Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

Great post.

[ QUOTE ]
A Prompt
The prompt in a hand post is often implied. Post a hand and you're basically asking "Does this look alright?/Did I mess this up?"

However, if you've got a more specific question, don't be shy about shaping the whole post around it. If you're not sure you did the right thing on a given flop, stop the hand text at your last flop action. If you're not sure about a fold, STOP at the fold. Don't taint the interpretation with info you didn't have at the time of the decision. Put us in your baffled shoes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is especially good advice, and something to which people should pay more attention.

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

I agree with that. But realistically if the stakes were re-organized, 2-4 should probably be separated from 10-20.

On responses
 

A word about responses within a thread. While it is somewhat helpful to give a generic answer such as, "I dont like the call on 4th street with that board", more detailed responses that lay out your embedded reasoning are better. Nate the Great's and Stellar Wind's comments come to mind as what we should all strive to write. Rather than just stating their opinion, they nearly always back it up with a math, strategy, etc. justification. This is how I learn from the post.

Also, regular use of the subject line is helpful. For example, where I changed the topic from Bison's thread guidelines, I noted so by calling this subthread "on responses". It makes the overall thread much more readable.

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

[ QUOTE ]
agree with that. But realistically if the stakes were re-organized, 2-4 should probably be separated from 10-20.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, in some respects the forum names don't work at all anymore.

Micro - Beginner
Small - Intermediate
Mid-High - Advanced

Except that doesn't work because with the boom you have some strong players learning and playing low, and some bad players starting high.

Micro - Loose-loose passive-passive
Small - Loosive-passive
Mid-High - Tight agressive

Obviusly, this doesn't work either. 3/6 and 5/10 are decidedly small stakes, but you can find some wretchedly bad, tight, aggressive games at those stakes, most especially online. Then again, the other day I raised a 15/30 hand and got three cold-callers. Go figure.

Point being, the forum names and stakes aren't exact, as far as knowing what you'll be reading about. You could probably make an argument that a forum specifically for Party 2/4, 3/6 and 5/10 hands alone would work great -- and it probably would -- seeing how many of our hands are from there.

Anyways. Lot of words, not much content here. Oops. Guilty.

ElSapo

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with that. But realistically if the stakes were re-organized, 2-4 should probably be separated from 10-20.

[/ QUOTE ]

they are currently separate. 2-4 = small stakes, 10-20 = mid-high. what's the problem?

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

King, I don't think this is going to work without content moderation. I've said that many times. But people have asked for this (or something resembling this), so I thought it might help if we can see if it has any salutory effect. At the very least, if you don't like a post, you can snidely link to this thread.

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

You need to address the inevitable question of what is SS: limit hold'em, ring game play, and appropriate limits.

Stellar, I think you're right and I'm thinking about this now.

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

I like the guide as a beginning. I agree with a previous poster that it needs to be edited for brevity and conciseness. I would like to see a list of overused topics to include:

Playing flopped quads/monsters to win the most money.
Bad beat posts with no content.
Pokertracker stats for inadequate sample sizes.
Winrate.

A list of linked posts covering general topics and archetypal hands would be another. If regulars post their favorite threads, we will have an excellent list.

A guide to using the search function properly would help out new posters and emphasize the importance of doing independent research.

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

Hiya -

My first reaction to this was, "Is this to improve the readers' lives when reading the multiple posts or to improve the posters' lives so that they are accepted here quicker?" After re-reading it, my question still remains, but I think you are trying to help the new person succeed. So, here is my reaction...

Would this help me post for the first time? I would be much more aware of where things went and not ask the dumb question in an inappropriate location. If I made a mistake, and people jumped on me for it, then I would take the heat, use this stupid emoticon [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] and move on. I do realize that I don't have ego issues that need verification from strangers or from those I just met...but quite possibly other people are different...

Are these rules to help reduce the noise we hear from time to time by obnoxious people? I read those threads and always ask myself, why just ignore the guy so he'd shut up. These people crave the very attention we give him by responding. If these rules are to try to prevent that issue from occuring, well, in my mind it won't work. The small number of obnoxious people (and I know it gets larger with each month), are not going to read the rules anyway and the quality won't get better from that standpoint. As a reader, I have a responsibility to either respond or ignore what is written. When I find a thread spirialing downward, I usually give up and read something else. I skim pretty quickly. But the rules won't help those posters causing trouble...they'll just break them because they can...

The rules won't help the truly clueless either. How everyone here handles that one is up to him/her. Are people able to discern the difference between the utterly clueless, and a novice who doesn't know better? The only way a novice can be an expert is to practice and take risk. No matter what anyone does, there will be some people who won't ever understand (maybe they shouldn't be playing poker anyway, who knows?).

However, if we are speaking about a novice user who wants help and wants to be included here, and the others want him/her included as well, have the new user read your suggestions before they post here. But, I would re-write parts of it (if you don't follow these suggestions x,y,z might happen) so that a new person (again the person trying to write the right thing in the right place) would not be afraid to make a mistake. I would include something about knowing your audience and basic writing style (tone, ALL CAPS MEANS YOU ARE SHOUTING, and basic grammar, and attidude) - that might help a new person trying to learn.

The strongest piece of this is your discussion of how to write a hand post. I would read the hand discussions with greater regularity if posters followed these instructions.

FWIW

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

[ QUOTE ]
Playing flopped quads/monsters to win the most money.
Bad beat posts with no content.
Pokertracker stats for inadequate sample sizes.
Winrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen.