thread locking

[BadBatsuMaru]

I've read the posting guidelines, which is by no means short. At the bottom it references "CallMeIshmael's Statistics Information," which is indeed interesting, and it's even currently on the front page, but there is no mention of players posting PT stats.

If there is some rule against players posting PT stats, then it should be stated in the posting guidelines.

It really makes no sense to just lock threads with no explanation whatsoever. If somebody's being a jerk, send them a warning when you lock the thread and boot them off the board next time they do it. If there is a rule being violated, make sure that rule is stated. If there was an explanation posted on locked threads (how long would the post take? 15 seconds?) people would start to get the idea, wouldn't they?

Locking threads with no reason given, though, is bad moderation. What is the point? If you don't say WHY the thread is locked, people will just keep posting similar threads.

It's just a little irritating putting about an hour of thought into a post just to have it locked within 5 minutes with no explanation. It's essentially just some random person saying, "I've seen your thoughts and have found them to not be interesting enough that anybody else would ever want to see them." I'm not too broken up about someone giving me a big F.U., but it's a little sad for it to be done anonymously.

I can understand that if my post comes across as something that can be totally answered by CallMeIshmael's thread, then go ahead and lock it and say, "Look at this thread, [censored]." So much for getting any feedback on the current state of 2/4 BBJ on Party, though.

Honestly, are people restricted to posting nothing but hands they played now?

[shant]

I think it just comes down to the fact that the stats thread exists for you to compare your stats to, and most of the time you get the same responses to a stats thread, like raise more preflop or steal more. If you have a thread full of stats of winning players, and you are concerned with bringing your stats near theirs, just compare and contrast.

[BadBatsuMaru]

That's fine, but seriously, there's a "KK takes heat" thread on the main page where some guy is asking if he should fold his overpair for a single bet on the river after checking back the turn. If that deserves to be open to replies...

When a thread is locked without an explanation, it's confusing. I mean, I'd like to get some general up-to-date disussion going about 2/4 BBJ, but I'm not going copy/paste half of the thread that just got locked, because if a moderator was dissatisfied enough with the content the first time...

[shant]

I understand and I thought you got a PM when your thread was locked.

Also, you need to raise more and steal more blinds. Check this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=smallholdem&Number=2337110 &Forum=f3&Words=-re&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=2337110&Search=true& where=sub&Name=11253&daterange=1&newerval=1&newert ype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post2337110) for good blind stealing advice.

[BadBatsuMaru]

Thanks for the advice. I think my stats are pretty weak/tight, but to some degree I think that's justified by my game selection. I mean, I certainly should be stealing more blinds, but when I'm on the button and the BB plays 50% of his hands and has no problem cold-calling, I have trouble knowing when to steal. A steal is a semi-bluff, after all, and knowing that you can't semi-bluff calling stations, I really have to be raising for value here, and I get a little confused at that point with which hands are really appropriate to raise...

If you look at my "Att. to Steal Blinds" stat, it's 94 times out of 620, which is definitely low, but the fact that it's only been folded to me in stealing position 620 times out of 23K hands probably changes things a little bit -- that means I'm only in stealing position on 2.7% of my hands.

I do see that people tend to raise a lot more than I do, but I'm a little confused by this, because I think I raise every hand that Miller suggests (I've made myself a chart that I stick to pretty well for ring), so I'm wondering if people generally raise more than Miller suggests, or if I'm just fooling myself and not really sticking to the raising standards as much as I thought.

In the 10 pages of the "Compiled Small Stakes stats," there isn't any mention of BBJ tables, so I'd like to get a thread going with people who frequent those games. Seems like they're getting pretty sharky, so there has to be 2+2ers in there, but I suppose I'll wait a day or two for that thread so I don't look like an ass who's flooding the forum.

[mack848]

[ QUOTE ]
I do see that people tend to raise a lot more than I do, but I'm a little confused by this, because I think I raise every hand that Miller suggests (I've made myself a chart that I stick to pretty well for ring), so I'm wondering if people generally raise more than Miller suggests, or if I'm just fooling myself and not really sticking to the raising standards as much as I thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Following Miller to the letter would get your PFR% to about 7-8% IMO. Most of the better players here are at about 10-11%. I believe that the difference is down to isolation raises and blind steals - both of which need to be tailored to the specific opponents. It would clearly be impractical to advise playing each specific hand in a multitude of different ways, dependant on what type(s) of players have limped before you and are still to play behind you. I believe that this is the reason that there is yet to be a book published specifically about short handed play.

Also, SSHE advice is based upon 3+ players seeing the flop. There are many occasions in Small Stakes online (especially above 2/4) when this is not the case. For example, if it is folded round to you in mid position, you should usually fold or raise. This may well mean raising a hand that Miller's chart would have you limp.

[Jake (The Snake)]

This is great advice.

