Easy E
11-26-2003, 02:06 PM
I broke this out from the original Rolf’s GQ advice thread- it was getting too crowded there. Anyone unfamiliar with the background, or the quotes that I refer to herein, should see my “PokerBabe copywrite” thread of infamy.
Ray:
You certainly don't need my validation, or anyone else's, of your poker career or skills. However, let's get a few things straightened out:
1) I took a small excerpt of an article that Rolf wrote, posting it here in order to have some fun with PokerBabe about LGPG.
YOU turned it into an attack on what you say was the bad advice of wanna-be poker experts, in what could ONLY be interpreted by Rolf and others (I certainly read it that way and obviously others did as well) as an attack on him as part of that group - it was HIS article! You took a small snippet about a small point that Rolf made, which I was NOT making in posting it on this forum, and made it an issue about the quality of poker writers in general and implied that Rolf fell into that group.
If someone had written something similar about you, how would you have reacted? I already know how Mason would have, since he jumped all over what he inferred as an attack on HIM by Rolf’s “drop down to $30/60” reply to you.
Rolf didn’t have anything to do with any of this, until he was attacked.
2) I was disappointed in you for doing that, and then for trying to back out of it with a "oh, I may not really have meant him " mea culpa. You made a statement than almost anyone would interpret as a direct attack upon them (it’s not a way that people “choose” to interpret it in, it’s the way that it reads - don’t get mealy-mouthed about it afterwards, claiming you didn’t really mean Rolf, except maybe it applies anyway, and why did you “have” to work as a dealer if you’re really a winning poker player blah blah blah…
3) And don’t pseudo-apologize, but then go on to try to justify why you were “right” in attacking him in the first place. If you have a problem with his advice, fine- attack it with evidence. If you question his playing ability, fine- back up your opinion and stand by it. When you start throwing out wild accusations and uninformed disparagements because “most” poker writers are poor players giving poor advice, you just discredit yourself, even if people know you and your abilities.
Not, of course, that it matters what I think, but posting what we think is the rule, isn't it? We should attack others’ statements and theories and expect our own to receive the same treatment. What comes out of that crucible has to be better for going through that process. But let’s not “RGP it”- there’s already a Usenet group that serves the rabid attack dog purpose- let’s do it RIGHT!
P.S.- maybe Rolf deals because he LIKES to deal…. and since his wife’s a dealer, maybe that’s an aspect of it as well. Maybe there’s something else that could be positive- see my Mason section. Next time, why don’t you ASK him about it first, rather than make blanket statements with little or no foundation?
Mason:
Some of the above applies to you as well. Additionally:
A) Just as you hold other poker writers to a higher standard, I hold you and Ray, as poker theorists and hosts of these forums, to a higher standard. You should hold yourselves to that higher standard that you bandy about.
If you question his advice and his ability, then show the integrity to deal specifically with the areas that you have a problem with. If you’re not sure whether Rolf knows what he is writing about or not, then DO THE WORK to find out. If you’re requiring him to post on your forums in order to accurately judge his value, then don’t attack him until he does, or until you do the research involved that will give you the justification for attacking his position. You pride yourself on your accuracy and incisiveness- use it now.
B) And stop taking so many things as a personal attack on you. Do you really need others to constantly validate your skills, knowledge and success? If you KNOW that you are a good limit poker player and KNOW that your advice is correct, then why do you have to react so emotionally to ‘uninformed’ attacks upon your work? If someone is incorrect, then they’re wrong- what difference does it make to you, on a personal level?
It seems in my completely uninformed opinion that you need to show more confidence in yourself and what you stand for. Some idiot nipping at your heels is not going to negatively affect your business, not in THIS environment, nor change the correctness of what you state.
A personal agenda to insure that the best poker advice gets disseminated is fine; a personal crusade to crush any whom dare attack the throne does you a disservice. You do NOT come across as a self-assured, confident poker theorist when you take these stances.
C) Now, back to your statement- Rolf’s comment (and I’m not calling him an idiot here, even if he might be one. Let’s be clear about that- there’s been too many “open to interpretation” statements made in this mess already) may have been a backhanded swipe against you and it may not have - if he was smart, he would have intended to use it in the most efficient manner possible to defend himself.
But it is overly egotistical IMO to assume that a direct response by Rolf, to a direct attack by someone ELSE, is directed at YOU… unless you have reason to believe that something YOU did may have precipitated the attack upon you as well.
D) I’m glad for the work that you have done over the years, with your books AND these forums. I’ve gained a lot by thinking about many things related to poker as a result. I own most of the books that 2+2 has put out.
I’m a big advocate of “attack a position and prove its worth.” But no one, not you or anyone else, is the be-all and end-all of poker. I certainly am an advocate of cockiness- if you can walk the walk, then you’re allowed to talk the talk. But when it seems to cross over into arrogance, when it becomes “I’m right and you’re wrong because I said so” you damage your own reputation and call into question (incorrectly or not) the advice that you give.
