A humble question

Limit hold'em has never been my game, I've tried to keep away from it, but I seem mysteriously attracted to it in some some strange way. I'm still in a learning process and have a humble question...
After been reading a lot of the mid/high stake hands in this forum - must you play the game in such a super-agressive manner? It seems all players are cocky youngbloods who'd never chicken out and raises and re-raises with very questionable hands if there's just one chance in hell they are ahead. Am I wrong to suggest a lot of the players posting here have strong egos rather than a winning aproach to the game? And finally it would be interesting to know if there's someone reading this who thinks he/she represents a different player, a somewhat straightforward style, and still doing well in high stake limit hold'em poker?

[brick]

Tommy Angelo teaches a style that is less agressive.
I think you would call his style 'super postion sensitive' rather than 'straight forward' or 'super-aagressive'. He posts on this site and has website with many essays.

thanks, I found his posts, looking forward to read em!

[DcifrThs]

i have a long winded reply that i will try to shorten.

-"super-aggressivity" is correct in some settings, sometimes overapplied or more readily applied than would be best, but the results clearly lean towards that style given certain restrictions. there are outliers from the restrictions.

- most high limit games are shorthanded. a predominant amount of aggressivity prevales at these limits and hands, and these limits and hands are the ones posted on this board, so it appears that this board backs these hand posts' actions in all similar settings- as could be interpreted selectively

- further, being more aggressive and playing more marginal hands puts you in more marginal situations, and those resulting in possible correct aggression are the ones posted.

- playing in higher limit games leads to more shorthanded pots. as above, shorthanded pots are the most aggressive.

and so on, sample selection bias and selective interpretation, from which we all suffer

NOTE: i just realized i wrote the above in the present tense using "are" instead of "most likely would be" or "most likely to be" or "more likely" or other probabalistic wording.

Barron

[DcifrThs]

to more directly answer your question, tight passive can certainly work wonders in the correct setting. its just that those hands aren't as likely to be posted as more aggressive ones whether that aggression is correct or not.

Barron

[Schneids]

Being aggressive sometimes lets me win pots because neither my opponent nor me have flopped a hand but my opponent cannot call.

Calling = you need the best hand
Betting = you need the best hand OR opponent needs to think he may not have the best hand.

Two ways to win > one way to win

Most pots in higher stakes games are played heads up, so it becomes much more likely that an opponent has whiffed @ hitting the board.

That is the reason for seemingly "insane" looking aggression.

[citanul]

and of course, as an extension of this, to help explain some of these 3 bet the flop and turn with A high hands, if your opponent is on to the whole idea of "being aggressive helps me pick up hands where we have both whiffed," you eventually get to "being more aggressive than my opponent helps me pick up pots where we've both whiffed and he's played back at me when i took stabs at the pot."

something like that at least.

c

[mosta]

people aren't going to post a lot of hands of the form: I raised him with no pair, he reraised, and I folded--ie, postings severely underrepresent the amount of early folding going on.

also, I never would hvae moved from 3-6 (where I was winning, somewhat suprizingly to me now) to 20-40 until I learned 1. you can win more money in making your opponent fold than in showing down the best hand (as someone already replied) and 2. you don't need top pair to have the presumptively best hand.

[w_alloy]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I wrong to suggest a lot of the players posting here have strong egos rather than a winning aproach to the game?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes you are.

You seem to think agressiveness and ego are inexticably linked. This is far from the case. The egos in the forum are because of the stakes far more then the aggressiveness.

Read some limit poker books and you should understand. Also, you should probably spend time in the lower limit forums.

[JasonP530]

Take this as an example of why agression is necessary:

You are in middle position with KQo and raise and only the big blind defends. He is a decent thinking player, who plays fairly tight. The flop comes 258 and no suits, you bet and he checkraises you. It is likely that the flop missed him unless he has a small pocket pair(which probably hasnt hit a set, because of the agression, most people wait for the turn). He hopes you have missed and that he can make you fold. You cannot just call down, because your hand is very weak, and has little showdown potential, so your options are to fold(sometimes) or to reraise the flop, or raisethe turn. Either way, that puts a lot of pressure on the ace high hands and low pocket pairs he may hold.

