Methods for an effective critique (long)

[DasLeben]

It's pretty rare that I go and post something this long, but I felt that this subject is long overdue to be discussed. That subject, as the title suggests, is about how to form and convey an effective critique. In this case, I'll be discussing proper methods for critiquing a person's play.

Why do I think this post is necessary? I've been noticing an alarming trend of very good posters giving advice in hands and 1. Not providing a solid backing to their arguments, and 2. Pointing out a poster's mistakes, but giving no mention of what they did well. Of course, the latter isn't always applicable, but the situation comes up enough to be discussed. Now, I'm not going to hold myself blameless. I've been guilty of both of these problems, among others, when it comes to my own critiques on this board. I'm currently doing my best to change that, and I hope that other posters will follow suit.

Of course, I'm not going to write this post without providing some backup/background on my own experience. The last thing I'd like to do is provide some information and have it dismissed as amateur, just because I didn't let people know where I'm coming from. I'm an FAA certificated Flight Instructor, with experience teaching flight students in a variety of situations. I've had experience giving pilots rental checkouts in flight school aircraft, to instruction in advanced instrument flight. Whatever the case may be, I've been called upon to deliver clear, concise, and effective critiques of student performance.

So, I'm going to start with the key points that I find the most relevant, and work my way down.

Critique Specificity: As a given, a poster's recommendations and advice for a person's question(s) should be specific, not general and sprawling. For example, if a poster comes and asks a question such as "Should I raise pocket fives in late position with limpers in front?" an answer such as "Limp" will have little value to the original poster. The poster might get the correct answer, however, the answer given is not concrete. It does not tell the poster why such an answer is correct. An answer such as "Limping behind is correct due to the high implied odds of hitting a set" is a much more adequate answer than the first example. It gives the poster an idea of what he might have done wrong in the hand, as well as a solid understanding on what he needs to do to improve.

Critique Thoughtfulness: This is one of the more rampant problems that this board has seen recently. Much of the time, a person who posts a bad play may become the target of ridicule or be otherwise unfairly treated. One of the worst ones I see is the one-line answer: "find a new hobby," when a play is especially bad. If a posted hand is badly played, a critique is certainly needed in order to correct the poster's actions. However, berating the player is the worst possible course of action. This type of treatment leads to resentment, anger, and disrespect for the poster who answered. This is, of course, not going to effectively change the original poster's outlook on the hand.

In summary, berating a player's play in a hand is not an appropriate and/or effective way of communicating an idea, no matter what people may believe. This does not bolster a person's drive to improve, but rather can destroy a person's confidence and cause them to lose focus on their goals. It is very important for a person delivering a critique to constructively point out problem areas, as well as point out things that you genuinely liked about the play. Doing so will help the poster improve more effectively. Don't be sparing on saying "good job." Just say it only when you mean it!

Critique Flexibility: This aspect is best conveyed by using an example. Let's say that a known solid player posts a hand where he limped J9o in middle position in level 2 of a Party SNG. The player hasn't had a problem with hand selection in the past, but this time he made an improper judgement call. In a case like this, telling the player that he should "fold preflop" probably has no meaning to a solid player, since he knows that his play was incorrect already. Pointing this out to him does nothing to help the poster learn from his mistakes. In essence, a good critique should allow for different variables based on the poster's past behavior. A critiquer should have an idea what to omit, what to stress, and what to minimize based on the poster.

Of course there are more aspects to giving an effective critique, but I felt that touching on these three will give people a solid foundation on which to build from. Feel free to ask questions on anything I've written, and don't forget to say "good job" every once in a while. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

DasLeben



Several sources taken from the Aviation Instructor's Handbook.

[pergesu]

DerLesbian wanted me to bump this so people would reply.

holla

[DasLeben]

[ QUOTE ]
DerLesbian wanted me to bump this so people would reply.

holla

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, you are tactical. Thanks? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Sabrazack]

Yes, i think alot of people should read and apply this post when they reply to posted hands.

[SNOWBALL138]

Great post. I plan to follow the guidelines that you outlined, and I know that others will do the same.

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
DerLesbian wanted me to bump this so people would reply.

holla

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, you are tactful. Thanks? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

tactical
tactful - have or showing tact

BIOTCH

[skipperbob]

Ven u vere instuucting in der Luftwaffe vas der airplens Fockers und Messerschmitts? or just dose focking Fockers [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Degen]

ya i was gonna start a post like this too...but then i didn't think 'citanul is an a*hole' would get much of a positive response [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] yours is much better

in all seriousness though...great post and maybe we'll all start using it and bring some decorum to the discussions.

Andre

[gasgod]

Excellent.

GG

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever the case may be, I've been called upon to deliver clear, concise, and effective critiques of student performance.

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone who used to teach martial arts, me too. By punching them.

Just kidding!

Good post, though.

Any response is better than the "Do you see why?" that used to pop up a hundred times a day in the small stakes and micro forums. The SNG forum is much better than many of them, but one-word answers, even if correct, often are hard to interpret correctly, and sometimes they're just pointless, snotty, or negative.

Although I admit that somewhere deep in my heart of hearts I've always had my own dream -- a special dream. I've dreamed that one day I would find the opportunity to use another famous Sklansky line, with my own charming modification, in response to someone who really irritates me:

[ QUOTE ]
Go f*ck yourself.

I'll let others elaborate."

[/ QUOTE ]