. In essence, a good critique should allow for different variables based on the poster's past behavior. A critiquer should have an idea what to omit, what to stress, and what to minimize based on the poster.
Of course there are more aspects to giving an effective critique, but I felt that touching on these three will give people a solid foundation on which to build from. Feel free to ask questions on anything I've written, and don't forget to say "good job" every once in a while. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
DasLeben
Several sources taken from the Aviation Instructor's Handbook.