Didn't mean to offend anyone. I read the posts here because I like to get a glimpse about how the game might be if I some day in the future will be able to move up to a higher level. I'm asking because sometimes I see people raise and reraise flop call or bet turn and then fold river. Then I say to myself, couldn't it have been done in a more unexpensive way?
It's still interesting to notice that almost every reply advocates the style I'm questioning. I live and learn.

PS. I've read them all, they usually cover the lower limits, that's why I hang around here.

[andyfox]

Judge not by ego, or lack thereof, but by logic and strength of argument. My complaint is not that players are too aggressive or egotistical or passive or anything other than uninformative. Here's a thread up right now, an original post and three reponses:

Original post:
"30/60 party 10 handed. I'm in third position w/ 55, 2 limpers in front of me, I limp, folded around to the bb who raises, 3 calls....flop comes 278 rainbow, bb bets, 2 folds, I raise...turn 4, bb checks, I bet....river 9, no flush possibility.... bb checks, I??? is this too thin for a value bet?"

The three responses, in their entirety:

1) "Bet with impunity."

2) "Bet . . . not thin."

3) "I check behind here."

Why bother to respond if you're not going to explain why you would either bet or check behind? What value is there in just saying do this or do that if no reason for the action is given? What will the poster learn from these answers and how will this help any of us improve our poker?

[climber]

[ QUOTE ]
Judge not by ego, or lack thereof, but by logic and strength of argument. My complaint is not that players are too aggressive or egotistical or passive or anything other than uninformative. Here's a thread up right now, an original post and three reponses:

Original post:
"30/60 party 10 handed. I'm in third position w/ 55, 2 limpers in front of me, I limp, folded around to the bb who raises, 3 calls....flop comes 278 rainbow, bb bets, 2 folds, I raise...turn 4, bb checks, I bet....river 9, no flush possibility.... bb checks, I??? is this too thin for a value bet?"

The three responses, in their entirety:

1) "Bet with impunity."

2) "Bet . . . not thin."

3) "I check behind here."

Why bother to respond if you're not going to explain why you would either bet or check behind? What value is there in just saying do this or do that if no reason for the action is given? What will the poster learn from these answers and how will this help any of us improve our poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of this just comes from simple situations people post that have what are at least perceived to be easy answers.

You read it and think to yourself "wow what an easy question, this guys must not be very good, he really plays X/X limit!?! I'm a better player than that, blah, blah,blah..." then your filters that help you deal with the real world kick in and you go "oh well no need to be mean, easy answer, easy three word post, i feel smart and my post count goes up", you click reply and move on with your day.

So in the example you gave I understand the first two responses and can guess at their thought process. When guy #3 comes along though it really would be helpful if provided some logic or reasoning.

Aggressivity isn't a word, Barron.


Aggressiveness.



Tex

those were the only 3 replies to my post I might add, lol.... I did not get much help from that one

[Tommy Angelo]

[ QUOTE ]
Aggressivity isn't a word, Barron.


Aggressiveness.



Tex

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm a little more curious than most about such matters, so I took a look. I found many mentions. Here are three, one about cars, one from a dictionary, and a book title.

--------------

The research program examined U.S. crash statistics to determine the characteristics and extent of the vehicle compatibility problem. One obstacle to quantifying the compatibility of a vehicle is the lack of an accepted measure of compatibility. A primary objective of our research effort was to develop a clearly defined a metric for measurement of vehicle aggressivity. To date, the NHTSA aggressivity research program has developed two potential aggressivity metrics.

-----------------------

Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. 1995.

aggressivity

-----------
KERNBERG, Otto F.

Aggressivity, Narcissism, and Self-Destructiveness in the Psychotherapeutic Relationship: New Developments in the Psychopathology and Psychotherapy of Severe Personality Disorders. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004. 271pp. $60.00 (h).

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aggressivity isn't a word, Barron.


Aggressiveness.



Tex

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm a little more curious than most about such matters, so I took a look. I found many mentions. Here are three, one about cars, one from a dictionary, and a book title.

--------------

The research program examined U.S. crash statistics to determine the characteristics and extent of the vehicle compatibility problem. One obstacle to quantifying the compatibility of a vehicle is the lack of an accepted measure of compatibility. A primary objective of our research effort was to develop a clearly defined a metric for measurement of vehicle aggressivity. To date, the NHTSA aggressivity research program has developed two potential aggressivity metrics.

