respondents to questions
 

is there some way to determine what the skill level and profitability is of folks answering these posts? obviously, a response from a player making a substantial living at the game is going to bear greater weight than say, mine.

Re: respondents to questions
 

This is exceedingly poor thinking. If an answer is right, it's right for its own merit, not because a veteran pro said it. Veterans make mistakes all the time. Weigh each answer critically rather than mindless trusting those of the "pros."

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is exceedingly poor thinking. If an answer is right, it's right for its own merit, not because a veteran pro said it. Veterans make mistakes all the time. Weigh each answer critically rather than mindless trusting those of the "pros."

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. While it's encouraging when an "experienced" poster gives advice, it's best to look at each post on it's own merits. If you read and spend enough time here, you'll learn whose posts have more content than others.

For instance, those who've been here for a while know to ignore everything I write. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, those who've been here for a while know to ignore everything I write.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is absurd.

Re: respondents to questions
 

to mister wookie:

excuse me, it is anything BUT poor reasoning. if i am in ignorance, my ignorance includes an ignorance to what is "right". it is precisely because i am ignorant of what is "right", that i ask, who can i identify as capable of replying in a "right" fashion. i can cite multiple instances of hand evaluations that seem "correct" to me, but are also obviously antinomies. who of the authors of these conflicting interpretations is "right"?

and please donot reply with that commoness, it's all relative, or, they both are.

your comment was exceedingly poor reasoning, and exceedingly arrogant as well.

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
is there some way to determine what the skill level and profitability is of folks answering these posts? obviously, a response from a player making a substantial living at the game is going to bear greater weight than say, mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

very rarely is there one correct answer, which is what makes poker so interesting. it's not about who is right or wrong, it's about stating possible ways to play a hand, discussing them, and determining which you think is best and why. the key is the why. before you get caught up in just following one posters advice i'd read all the responses (after posting yours) and see if you can figure out why that might be a good/bad/better/worse play than what you/others suggested. learndeding is fun!

Re: respondents to questions
 

It's great to say that every post has merit (because it does), but there are posters here who's opinions I tend to respect more because of their past performance. It was helpful for me as a newer player to get an understanding of which regulars actually knew what they were talking about because unfortunately a bad hand analysis with a few buzzwords can sound very much like a good one. Especially to a newer poster.

In short, everyone definitely has value to add, but it's good to know who are the regulars are to at least be able to read their contributions. I just got a feel for it by reading the forum. To get you started, everyone who's replied to the OP so far here falls on my list.

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
to mister wookie:

excuse me, it is anything BUT poor reasoning. if i am in ignorance, my ignorance includes an ignorance to what is "right". it is precisely because i am ignorant of what is "right", that i ask, who can i identify as capable of replying in a "right" fashion. i can cite multiple instances of hand evaluations that seem "correct" to me, but are also obviously antinomies. who of the authors of these conflicting interpretations is "right"?

and please donot reply with that commoness, it's all relative, or, they both are.

your comment was exceedingly poor reasoning, and exceedingly arrogant as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wowie, sensitive huh?

Wook's answer was correct. It doesn't matter who gives the correct answer, as long as it is the correct answer, get it?

And I'm always a lagtard, so don't play like me. Numeri's right alot, and that pisses me off.

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
your comment was exceedingly poor reasoning, and exceedingly arrogant as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Try to reply to the poster you'd like to reference. I almost wrote a scathing reply before I realized you weren't talking to me! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

I think what the wookie is trying to say is that there really is no way to determine who is a better player. When I first started, I looked at the number of posts and kind of instinctively trusted those with more posts. Now, after I've been here for a while, I see new people posting really bad advice with like 1,000,000 posts! (OK, so I'm exaggerating, but you get the point.)

Everyone here (well, almost everyone) has something to offer. It's just a discussion forum. No one here is a master. If so, we wouldn't be playing in micro-limits. Even the experienced players who play 5/10 or 10/20 and drop in from time to time aren't perfect players.

Try not to get offended too easily on these boards. I wish I could give you a better answer and say "Hey, trust x, y, and z." But I can't.

