RGP.......not impressed

[MercTec]

I have strictly just perused the 2+2 forums in my poker career but decided to check out RGP and see what views they had to offer. Frankly i wasn't impressed with the posts or the players and how they played hands. Does anyone share my opinion on this? Or did I just see a bunch of junky posters?

[Syntax]

Its good for gossip and spam. Thats pretty much it.

[astroglide]

i can't imagine anybody in the history of time has ever said "rgp......impressed!"

[nef]

There is so much great stuff from the old days on RGP. Now it is mostly garbage though. Not even worth reading for me.

[MicroBob]

i've only been there a couple of times and found most of the posts to be truly idiotic.

i've been around here for awhile now and only find a SOME of the posts to be idiotic.

[Sully]

RGP was my very first introduction to the world of Poker newsgroups. I thought it was a great source of information, and I constantly checked in over there.

Then I found 2+2.

I rarely ever go back there any more, and when I do, I'm shocked at how much more informative 2+2 is. RGP is a fine site, but pales in comparison to this site in terms of useful information.

RGP is like your first girlfriend...you think she's the greatest thing ever, then another girl comes along, and you can't believe you ever dated her.

[MercTec]

Was reading through a few posts last night and found one where Gary Carson pretty much trashed David.....saying he was an average player at best, but that he scored well on his SATs many years ago......thought that was a bit messed up. Someone replied in agreement saying the only thing David was good at was selling books.

After that I knew that RGP wasn't going to help me become a better player.

[offTopic]

[ QUOTE ]
Was reading through a few posts last night and found one where Gary Carson pretty much trashed David.....saying he was an average player at best, but that he scored well on his SATs many years ago......thought that was a bit messed up. Someone replied in agreement saying the only thing David was good at was selling books.

After that I knew that RGP wasn't going to help me become a better player.

[/ QUOTE ]

- Actually, Gary Carson likes Sklansky, or at least respects him.

- Carson has a great dislike for Malmuth.

- The SAT jab is because Sklansky seems to think (or used to think) that one's SAT score is somehow indicative of one's intelligence.

I'd point you to the relevant threads, with contributions from Abdul, Jim Geary, Jonathan Kaplan, Patri Forwalter-Friedman, Paul Phillips, et al, but it probably wouldn't help you become a better player.

[MercTec]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd point you to the relevant threads, with contributions from Abdul, Jim Geary, Jonathan Kaplan, Patri Forwalter-Friedman, Paul Phillips, et al, but it probably wouldn't help you become a better player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whats relevent about them?

[MEbenhoe]

There are some relevant posts on RGP if you can wade through all the muck. My belief is that the true value of RGP is that when you actually do have a true poker discussion going on there you get to see the non 2+2 viewpoint of an idea. The thing is for obvious reasons this forum is very biased towards 2+2 books and the ideas created by them. On the other hand I've found the vast majority of posters on RGP don't like 2+2, Sklansky, Malmuth, etc. for some reason or another. Therefore you get some points of view outside the realm of the 2+2 environment. Some of these discussions end up being good, some end up being junk. I'd say if you can find them, there have been some very good discussions in relation to big bet poker (PL & NL) on RGP. Overall I'd say this forum is vastly superior, but I believe there are a few reasons RGP is still worth reading.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
There are some relevant posts on RGP if you can wade through all the muck. My belief is that the true value of RGP is that when you actually do have a true poker discussion going on there you get to see the non 2+2 viewpoint of an idea. The thing is for obvious reasons this forum is very biased towards 2+2 books and the ideas created by them. On the other hand I've found the vast majority of posters on RGP don't like 2+2, Sklansky, Malmuth, etc. for some reason or another. Therefore you get some points of view outside the realm of the 2+2 environment. Some of these discussions end up being good, some end up being junk. I'd say if you can find them, there have been some very good discussions in relation to big bet poker (PL & NL) on RGP. Overall I'd say this forum is vastly superior, but I believe there are a few reasons RGP is still worth reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. This forum is great, but almost everyone here has been so brainwashed into believing every little thing they find inside a 2+2 book that you miss out on some differing viewpoints.

[SossMan]

I just don't know how anyone navigates the damn thing. They thread out all the replys until it becomes a big mish-mash. It's pretty bad.

[Cry Me A River]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't know how anyone navigates the damn thing. They thread out all the replys until it becomes a big mish-mash. It's pretty bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you reading it, on the web (ick!)? Use a real Newsreader like Free Agent (et al).