-----------------------

Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. 1995.

aggressivity

-----------
KERNBERG, Otto F.

Aggressivity, Narcissism, and Self-Destructiveness in the Psychotherapeutic Relationship: New Developments in the Psychopathology and Psychotherapy of Severe Personality Disorders. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004. 271pp. $60.00 (h).

[/ QUOTE ]

ty tommy.

i was going to use the 'ol webster to prove how easy it would have been to prove its a word rather than to blindly post that it's not, but that quotation you provided does just fine.

so are you a tautologist or something since you're "more than a little" interested in this stuff? or is it your personal interest in writing in general that fuels such concerns.

Barron

[Tommy Angelo]

"so are you a tautologist or something since you're "more than a little" interested in this stuff? or is it your personal interest in writing in general that fuels such concerns."

Neither. I just like words.

"i was going to use the 'ol webster to prove how easy it would have been to prove its a word ..."

Hundreds of words are made from scratch every day. And hundreds more are fashioned from existing words and phrases. Dictionaries, by definition, lag far behind in keeping track of production.

For example, everyone here knows what "donk" means, but we won't find our definition in Webster's.

Is the poker version of "donk" a word?


Tommy

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
-"super-aggressivity" is correct in some settings, sometimes overapplied or more readily applied than would be best

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
given certain restrictions. there are outliers from the restrictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
a predominant amount of aggressivity prevales

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
it appears that this board backs these hand posts' actions in all similar settings- as could be interpreted selectively

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
those resulting in possible correct aggression

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
sample selection bias and selective interpretation,

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
other probabalistic wording.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, yeah.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
other probabalistic wording.

[/ QUOTE ]

means my present tense should be takenas follows

[ QUOTE ]
-"super-aggressivity" is correct in some settings, sometimes overapplied or more readily applied than would be best

[/ QUOTE ]

is= is likely to be

[ QUOTE ]
given certain restrictions. there are outliers from the restrictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

restrictions= not crazy play i.e. playing every hand.

outliers=DERB

[ QUOTE ]
a predominant amount of aggressivity prevales

[/ QUOTE ]

in the limits we post about. if you play tight passive to counter against good hand readers on this board your strategy will not earn the most. you have to be able to mix it up in order to extract the long term maximum.

[ QUOTE ]
it appears that this board backs these hand posts' actions in all similar settings- as could be interpreted selectively

[/ QUOTE ]

i.e. its a misinterpretation to interpret that since A was applied in setting 1 A should also be applied in setting 2 where setting 1 is not the same as setting 2 but appears to be close to it. thus overabundant agrression would APPEAR to be "backed" by the boards.

[ QUOTE ]
those resulting in possible correct aggression

[/ QUOTE ]

snipet of a sentance to which i think refers to the actions where aggression is correct but i dont know from where you pulled it.

[ QUOTE ]
sample selection bias and selective interpretation,

[/ QUOTE ]

two things discussed above.

[ QUOTE ]

Uh, yeah.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah.

Barron

[worm33]

[ QUOTE ]
Judge not by ego, or lack thereof, but by logic and strength of argument. My complaint is not that players are too aggressive or egotistical or passive or anything other than uninformative. Here's a thread up right now, an original post and three reponses:

Original post:
"30/60 party 10 handed. I'm in third position w/ 55, 2 limpers in front of me, I limp, folded around to the bb who raises, 3 calls....flop comes 278 rainbow, bb bets, 2 folds, I raise...turn 4, bb checks, I bet....river 9, no flush possibility.... bb checks, I??? is this too thin for a value bet?"

The three responses, in their entirety:

1) "Bet with impunity."

2) "Bet . . . not thin."

3) "I check behind here."

Why bother to respond if you're not going to explain why you would either bet or check behind? What value is there in just saying do this or do that if no reason for the action is given? What will the poster learn from these answers and how will this help any of us improve our poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I am sure myself and gonores gave such short answers is there isnt much to talk about. When we say bet that means we think we have the best hand. The reason we think we have the best hand is because we have a pair. We think pair is good. So we bet. The reason we think pair is good is because villian has shown no strength and it looks very much like 2 high cards. Which dont beat a pair.

