A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

It's been said that SS needed a posting guide, and it became clear that it wasn't writing itself, despite the fervent prayers of whoever. So you'll forgive me if I went and wrote it. Please do your best to confine the discussion in this thread to what I've written and not whether I am your hero or the biggest overhyped jackass on these forums.

Here is, in my opinion, a basic guide to posting on the 2+2 forums, with a particular eye to posting in strategy subforums like Small Stakes or HUSH. This isn't really a 2+2 newbie guide. I don't know exactly how I'd categorize it, except that this is what sprung to mind when I sat down to finally hash this stuff out.

Chapter 1: Where Should I Post This?
2+2 has more than twenty sub-forums, most of them with well-developed personalities, clear functional distinctions and regular reading/posting populations (which, thankfully, overlap across sub-forums).

However dumbfounded new posters may be by this welter of choices, a moment's consideration can ensure that subforums don't get clogged with repetitive or off-topic posts.

The basic rules:
1. Each forum has its own domain of topics.
2. Each forum has a population that wants to keep the noise level low and the signal level high.
3. It is each poster's responsibility to figure out where their post should go.

If you don't know what forum covers what, you can A) Read the descriptions on this page, B) Use the search function to find similar topics, and/or C) Lurk more until such wisdom is revealed to you. When in doubt, search. I know that 2+2's search function is kind of wonky and hard to use, but it does work.

Failure to put forth this basic effort will be met by one or more of the following attitudes: 1) contempt, 2) disdain, 3) pity, and 4) non-interest.

As a tactic of last resort, you can make a post in the Beginners' Forum asking "Where should this go?" Furthermore, if you don't understand the terms used in a post, either respond to thread in question or post about it in Beginners.

If you're met with attitudes 1, 2 or 4 in the Beginners' Forum, rest assured that the responder is being a dick and you are in the right.

The basic idea:

If I am posting about PokerTracker, why not post it in "Books/Software"?
If I'm posting about table selection for hold'em, is it really specific to Micro or SS, or would it be better suited to the General forum?
If I have a question about sample sizes and my win rates, shouldn't it go in the probability or poker theory forums?
If I don't know where to find the converter, why must I make a thread about it? Wasn't I born with my own smidge of divine spark? Doesn't that mean anything to me?

Author's Note: In reality, the forums thrive on a sense of community: helpful, jovial, sarcastic, competitive, and everything else by turns, and there's certainly a place for off-topicness amid the topics, but please label these forays into self-indulgence as such (a simple [off-topic] in the title does the trick) and understand that stretching the bounds of topicality also stretches people's patience, whether or not they voice their concerns. If there's a call to Omaha hi-lo arms in the Small Stakes HE forum, don't create 10 new threads to encompass all the necessary trash talk. Keep it contained in the original thread.


Chapter 2: Titling Your Posts
Posters want responses, so they make catchy, interesting, novel titles. Readers want to know what they'll be reading, so they like precision and some memorable fidelity between what the title says and what the post contains.

These two urges are in conflict, but the outcomes aren't equal. When readers' desires are ascendent, the forum gets a little dry: "T9s in the CO" followed by "JTs in the CO" followed by "JTs on the Button". When posters' desires are ascendent, though, the forums get almost unbrowsable. Random song lyrics. Testimonies to the physical genius of Salma Hayek. Shoutouts to the shorties. Not good, and it causes a dropoff in the serious strategic discussion that keeps the forum going.

Luckily, there's a happy medium. Clarity and interest can coexist if you take ten seconds to think "Will this make any sense to anyone outside of my own head?"

Titles To Be Emulated:
pocket 4s in the SB
AKo in BB vs. EP Raise
KK UTG With Straight/Flush Flop
TP On The River - How is this fold?
Bottom two pair against a LAG.

Titles To Be Avoided:
C'mon!
Could I have saved money here?
Halle Berry and Tyra Banks
Dealt AA twice in a row!
Hero does the flush draw.
Invisible Touch.
Clueless
Help.

Benign Middle Ground:
JTs in MP, turn question - YANKEES SUCK
Pocket 8s miss the flop, Olivia Williams is purty.
Help, I am losing my shirt at Party 3/6.

Chapter 3: Making Good Hand Posts
There are a lot of different types of threads, but the backbone of most of the strategy subforums are discussions of specific hands played live or online.

A good hand post is not one that has been converted to look all pretty and regular. A good hand consists of four things: context, text, a prompt, and not results.

Context
Poker is a complex social game. It is not played in a vacuum and your opponents, though you may hold them in contempt, are not cardboard cutouts sent to shovel you their money. Context is vital to proper play. Context means reads.