To the OP: try posting some hands that you are unsure of where:

-you could isolate one loose limper and you are on the button or CO

-it is folded to you in the CO or button

-it is folded to the co or button who raises, you are in the BB

-there are 4 or 5 callers and you have a very marginal hand in late position, like 75s

[QTip]

A message from a moderator about why a post is locked is a good idea, imo.

There is a vast difference between a post with a specific question about stats vs. a "20k, how am I doing?". The latter is lock-worthy imo. The SS mod team is working on a SS FAQ where this will be addressed, and at that point, those posts will be addressed with a simple "Please read the SS FAQ."

Thoughts on this are welcome.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a vast difference between a post with a specific question about stats vs. a "20k, how am I doing?". The latter is lock-worthy imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think if you would take time to review the OP's original (locked) post - you'd see that there was more content in that post above and beyond just some stats analysis.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a vast difference between a post with a specific question about stats vs. a "20k, how am I doing?". The latter is lock-worthy imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think if you would take time to review the OP's original (locked) post - you'd see that there was more content in that post above and beyond just some stats analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

My response is not in regard to the OP's stat post, but in general.

I've not yet seen his post.

[Octopus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a vast difference between a post with a specific question about stats vs. a "20k, how am I doing?". The latter is lock-worthy imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think if you would take time to review the OP's original (locked) post - you'd see that there was more content in that post above and beyond just some stats analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I fear that post was locked due to a poor choice of subject line. If he had not asked about his stats, the post would have been quite reasonable. (Not that this hasn't been discussed before, but that is true of most everything here.)

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a vast difference between a post with a specific question about stats vs. a "20k, how am I doing?". The latter is lock-worthy imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think if you would take time to review the OP's original (locked) post - you'd see that there was more content in that post above and beyond just some stats analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]
My response is not in regard to the OP's stat post, but in general.
I've not yet seen his post.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't mean for that response to be attacking you (or any of the mods) personally. I meant it more as an open-letter to all the mods that subject lines shouldn't be the deciding factor in locking a thread.

It seems like this is what happened in this case.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a vast difference between a post with a specific question about stats vs. a "20k, how am I doing?". The latter is lock-worthy imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think if you would take time to review the OP's original (locked) post - you'd see that there was more content in that post above and beyond just some stats analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]
My response is not in regard to the OP's stat post, but in general.
I've not yet seen his post.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't mean for that response to be attacking you (or any of the mods) personally. I meant it more as an open-letter to all the mods that subject lines shouldn't be the deciding factor in locking a thread.

It seems like this is what happened in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly possible.

My purpose in posting in this thread was to see if anyone felt there was any redeeming value in the standared "20k stats" post.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
My purpose in posting in this thread was to see if anyone felt there was any redeeming value in the standared "20k stats" post.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't. I hate stats posts. I think players try to hard to mold their games to certain statistical parameters instead of learning how to "play poker".

That being said - these threads - the entire post/thread, not just the subject line - should still be carefully evaluated on a case by case basis. Furthermore - any thread that gets locked should have a final post in the thread from the locking moderator so that the public can see the reasoning behind the lock.

Locking threads may have some affect on cutting down the signal-to-noise ratio of bad posts. Explaining WHY the thread will locked will have a MAJOR effect.

[QTip]

crunchy:

Agreed on all accounts.

[W. Deranged]

Hi all,

I think the major point is this:

As moderators, our job is going to make sure that we:

1. Maintain the highest level of interesting, enlightening, and energetic strategy discussion we can. This, generally speaking, involves keeping the largest number of interesting "hands post" and interesting, specific strategy questions on the first page of the board.

2. Help to answer more straightforward questions (which are certainly welcome here) to be answered efficiently. This means, for example, directing players with statistical questions to the CMI stats post, which, in my opinion, is still far and away the best answer that can be given to 95% of posts concerning playing statistics.

3. To make sure that discussion remains on topic and does not become personal or devolve into flame wars. One of the major problems with certain types of posts (not necessarily stats posts, but posts of the "I just can't seem to beat this game" or "they keep calling with anything how high do I have to play to get them to respect my raises") is that they tend to only encourage negative discussion. Playful insults are fine, though I really don't like seeing flame wars and I really don't like the ideas of new members of the forum with naive questions always getting discouraged because they get negative responses here.

4. To make sure the content on the board is inoffensive and appropriate, both from a general social point of view (no racist or otherwise ignorant comments) and a 2+2 point of view (no discussion of affiliates where inappropriate, no discussion of things of vague legality like poker bots, etc...)



So, with that in mind, the threads that are subject to locking by myself or any of the other SS mods are threads that are particularly threatening to any of those four goals, viz:

1. Threads that are extremely unlikely to generate ANY interesting discussion, can be best answered by a single link, and should not take up spots from more valid threads.

2. Threads that are particularly likely to only generate negative responses, and particularly any thread that already has become a flame war. (I'm not opposed to the idea of locking good strategy threads that have become flame wars and reopening them as new threads particularly for strategy discussion.)

3. Any thread where the OP contains offensive or inappropriate material.

-Will