[andyfox]

OP wouldn't have posed a question unless he wanted an answer. Of what use is saying, "Bet" or "Check Behind" if there is no explanation for why to do so? The fact that you (and I) happen to agree with the first two responses and disagree with the third doesn't mean that the first two don't require explanations and the third does. Without reasoning the answers are useless. What's simple for you might not be so for me, and vice versa. What we learn from all three responses is exactly nothing.

Compare, instead, if answer 2) has said:

I would bet. BB 3-bet preflop then only called when you raised on the flop. He check-called on the turn. In my experience this would seem to indicate two unimproved big cards. When the river is still no faces or aces, I wiould think my hand is good and my opponent might well call with A-K or something similar.

And if answer 3 had said:

I check behind here. Opponent checked the turn and river, he seems passive and would probably not call with any hand you can beat. Did the turn put a flush draw on board? The only thing I can see him calling with is a hand with a ten in it.


We could then evaluate the logic in both responses and discussed which would have been the better play.

BTW, I don't mean for this to be an attack on any of the three respondents, all of whom I have a lot of respect for.

Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. 1995.


aggressivity

NOUN: See aggressiveness.




any questions?


google it, yahoo-it, webster it, whatever. 4 years of english I might not use but i still possess.



Tex

[andyfox]

I agree with betting. All I'm saying is just saying "bet" is not of any help to the poster. In your current post, by contrast, you have given reasons, which can then be thought about by the original poster, and commmented about by others.

[Ulysses]

Or you could have just written something simple like "A large percentage of the hands experienced players find interesting enough to post often involve close/marginal decisions in relatively short-handed high-limit situations where aggression is an important part of optimal play." holla

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Judge not by ego, or lack thereof, but by logic and strength of argument. My complaint is not that players are too aggressive or egotistical or passive or anything other than uninformative. Here's a thread up right now, an original post and three reponses:

Original post:
"30/60 party 10 handed. I'm in third position w/ 55, 2 limpers in front of me, I limp, folded around to the bb who raises, 3 calls....flop comes 278 rainbow, bb bets, 2 folds, I raise...turn 4, bb checks, I bet....river 9, no flush possibility.... bb checks, I??? is this too thin for a value bet?"

The three responses, in their entirety:

1) "Bet with impunity."

2) "Bet . . . not thin."

3) "I check behind here."

Why bother to respond if you're not going to explain why you would either bet or check behind? What value is there in just saying do this or do that if no reason for the action is given? What will the poster learn from these answers and how will this help any of us improve our poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I am sure myself and gonores gave such short answers is there isnt much to talk about. When we say bet that means we think we have the best hand. The reason we think we have the best hand is because we have a pair. We think pair is good. So we bet. The reason we think pair is good is because villian has shown no strength and it looks very much like 2 high cards. Which dont beat a pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

heh, yep. Short posts are underrated. For questions like this the person asking the question should be willing to put in the time to deduce your reasoning just as you just did here, rather than forcing the responder to make a long elaboration.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. 1995.


aggressivity

NOUN: See aggressiveness.




any questions?


google it, yahoo-it, webster it, whatever. 4 years of english I might not use but i still possess.



Tex

[/ QUOTE ]

or you could check out merriam webster's site:

[ QUOTE ]
aggressive
One entry found for aggressive.


Main Entry: ag·gres·sive
Pronunciation: &-'gre-siv
Function: adjective
1 a : tending toward or exhibiting aggression <aggressive behavior> b : marked by combative readiness <an aggressive fighter>
2 a : marked by obtrusive energy b : marked by driving forceful energy or initiative : ENTERPRISING <an aggressive salesman>
3 : strong or emphatic in effect or intent <aggressive colors> <aggressive flavors>
4 : more severe, intensive, or comprehensive than usual especially in dosage or extent <aggressive chemotherapy>
- ag·gres·sive·ly adverb
- ag·gres·sive·ness noun
- ag·gres·siv·i·ty /"a-"gre-'si-v&-tE/ noun



[/ QUOTE ]

Barron

[climber]

[ QUOTE ]
OP wouldn't have posed a question unless he wanted an answer. Of what use is saying, "Bet" or "Check Behind" if there is no explanation for why to do so? The fact that you (and I) happen to agree with the first two responses and disagree with the third doesn't mean that the first two don't require explanations and the third does. Without reasoning the answers are useless. What's simple for you might not be so for me, and vice versa. What we learn from all three responses is exactly nothing.