E) As to your version of the “why were you dealing instead of playing” justification for your disparagement of Rolf’s abilities- I like to play poker and I like to deal poker. I may prefer to play most of the time, but sometimes dealing without having to worry about the game is a nice break.
In addition, what a potentially great practice tool dealing can be! Think about it- you have no hand of your own to think about, you can just spend ALL of your time observing the other players, honing your reading skills, examining the play of others and learning from their mistakes. That could be HUGELY valuable!
(Rolf, even if you were dealing because you were a broke, incompetent poker player, make sure you jump on this “excuse” and use it exclusively. My gift, no charge, for this whole fiasco that I “started”)
I hope you’re not implying that only full-time, professional players whose only income is from poker are qualified to give valid advice….
F) As to your “pot limit Omaha players suck at limit and stud” stance, which I did just reread in PE III the other day- is this any different than a middle- or high- limit holdem player trying to play her same game at the nofoldem low-limit games? Does her probable failure (or at least her failure to maximize her return in the game) at the low-limit game discredit anything about their high-limit game advice, which could be quite expert?
Do you have to be well rounded and an “expert” in EVERY SINGLE poker game structure in order to give valid advice for one form?
This is YOUR P.S.- One of your replies contained the following statement, which I found absolutely extraneous:
“Furthermore, and this I'm sure of, by participating here more he would get better, and I do believe he wants to be good. This would be especially true if he took part in those forums that address games which people play a lot”
I don’t care if Rolf or anyone else is posting advice on how to play a game that only 3 people in the WORLD play, as long as that advice is reasonably correct at a minimum. First, I may get something out of it, or think of something as a result of said advice, that could help me in my overall game- or at least examine it in a different way, even if it doesn’t directly apply. My stud game helps my holdem game helps my Omaha game helps my stud game….
Second, I would think that players would appreciate advice the MOST in areas and games where the available information amounts to the LEAST. I would think that you would include in your crusade the desire to insure that ALL poker advice, for whatever game, is the best and most accurate that it can be. Just because someone may not be able to use it that often doesn’t mean that said advice has no value.
If Rolf is an expert, or has good advice, in a game that only a few people play, how is that advice less valuable just because it isn’t used that often? It may not gain the reader as much in application, but it can still be valuable advice.
The “it’s a dead game” stance doesn’t fly IMO.
Okay, I’m finished now. Let the fur fly!
Ray:
You certainly don't need my validation, or anyone else's, of your poker career or skills. However, let's get a few things straightened out:
1) I took a small excerpt of an article that Rolf wrote, posting it here in order to have some fun with PokerBabe about LGPG.
YOU turned it into an attack on what you say was the bad advice of wanna-be poker experts, in what could ONLY be interpreted by Rolf and others (I certainly read it that way and obviously others did as well) as an attack on him as part of that group - it was HIS article! You took a small snippet about a small point that Rolf made, which I was NOT making in posting it on this forum, and made it an issue about the quality of poker writers in general and implied that Rolf fell into that group.
If someone had written something similar about you, how would you have reacted? I already know how Mason would have, since he jumped all over what he inferred as an attack on HIM by Rolf’s “drop down to $30/60” reply to you.
Rolf didn’t have anything to do with any of this, until he was attacked.
2) I was disappointed in you for doing that, and then for trying to back out of it with a "oh, I may not really have meant him " mea culpa. You made a statement than almost anyone would interpret as a direct attack upon them (it’s not a way that people “choose” to interpret it in, it’s the way that it reads - don’t get mealy-mouthed about it afterwards, claiming you didn’t really mean Rolf, except maybe it applies anyway, and why did you “have” to work as a dealer if you’re really a winning poker player blah blah blah…
3) And don’t pseudo-apologize, but then go on to try to justify why you were “right” in attacking him in the first place. If you have a problem with his advice, fine- attack it with evidence. If you question his playing ability, fine- back up your opinion and stand by it. When you start throwing out wild accusations and uninformed disparagements because “most” poker writers are poor players giving poor advice, you just discredit yourself, even if people know you and your abilities.
Not, of course, that it matters what I think, but posting what we think is the rule, isn't it? We should attack others’ statements and theories and expect our own to receive the same treatment. What comes out of that crucible has to be better for going through that process. But let’s not “RGP it”- there’s already a Usenet group that serves the rabid attack dog purpose- let’s do it RIGHT!
P.S.- maybe Rolf deals because he LIKES to deal…. and since his wife’s a dealer, maybe that’s an aspect of it as well. Maybe there’s something else that could be positive- see my Mason section. Next time, why don’t you ASK him about it first, rather than make blanket statements with little or no foundation?