If you don't understand that reads can change the play of even the simplest hands, then you're going to be forever shrifted on good advice. That's it.

So tell us what your opponents are like. Qualify as needed, but give us something. "Bob seems tight after two orbits" is a read and is much better than the damning "NO READS".

If you've got nothing to share about your opponents, tell us anything you know about the table: how long you've been there, whether it seems aggro or passive, whether it was a friday night or monday morning, etc, etc, etc. Give us something. Make an effort beyond clicking the post button and hold others to the same standard.

Text
The meat of a hand post is the hand itself. It doesn't need the converter to be a good hand to talk about, but it does need a certain level of detail.

In order to give you decent advice on any reasonably close decision, we're going to need to know the following:

A. your cards (ranks and suits, please)
B. Your position at the table.
C. the board cards for each round (ditto to A)
D. the number of opponents still active for each round
E. The size of the pot.
F. Any betting action that affects D or E.

If it's folded to you in MP, you can just say it's folded to you. If all the active players call, you can just say that everyone called, but if you bet and get two callers on the flop, it's vital to know which two callers. It matters whether it's the CO and the Button or the CO and the BB. So be precise.

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.

Not Results
I've written about this at length before, but basically: don't include results. They mess up the discussion.

Conclusion
This is not intended to be the be all and end all of posting guides, but I'm operating on the assumption that it's easier to revise than it is to start anew, and that you guys will realize that this is a good faith effort to start a discussion and not another attempt by me to impose my will on the forums.

So. Let me hear your thoughts.

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

[ QUOTE ]
So. Let me hear your thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this should be stickied immediately. Wonderful post, good scribe.

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

I think the best posts for the poster and the people responding have a lot of information about why they did such and such.

Eg I didnt bet the flop because I was fearful of my opponents folding. I had a monster hand so I hoped an opponent made a second best hand on the turn where I'd collect larger bets.

"Not just did I play this good". You played it good if your thinking correctly about the situation.

I also hate the stupid catchy titles just to get attention.

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

This is Bison's attempt to completely take over the SS forum. Please disregard.

Nice post.

Edit: "completely take over the SS forum" should be read as follows: "compltely take over the world."

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

Not that I disagree with the contents, but I think it's too excessively long and wordy. FAQ-type posts are normally, and should be, much more concise and to the point - after all, you want them to be read as widely as possible. IMHO.

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

FYI, my Halle Berry & Tyra Banks title wasn't supposed to just be inane and off-topic; I assumed it would be understood that it was dealing with my Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], and that's more interesting than a post just titled "QQ" or "two black ladies in the pocket" or whatever. But I'll refrain from such references in the future.

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

Good Luck...

I think this could apply to almost every message board everywhere on the net. People don't search, don't spell check, blah blah blah and there have been exactly 4,584,222,678,001 people who have attempted something like this before. I've noticed that on almost every board I've ever read they've failed.

I also think that people just post where they think they can get a reply. Many just look at the 6,000 plus posts and post in SS, even if has a bit more to do with Poker Theory (651 posts).

Despite those facts, I applaud the effort, but if you personally aren't going to moderate it, spending hours and hours moving posts and the like, I think it is doomed to fail.

Everyone was new here once. It can be daunting and difficult for newbies to get up the courage to post, and I think that a long list of rules enforced by a cabal of long timers will just make them hesitant to post or sign up and join the community.

Personally, I think a sub-forum should be started for just hands that people want input about. I think that it would be much easier to "enforce" a specific form for "hands that want advice" in their own forum. Let SS be for everything else including the hands people don't want advice on ("funny hands", "crazy hands", etc.)

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

King

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

I got what you were getting at, and it doesn't bug me, but I think it bugs other people.

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

As a newcomer(but lurker for awhile)I would say it is necessary to sticky this asap. It took me several weeks if not months to pick up on what makes up a good thread here (even though I don't post much)

If we're looking for criticism then I would say it is a bit lengthy. Attention spans dwindle quite quickly for most readers and after a few paragraphs most threads are interpreted as "blah..blah blah..blah.blah". Defeating the whole purpose of such thread.

One area that I feel could be greatly shortened is chapter two. I don't feel the catchy phrases are the worst thing to happen to a forum. At worst you are wasting a few seconds clicking on and quickly off the thread if you're not interested in replying. At best you might get a little chuckle from someone's wit.
Otherwise nice job (place "thumb's up" icon here).

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I don't know where to find the converter, why must I make a thread about it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Add a link to the converter and a couple sentences about what it is for. Since this is my request it would no longer be self-promotion for you to include it [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

I strongly prefer one hand per thread. I've stopped reading multihand posts in self-defense. If giving each hand its own thread creates too many threads, you are posting too many hands.