Compare, instead, if answer 2) has said:

I would bet. BB 3-bet preflop then only called when you raised on the flop. He check-called on the turn. In my experience this would seem to indicate two unimproved big cards. When the river is still no faces or aces, I wiould think my hand is good and my opponent might well call with A-K or something similar.

And if answer 3 had said:

I check behind here. Opponent checked the turn and river, he seems passive and would probably not call with any hand you can beat. Did the turn put a flush draw on board? The only thing I can see him calling with is a hand with a ten in it.


We could then evaluate the logic in both responses and discussed which would have been the better play.

BTW, I don't mean for this to be an attack on any of the three respondents, all of whom I have a lot of respect for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear this is how the forums are in heaven...just gotta be patient i guess...

[worm33]

[ QUOTE ]
OP wouldn't have posed a question unless he wanted an answer. Of what use is saying, "Bet" or "Check Behind" if there is no explanation for why to do so? The fact that you (and I) happen to agree with the first two responses and disagree with the third doesn't mean that the first two don't require explanations and the third does. Without reasoning the answers are useless. What's simple for you might not be so for me, and vice versa. What we learn from all three responses is exactly nothing.

Compare, instead, if answer 2) has said:

I would bet. BB 3-bet preflop then only called when you raised on the flop. He check-called on the turn. In my experience this would seem to indicate two unimproved big cards. When the river is still no faces or aces, I wiould think my hand is good and my opponent might well call with A-K or something similar.

And if answer 3 had said:

I check behind here. Opponent checked the turn and river, he seems passive and would probably not call with any hand you can beat. Did the turn put a flush draw on board? The only thing I can see him calling with is a hand with a ten in it.


We could then evaluate the logic in both responses and discussed which would have been the better play.

BTW, I don't mean for this to be an attack on any of the three respondents, all of whom I have a lot of respect for.

[/ QUOTE ]


Maybe I am wrong but if I was a beginning player and I posted a question like he did, and got 2 answers saying "bet with impunity" and "bet and its not thin" I would think well maybe i'm missing something here for not seeing this as an obvious bet. And then in the future when this same situation came up he could use our posts saying its not close to easily bet again.

[andyfox]

It's evident OP didn't see it as an obvious bet, otherwise he wouldn't have posted and asked. Listen, anyone can post any replies they want, I'm just trying to put myself in the question asker's place. He asks whether he should bet or not and gets three replies, two saying bet, one saying don't bet. No reasons are given, no explanations, no logic offered. How is he to determine which advice is best? But if you explain why you think a bet is called for, and the other guy explains why he thinks a check is best, then the two positions can be evaluated. Just saying do this or do that doesn't help anyone determine whether the logic behind the recommended action is proper or flawed.

[worm33]

Like I thought I said before, "Bet and its not thin" is saying a lot. And "bet with impunity" is saying a lot. Its saying bet and its not close. Now if I were a beginning player that would immediatly click in my head that ok obviously betting is right. I dont think you need some long winded response to make a point.

[andyfox]

Heaven can wait. /images/graemlins/wink.gif Meanwhile, I'm just trying to put myself in the OP's place and all posters who are seeking advice. Merely saying "bet" or "check" or "raise" without explaining why is just not very useful.

[worm33]

agree to disagree

[andyfox]

Fair enough.

[elindauer]

"bet and it's not thin" is just an opinion. It's not an argument. It's not an explanation.

It's true that you can rationalize it by saying that at least he has your opinion, which is better than nothing. Maybe so. The point is though, it's not much better than nothing, especially when you factor in the very real possibility that the opinion is wrong. People give bad advice here all the time.

Logic is required for two things here, both of them fundamental to good poker:

1. decide what should have been done in the given hand that was already played

2. recognize why it should have been done, so that correct actions on future hands can be deduced in real-time

Without explaining why an answer is correct, it's very hard to recognize which future hands are similar and which are different enough to warrant a different action.


In other words, you just saying it doesn't make it so. Prove it.

-Eric

[worm33]

[ QUOTE ]
"bet and it's not thin" is just an opinion. It's not an argument. It's not an explanation.