Mason:
Some of the above applies to you as well. Additionally:
A) Just as you hold other poker writers to a higher standard, I hold you and Ray, as poker theorists and hosts of these forums, to a higher standard. You should hold yourselves to that higher standard that you bandy about.
If you question his advice and his ability, then show the integrity to deal specifically with the areas that you have a problem with. If you’re not sure whether Rolf knows what he is writing about or not, then DO THE WORK to find out. If you’re requiring him to post on your forums in order to accurately judge his value, then don’t attack him until he does, or until you do the research involved that will give you the justification for attacking his position. You pride yourself on your accuracy and incisiveness- use it now.
B) And stop taking so many things as a personal attack on you. Do you really need others to constantly validate your skills, knowledge and success? If you KNOW that you are a good limit poker player and KNOW that your advice is correct, then why do you have to react so emotionally to ‘uninformed’ attacks upon your work? If someone is incorrect, then they’re wrong- what difference does it make to you, on a personal level?
It seems in my completely uninformed opinion that you need to show more confidence in yourself and what you stand for. Some idiot nipping at your heels is not going to negatively affect your business, not in THIS environment, nor change the correctness of what you state.
A personal agenda to insure that the best poker advice gets disseminated is fine; a personal crusade to crush any whom dare attack the throne does you a disservice. You do NOT come across as a self-assured, confident poker theorist when you take these stances.
C) Now, back to your statement- Rolf’s comment (and I’m not calling him an idiot here, even if he might be one. Let’s be clear about that- there’s been too many “open to interpretation” statements made in this mess already) may have been a backhanded swipe against you and it may not have - if he was smart, he would have intended to use it in the most efficient manner possible to defend himself.
But it is overly egotistical IMO to assume that a direct response by Rolf, to a direct attack by someone ELSE, is directed at YOU… unless you have reason to believe that something YOU did may have precipitated the attack upon you as well.
D) I’m glad for the work that you have done over the years, with your books AND these forums. I’ve gained a lot by thinking about many things related to poker as a result. I own most of the books that 2+2 has put out.
I’m a big advocate of “attack a position and prove its worth.” But no one, not you or anyone else, is the be-all and end-all of poker. I certainly am an advocate of cockiness- if you can walk the walk, then you’re allowed to talk the talk. But when it seems to cross over into arrogance, when it becomes “I’m right and you’re wrong because I said so” you damage your own reputation and call into question (incorrectly or not) the advice that you give.
E) As to your version of the “why were you dealing instead of playing” justification for your disparagement of Rolf’s abilities- I like to play poker and I like to deal poker. I may prefer to play most of the time, but sometimes dealing without having to worry about the game is a nice break.
In addition, what a potentially great practice tool dealing can be! Think about it- you have no hand of your own to think about, you can just spend ALL of your time observing the other players, honing your reading skills, examining the play of others and learning from their mistakes. That could be HUGELY valuable!
(Rolf, even if you were dealing because you were a broke, incompetent poker player, make sure you jump on this “excuse” and use it exclusively. My gift, no charge, for this whole fiasco that I “started”)
I hope you’re not implying that only full-time, professional players whose only income is from poker are qualified to give valid advice….
F) As to your “pot limit Omaha players suck at limit and stud” stance, which I did just reread in PE III the other day- is this any different than a middle- or high- limit holdem player trying to play her same game at the nofoldem low-limit games? Does her probable failure (or at least her failure to maximize her return in the game) at the low-limit game discredit anything about their high-limit game advice, which could be quite expert?
Do you have to be well rounded and an “expert” in EVERY SINGLE poker game structure in order to give valid advice for one form?
This is YOUR P.S.- One of your replies contained the following statement, which I found absolutely extraneous:
“Furthermore, and this I'm sure of, by participating here more he would get better, and I do believe he wants to be good. This would be especially true if he took part in those forums that address games which people play a lot”
I don’t care if Rolf or anyone else is posting advice on how to play a game that only 3 people in the WORLD play, as long as that advice is reasonably correct at a minimum. First, I may get something out of it, or think of something as a result of said advice, that could help me in my overall game- or at least examine it in a different way, even if it doesn’t directly apply. My stud game helps my holdem game helps my Omaha game helps my stud game….
Second, I would think that players would appreciate advice the MOST in areas and games where the available information amounts to the LEAST. I would think that you would include in your crusade the desire to insure that ALL poker advice, for whatever game, is the best and most accurate that it can be. Just because someone may not be able to use it that often doesn’t mean that said advice has no value.
If Rolf is an expert, or has good advice, in a game that only a few people play, how is that advice less valuable just because it isn’t used that often? It may not gain the reader as much in application, but it can still be valuable advice.
The “it’s a dead game” stance doesn’t fly IMO.
Okay, I’m finished now. Let the fur fly!