cero_z
07-17-2005, 11:46 PM
Hi everyone,
I have a friend who's a resident at a WI hospital. She deals with all types of patients who are in fragile mental and/or emotional states, due to a wide variety of factors (possible mental illness, drug abuse, psychotropic medication, ignorant/abusive upbringing, etc.), and who must make important decisions regarding their own health, and that of their families. Quite often, the choices her patients make in this regard are fairly horrifying to her, and she is tempted to redirect them toward a "better" choice. But, my friend doesn't do this if her patient is deemed mentally competent, because she understands that her role as physician is to apply her medical knowledge to helping her patients in the way that THEY choose, within the range of treatment options that she (and the hospital) offers. To presume to choose for them is to assume a different role: that of a parent, and this is not an appropriate role for her as a physician.
Time was, doctors did this all the time; I'm sure many of you are familiar with the great deference older generations afford their doctors, whose attitudes tend to be, "Don't tell ME what's best for you--I'm the doctor." Some doctors are still this way. But "Paternalism" was a buzzword of sorts during my friend's medical training, and attitudes towards it are changing, which I think is a good thing.
I think we have a little bit of paternalism rearing its head in these forums, as well. Some of the very experienced posters will often respond to a line that a player took by saying, essentially, "this line is only good if you're very skilled, and most people aren't, so it's not a good line." I am guilty of this at times, too; it's difficult to watch someone you'd like to help make some of the same mistakes you've made. Still, I don't think that warning a less experienced player off of a potentially effective new perspective is really doing them a service. Though steering them around risky and unusual approaches to the play of hands may save them a few bucks initially, while they're not experienced enough to navigate the pitfalls, it will also probably encourage them to think inflexibly about poker and thereby hamper their development from a solid player into a great player (which is presumably the goal of many of us here).
So, I'm going to say it now: I like to get loco at the table. I will try things that most players would not attempt (like the sequence of bluffs in my recent post) that go way beyond the bounds of "solid play." When these plays fail, they are VERY expensive and make me look like an idiot. When they succeed, most people still think I'm an idiot; just a lucky one. Either way, this style works for me, and I believe the main reason I pull it off is because I'm pretty good at reading (I'm referring both to "tell" play, and interpreting betting actions). This is the result of a lot of thinking and hard work over the last 5 years, and it does not come easily, in my experience.
So anyway, when I post from now on, know that my "advice" comes from the standpoint of, "I don't know what will work for you, but this is the way I'd approach the problem." You can assume that if I'm posting it here, it's not necessarily a good line for newbies to go out and adopt as their default. It might, however, be a good thing to think about, and to balance with the more standard (and more universally correct) line.
I have a friend who's a resident at a WI hospital. She deals with all types of patients who are in fragile mental and/or emotional states, due to a wide variety of factors (possible mental illness, drug abuse, psychotropic medication, ignorant/abusive upbringing, etc.), and who must make important decisions regarding their own health, and that of their families. Quite often, the choices her patients make in this regard are fairly horrifying to her, and she is tempted to redirect them toward a "better" choice. But, my friend doesn't do this if her patient is deemed mentally competent, because she understands that her role as physician is to apply her medical knowledge to helping her patients in the way that THEY choose, within the range of treatment options that she (and the hospital) offers. To presume to choose for them is to assume a different role: that of a parent, and this is not an appropriate role for her as a physician.
Time was, doctors did this all the time; I'm sure many of you are familiar with the great deference older generations afford their doctors, whose attitudes tend to be, "Don't tell ME what's best for you--I'm the doctor." Some doctors are still this way. But "Paternalism" was a buzzword of sorts during my friend's medical training, and attitudes towards it are changing, which I think is a good thing.
I think we have a little bit of paternalism rearing its head in these forums, as well. Some of the very experienced posters will often respond to a line that a player took by saying, essentially, "this line is only good if you're very skilled, and most people aren't, so it's not a good line." I am guilty of this at times, too; it's difficult to watch someone you'd like to help make some of the same mistakes you've made. Still, I don't think that warning a less experienced player off of a potentially effective new perspective is really doing them a service. Though steering them around risky and unusual approaches to the play of hands may save them a few bucks initially, while they're not experienced enough to navigate the pitfalls, it will also probably encourage them to think inflexibly about poker and thereby hamper their development from a solid player into a great player (which is presumably the goal of many of us here).
So, I'm going to say it now: I like to get loco at the table. I will try things that most players would not attempt (like the sequence of bluffs in my recent post) that go way beyond the bounds of "solid play." When these plays fail, they are VERY expensive and make me look like an idiot. When they succeed, most people still think I'm an idiot; just a lucky one. Either way, this style works for me, and I believe the main reason I pull it off is because I'm pretty good at reading (I'm referring both to "tell" play, and interpreting betting actions). This is the result of a lot of thinking and hard work over the last 5 years, and it does not come easily, in my experience.
So anyway, when I post from now on, know that my "advice" comes from the standpoint of, "I don't know what will work for you, but this is the way I'd approach the problem." You can assume that if I'm posting it here, it's not necessarily a good line for newbies to go out and adopt as their default. It might, however, be a good thing to think about, and to balance with the more standard (and more universally correct) line.