[Ed Miller]

My belief is that the true value of RGP is that when you actually do have a true poker discussion going on there you get to see the non 2+2 viewpoint of an idea.

You do get to see the "non 2+2 viewpoint," but you also have to be careful. A few of these guys just try to poke holes and show up David and Mason no matter what. For instance, there was a recent thread about kill games. Carson said that you can treat a kill pot as smaller by the size of the kill. David corrected him by pointing out that it is smaller only by a relatively small fraction of the kill. David was clearly correct, but three people continued to argue with him. Now they didn't actually dispute what David said (there was nothing to dispute), they attacked his motives, justified their simplifications, etc.

But if you read that thread and DIDN'T KNOW that David was unequivocally correct, it might appear to you that the majority disagreed with him, or at least that there was room for debate.

This happens all the time on RGP. There are certain people (whom i won't name, so don't ask) who seem to be less intelligent than the Gary Carson, Andrew Prock, etc. crowd... the "me too" people of RGP. They are on the "RGP" side, but they don't know how to think about poker clearly, and they have clearly been misled by some of the nitpicky attacks.

If you are a beginning or intermediate player, you belong here to learn to play poker. There is simply no source of advice even close to this one. Once you are ADVANCED (i.e., can solidly beat mid-limit games), then feel free to visit RGP and absorb the "non 2+2 viewpoint." But until you understand the game well yourself, I think 2+2 is certainly all you need.

[MEbenhoe]

I've never understood what the motive behind a lot of the RGPers is in constantly attacking Sklansky, Malmuth, and the other 2+2 authors. I try to avoid those posts as much as possible. Ed you'd probably have as good of an idea as any I'm guessing. Do you know why there seems to be such a fallout between a lot of the RGPers and the 2+2 gang?

[asymmetrical]

These days it's pretty awful. But there's some fantastic stuff in the not-so-distant archives, and usenet is forever, so just go searching.

Do a search in the archives for specific posters and there is some really good stuff. Abdul Jalib, Kenneth Ng/speedracer, Izmet Fekali are just a few of the people who've started/contributed to some very enlightening discussion that's certainly helped my game.

[Ed Miller]

Ed you'd probably have as good of an idea as any I'm guessing. Do you know why there seems to be such a fallout between a lot of the RGPers and the 2+2 gang?

Actually, I don't spend much time on RGP, so I really don't have that solid an idea. But to me it seems like the top two motives are:

1. Personal enmity
2. Desire to demonstrate intelligence

From my perspective, almost all poker books except for 2+2 books are absolutely riddled with errors. Perhaps there are minor errors in the 2+2 literature, but they are clearly the best and most accurate books available. Why attack the best when there are so many other (apparently respected) books that have huge, glaring errors?

I'm much more interested in helping people identify the ubiquitous errors in a few influential and popular books than in attacking the best books on the market.

[MEbenhoe]

Its kinda funny when I first started playing poker seriously I was sent to RGP through a conversation I had with a professional player I am in contact with and he told me that it was the best online discussion group for poker. So coming from someone well known in the poker world I figured this was solid advice. In my early time on RGP I took everything they said as fact. One of which was them constantly ripping on Sklansky. The impression I had of that guy early on was terrible. At that time I wouldn't touch a 2+2 book. Finally one day though I broke down and bought Theory of Poker. I was amazed at what a great poker book it was and from then on started to lose respect for a lot of the crap on RGP and slowly moved over to 2+2 stuff. The only argument I've ever read on RGP against 2+2 that I agree with is this. One poster said one time that too many people take 2+2 readings almost in a cult like sense. They take them as they are said word for word from the book, don't think about them or other possible view points and just keep a narrow view point. I dont think this is an overwhelming problem but I do believe there are some who do take this viewpoint. However in all reality this is more their fault than Sklansky's or anyone elses.

[FeliciaLee]

Reading RGP is like mining for gold, imo. I keep a watch on it simply for the nuggets I find from time to time. Howard Lederer posts some incredible stories here and there. The same goes with other WCP. I feel that it is worth my time to occasionally find the buried treasure which improves my thinking of the game.

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif
www.felicialee.net (http://www.felicialee.net)

[trillig]

RGP changed over time, so you are spot on vs here, although there are trolls here as well, just not numbering in the thousands.... and a bit less SPAM! </s>

-Bri