It's true that you can rationalize it by saying that at least he has your opinion, which is better than nothing. Maybe so. The point is though, it's not much better than nothing, especially when you factor in the very real possibility that the opinion is wrong. People give bad advice here all the time.

Logic is required for two things here, both of them fundamental to good poker:

1. decide what should have been done in the given hand that was already played

2. recognize why it should have been done, so that correct actions on future hands can be deduced in real-time

Without explaining why an answer is correct, it's very hard to recognize which future hands are similar and which are different enough to warrant a different action.


In other words, you just saying it doesn't make it so. Prove it.

-Eric

[/ QUOTE ]


So by giving a 4 paragraph response somehow makes it a fact that couldnt be wrong advice. Dude seriously. I understand your point, I know your trying to improve the forums and most of the time I do put my thoughts into a post. But when a guy asks an obvious question u give an obvious answer.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Or you could have just written something simple like "A large percentage of the hands experienced players find interesting enough to post often involve close/marginal decisions in relatively short-handed high-limit situations where aggression is an important part of optimal play." holla

[/ QUOTE ]

If DcifrThs could have written that, he would be you. He's not you.

[andyfox]

Why would the OP have asked the quesiton if the answer was obvious to him?

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or you could have just written something simple like "A large percentage of the hands experienced players find interesting enough to post often involve close/marginal decisions in relatively short-handed high-limit situations where aggression is an important part of optimal play." holla

[/ QUOTE ]

If DcifrThs could have written that, he would be you. He's not you.

[/ QUOTE ]

true. but i could be more clear and use fewer words to make the same point. and i thank and agree with el d for that.

i will make a concerted effort to be more direct and clear in the future (as i just did in response to the newest big blind defense thread LINKY (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4043128&an=0&page=0#Post 4043128)

although, being el d for a day would be interesting /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Barron

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
So by giving a 4 paragraph response somehow makes it a fact that couldnt be wrong advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course a 4 paragraph response doesn't prove anything either. What it does is provide an argument that can actually be discussed by intelligent people. The OP and everyone else can look at the logic behind the move and make an informed decision about whether it makes sense. This is not an option when someone just writes "bet".

-Eric

PS. It probably comes across that I'm really hammering on you, but in fact I'm just enjoying the discussion. I do feel strongly about this point, but don't have any problem with you personally or your posts in this thread.

M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.

etc.

[elindauer]

Perfect.

[tomahawk]

[ QUOTE ]
Like I thought I said before, "Bet and its not thin" is saying a lot. And "bet with impunity" is saying a lot. Its saying bet and its not close. Now if I were a beginning player that would immediatly click in my head that ok obviously betting is right. I dont think you need some long winded response to make a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you get this point by now, but "bet, it's not close" doesn't mean anything unless the beginner does some extensive research on the boards to see if the guy saying this is good and respected. And even then, he still might be wrong. It seems these kind of answers are meant for the other experienced players who read the board, and not for the guys who could actually learn something.

If I were a beginner who told "easy bet" twice, and then one guy saying "I'd check", nothing would click anywhere. It would be better than nothing, I would get a vague idea, but if people pointed out why they thought it was a bet or a check in a simple sentence, I might actually become a better player from three or four responses.

Surely you can see that the difference is significant.

I am claiming no moral high round or anything since I hardly ever contribute to threads or post hands, and like I said posting is almost always better than not posting. I just wanted to say that there is obviously a big difference between giving reasons for your thinking and not giving reasons for your thinking on a board designed for improving as players. (doh, right?)

[ QUOTE ]
Why bother to respond if you're not going to explain why you would either bet or check behind? What value is there in just saying do this or do that if no reason for the action is given? What will the poster learn from these answers and how will this help any of us improve our poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

When I discuss hands with other players, I often ask them "do you bet or check" and they respond "bet" (or check, whatever). If I need further explanation, I ask for it, if I don't I nod and move on. Sometimes just knowing what someone else would do in the same spot is valuable, and a long explanation is not necessary.

The OP in the other thread didn't ask for clarification, but I and the other respondents would have posted some if he had asked for it. As it is, he didn't so we didn't.

My laconic reply was because I felt the arguments for checking or betting were obvious (including to the OP, given his phrasing "is this too thin"). Therefore all responses would boil down to a one word opinion.

I guess I came to this party pretty late, but I just wanted to put my .02 in. Take it for what its worth.