Start participating, and you'll form your own opinions soon enough.

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
And I'm always a lagtard, so don't play like me. Numeri's right alot, and that pisses me off.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I guess if I could give one piece of advice, it'd be this: Ignore Nate's posts like the plague. Save yourself!

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's great to say that every post has merit (because it does), but there are posters here who's opinions I tend to respect more because of their past performance

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly my game wouldn't be anywhere near where it is now if it wasn't for guys like

Shillx
Entity
btspider
Jaran
deathdonkey
Grunchcan
and a ton others

Re: respondents to questions
 

i have a better idea:

dont answer the question if you believe it a ridiculous question.

i guess i am a little tired of a-hole poker players, thank you very much. you can call that sensitivity if you wish.

now, to the other possible respondents to this question, any idea how to seperate the wheat from the chaff, if you know neither what wheat is, nor what chaff is? thanks.

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
to mister wookie:

excuse me, it is anything BUT poor reasoning. if i am in ignorance, my ignorance includes an ignorance to what is "right". it is precisely because i am ignorant of what is "right", that i ask, who can i identify as capable of replying in a "right" fashion. i can cite multiple instances of hand evaluations that seem "correct" to me, but are also obviously antinomies. who of the authors of these conflicting interpretations is "right"?

and please donot reply with that commoness, it's all relative, or, they both are.

your comment was exceedingly poor reasoning, and exceedingly arrogant as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

One good thing to have in this forum, as well as all the forums on 2+2 is thick skin. Before you're so ctitical of others, try responding to some hands and see how your advice stacks up.

If you're not here to get better and learn more about LHE.....go away!

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
to mister wookie:

excuse me, it is anything BUT poor reasoning. if i am in ignorance, my ignorance includes an ignorance to what is "right". it is precisely because i am ignorant of what is "right", that i ask, who can i identify as capable of replying in a "right" fashion. i can cite multiple instances of hand evaluations that seem "correct" to me, but are also obviously antinomies. who of the authors of these conflicting interpretations is "right"?

and please donot reply with that commoness, it's all relative, or, they both are.

your comment was exceedingly poor reasoning, and exceedingly arrogant as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

No need to take offence - Wookie's a good guy.

What your post hinted at is something that ought to be discouraged in poker: rule bound play. A poor poker player is not ignorant to what is right or wrong, but why it's right or wrong. Unfortunately, many people treat these boards as a Q&A forum, and not a discussion forum. But you'll never learn this game one hand at a time.

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And I'm always a lagtard, so don't play like me. Numeri's right alot, and that pisses me off.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I guess if I could give one piece of advice, it'd be this: Ignore Nate's posts like the plague. Save yourself!

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Oh, and b-set is right quite a bit too, and that pisses me off as well.

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and b-set is right quite a bit too, and that pisses me off as well

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: respondents to questions
 

Whoever has the most posts is the best at poker.

Re: respondents to questions
 

Do you get your oil change done by the dealer for $160.00?

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and b-set is right quite a bit too, and that pisses me off as well

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually when I sit in one of your 2+2 games, and I bluff 3 bet your turn c/r, and you cap it cause you are right, that I'm full of [censored]. Yeah, that pisses me off. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

BTW I might need a sweat later this week, you gonna be around? My game really sucks right now.

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's great to say that every post has merit (because it does), but there are posters here who's opinions I tend to respect more because of their past performance

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly my game wouldn't be anywhere near where it is now if it wasn't for guys like

Shillx
Entity
btspider
Jaran
deathdonkey
Grunchcan
and a ton others

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, these are so old school. This who taught us to play.

Seriosuly though. Just read the posts and evaluate the logic. If you're not sure, post your thoughts/questions. If something is blatantly wrong, somebody knowlegeable will correct it. I won't single out the current good posters. You'll figure out who they are soon enough, and everybody has merit

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
Whoever has the most posts is the best at poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

yep I always trust Jakethebake's advice

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and b-set is right quite a bit too, and that pisses me off as well

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

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the Dog is just in a pissy mood tonight.