[ QUOTE ]
Here is, in my opinion, a basic guide to posting on the 2+2 forums, with a particular eye to posting in strategy subforums like Small Stakes or HUSH.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this guide would be more effective if you focused on the specific goal of SS. What is on-topic in this forum? How do we like to see things done? If this works out well you can always do additional guides for HUSH, Micro, etc.

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

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

2. Each forum has a population that wants to keep the noise level low and the signal level high.


Except maybe in the zoo [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

Otherwise, I think you did a fine job.

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

Again, I sort of disagree with you regarding thread titles. I'm simply unable to title a thread "AT in the CO", "JT, how was it?", "Flush draw, bet the turn?"

Maybe I'm crazy that way. I'm anti-dullness. But if it really annoys other posters that much, I'm willing to let a co-worker or wife title my posts and I'll just fill in the body.

FWIW, I don't choose which threads to click by title anyway. It's usually by poster first, then by number of replies second.

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

Agreed. The line of thought a player follows through the course of a particular hand is critical to the content of a post. With this included in a post, combined with player reads, it make a hand post vastly superior then even simple included reads.

More importantly, the inclusion of the poster's thought process provided a better position for responders to clarify, explain, and learn vital poker concepts. This, in turn, leads to a better understanding of the "why" behind poker play for anyone just reading the post, and might cut down on inane posts in the future pertaining to the same situation.

Part of the reason for so many repetitive posts might rest with the fact that so many posts fail to address the "why" and "why not". So, in sum, the content part makes or breaks a post.

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

It's good.


As far as titles, short of beratement, I doubt there is something anyone could do to stop the "snappy" titles. (which I enjoy) If there are people who have issues with titles, they can simply avoid the 2 second waste of time it would take to click on the thread and move to the next "55 in MP" thread.

Overall, good job, thanks.

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

This should be stickied ASAP. If I read something like this when I first signed up on the forum, I would have been able to avoid a lot of the quick or sarcastic comments a lot of newbies face.

There's a certain culture on this forum that takes a little bit of time to pick up on. It's not very clear at first glance (if it was, there wouldn't be the current problems on the forum).

Anyway 1-table tournaments has a sticky, how do we get this to get the same status?

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

one problem you didn't address is how sh[/i]itty threads keep getting bumped up. someone makes a dumb post, then 8 people make jokes about the original thread, then another people make jokes about those jokes. I'm guilty of this too (and possibly the most guilty), but I feel like someone (you) should make a post in the thread titled "THIS THREAD IS DEAD" to tell everyone to stop responding to that thread.

an example is that retarded thread we had last week that started with a .5/1 O/8 hand that ended up with like 150 responses and no content whatsoever. we kind of expected it to die out, but it didn't until the afternoon because every person who read it felt compelled to respond to it

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

[ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

As a public service to the overall community, this forum really ought to lay claim to 10/20 at a minimum. This may not have been the case 3 years ago, but it certainly is today.

Most PP 15/30 hands that get posted in mid/high belong in here as well.

scrub

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

[ QUOTE ]
one problem you didn't address is how shitty threads keep getting bumped up. someone makes a dumb post, then 8 people make jokes about the original thread, then another people make jokes about those jokes. I'm guilty of this too (and possibly the most guilty), but I feel like someone (you) should make a post in the thread titled "THIS THREAD IS DEAD" to tell everyone to stop responding to that thread

[/ QUOTE ]

A great idea that could be fixed by someone with some "moderator" power...they could just lock the thread. I know that several boards have this type of policy for duplicate threads, locking them right away and letting them drift off into oblivion.

King

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

Agreed, and 2-4 should go to Micro.

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed, and 2-4 should go to Micro.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way. Some of the best posters here play 2/4.

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.

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you mean "content"(as typed) or "constant"?

Either way, I totally agree.

Don't get me wrong, I am 1000% for the entire set of guidelines and think they should be stickied, but IMO, it may still be a failure even if 80% of the people totally committed to follow them to a "T".

It only takes a handful of people to ignore the sticky post to plunge us back into what we have now. Add to that the fact that several posters can be a touch....um....."abrasive"....and I think you end up back where we started from. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I do applaud your efforts becuase I am one apathetic fool and would have never taken the time to put this together. I end up just sorting through the noise.

Thanks.

King

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

What if these guidelines appear the FIRST TIME you use the hand converter? Then it saves a cookie so that you don't have to see it again.

That way everyone trying to use the converter won't have an excuse that they didn't know.

proofreading, converter, feeding the trolls
 

Three suggestions:

1) Encourage posters to proofread before they post.

2) Encourage them to use the converter; it really does help. I have pretty much stopped reading hand posts that don't use the converter.

3) Discourage all from posting to trolling threads. If the trolls don't get responses, maybe they will go away.

Thanks for your effort on this--it looks good.

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

Hey Bison

Good stuff.

One thought: [ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd take it a step further, and stop before the fold...making the prompt something like "My action?" I do this on my rare hand posts.

I think it's relatively easy for responders to agree or disagree with a decision I make. In other words, if I fold, they concentrate solely on that decision, not other decisions I could have made. If I leave it up in the air, it forces people to consider all the option. Just a thought.

I also agree with sthief09; there's too much inside joke stuff that bumps silly threads. I also have a request to what appears to be the NYPC crowd (as well as various other posters who know the true identities of other 2+2ers):

If you're posting a hand with other 2+2ers in it, please consider using their 2+2 names, not their real names. I think I've finally figured out that Sthief09 is Josh and bdkclash is Brad and sfer is Dave/Wendell, but new posters won't and it just confuses things.

-McGee

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

[ QUOTE ]
please consider using their 2+2 names, not their real names. I think I've finally figured out that Sthief09 is Josh and bdkclash is Brad and sfer is Dave/Wendell, but new posters won't and it just confuses things.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what you mean...I've been starting a little list to help keep things straight...unfortunately, I can't seem to figure out Evan's name......

Re: proofreading, converter, feeding the trolls
 

[ QUOTE ]
2) Encourage them to use the converter; it really does help. I have pretty much stopped reading hand posts that don't use the converter

[/ QUOTE ]

I, for one, would prefer that people not be encouraged to use the converter, as long as they are encouraged to:

a)post all the relevant information in a hand (reads, positions, cards, action, pot size, etc)
b) NOT post raw hand histories

The reason is that I am in what must be the very small minority who would rather read a narrative hand history, rather than a converted one. The converter is great when compared to a raw hand history, but I find that "UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, UTG+2 folds, MP1 calls, MP2 calls, Hero raises, CO folds, Button folds, SB folds, BB folds, MP1 calls, MP2 calls" is harder to read than "MP1 and MP2 limp, I raise in CO-1 with red kings. Folded back around to the limpers who both call."

I do agree that the converter has some good aspects, precise pot size, for one, and getting the action absolutely correct, for two. I also see its benefits; as I said, it's a million times better than a raw hand history.

Just wanted to give voice to those who may disagree but don't say anything out of respect for Bison. Not that I don't have respect and appreciation for him or the work he put into the thing; I'm just sure he can take it.

-McGee

Re: proofreading, converter, feeding the trolls
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) Encourage them to use the converter; it really does help. I have pretty much stopped reading hand posts that don't use the converter

[/ QUOTE ]

I, for one, would prefer that people not be encouraged to use the converter, as long as they are encouraged to:

a)post all the relevant information in a hand (reads, positions, cards, action, pot size, etc)
b) NOT post raw hand histories

The reason is that I am in what must be the very small minority who would rather read a narrative hand history, rather than a converted one. The converter is great when compared to a raw hand history, but I find that "UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, UTG+2 folds, MP1 calls, MP2 calls, Hero raises, CO folds, Button folds, SB folds, BB folds, MP1 calls, MP2 calls" is harder to read than "MP1 and MP2 limp, I raise in CO-1 with red kings. Folded back around to the limpers who both call."

I do agree that the converter has some good aspects, precise pot size, for one, and getting the action absolutely correct, for two. I also see its benefits; as I said, it's a million times better than a raw hand history.

Just wanted to give voice to those who may disagree but don't say anything out of respect for Bison. Not that I don't have respect and appreciation for him or the work he put into the thing; I'm just sure he can take it.

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

reference a post by a 7 post stranger in small level nl/pl:

[ QUOTE ]
I tried to use the hand converter , but it said it was taking a week off or something? Wierd, anyway dont be TOO hard on me as im still pretty new.

[/ QUOTE ]

couldn't help laughing as he then proceeded to just cut and paste the history into his post, and that was it. I've already linked one new user to this thread, and I'm hoping others do as well...

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

[ QUOTE ]
C) Lurk more until such wisdom is revealed to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only more people just took this simple advice...

Well written!

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

Great post, bison. Nitpicks:

* Halle Berry and Tyra Banks -- I think this is perfectly clear if you think for a second (which you should be accustomed to if you're on a strategy forum)
* Make a list of things not to do.

Re: A Posting Handbook For Peace
 

[ QUOTE ]

* Halle Berry and Tyra Banks -- I think this is perfectly clear if you think for a second (which you should be accustomed to if you're on a strategy forum)

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't get it. I think a lot of people don't just think of them and think "black", it didn't even occur to me. Whatever though, I don't mind reading threads with lame titles.