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whoever has the most posts is the best at poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

yep I always trust Jakethebake's advice

[/ QUOTE ]
nh

Re: respondents to questions
 

is your name pronounced "shawnt" or does it rhyme with rant?

Re: respondents to questions
 

dear idiots thus far not answering my question:

if i gots me twenty folks, 6 of whom make money painting cars, and 14 of whom have no idea of paint: says i ask them there who knows not paint what paint is, and how it is applied to an auto, and they make a perfectly feasible reply, with your fingers.

then i ask of them that maketh some sum of living wage, verily brother, wherefore paintest thou? and yea, they spake truly, and show me an atomizer, and it's proper use.

now, being in ignorance of paint, atomizers, and its application, i may decide that the eloquence of finger painter idiot is more appealing than the jargon of himwhopaintethforbreadeth. it followeth, therefore, some indication of the knowledge of him who speaketh is required to formeth my owneth opinioneth. amen.

therefore, in the interests of learning who are winning players, so that their perceptions can be weighed and balanced, and taken with respect, yea, unto my bosom, i did ask my woebegone question.

when and if it becomes an issue for me, that i cannot tell the rule from the instance, or cannot distinguish my right hand from my left, or any other like quotidian philosophical issue, i will post a question begging the knowledge thereof.

so again, let me iterate: is there a way to determine who is making the bread?; for i swear, i wish to paint my car, and live with the consequences, yea, mightily.

Re: respondents to questions
 

Rhymes with flaunt and croissant.

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
dear idiots thus far not answering my question

[/ QUOTE ]

you're welcome

hey wookie, can you rename this to Bottomset's Un-Official NC Thread??

k thanks

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
dear idiots thus far not answering my question

[/ QUOTE ]

your welcome

hey wookie, can you rename this to Bottomset's Un-Official NC Thread??

k thanks

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds good to me.

Re: respondents to questions
 

Sorry for not living up to your expectations. You are clearly a valuable addition to the forum. We'll try to do better for you in the future.

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
dear idiots thus far not answering my question:

if i gots me twenty folks, 6 of whom make money painting cars, and 14 of whom have no idea of paint: says i ask them there who knows not paint what paint is, and how it is applied to an auto, and they make a perfectly feasible reply, with your fingers.

then i ask of them that maketh some sum of living wage, verily brother, wherefore paintest thou? and yea, they spake truly, and show me an atomizer, and it's proper use.

now, being in ignorance of paint, atomizers, and its application, i may decide that the eloquence of finger painter idiot is more appealing than the jargon of himwhopaintethforbreadeth. it followeth, therefore, some indication of the knowledge of him who speaketh is required to formeth my owneth opinioneth. amen.

therefore, in the interests of learning who are winning players, so that their perceptions can be weighed and balanced, and taken with respect, yea, unto my bosom, i did ask my woebegone question.

when and if it becomes an issue for me, that i cannot tell the rule from the instance, or cannot distinguish my right hand from my left, or any other like quotidian philosophical issue, i will post a question begging the knowledge thereof.

so again, let me iterate: is there a way to determine who is making the bread?; for i swear, i wish to paint my car, and live with the consequences, yea, mightily.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already said this, but I'll do it again. The conclusions arrived at by WHOMEVER posts replies to hand histories are RATIONALIZED, and not LEARNED. If you don't know how to RATIONALIZE a decision, then ASK A QUESTION, or BUY A [censored] BOOK.

Re: respondents to questions
 

So I almost have the ellusive 100%er at my table right now. Current VP$IP is 95.7%, but it's only through 30 hands. Needless to say, I feel priveledged that he's directly to my right, and I've been isolating frequently.

Hmmm... maybe that was too much content. Ehh...

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
dear idiots thus far not answering my question:

if i gots me twenty folks, 6 of whom make money painting cars, and 14 of whom have no idea of paint: says i ask them there who knows not paint what paint is, and how it is applied to an auto, and they make a perfectly feasible reply, with your fingers.

then i ask of them that maketh some sum of living wage, verily brother, wherefore paintest thou? and yea, they spake truly, and show me an atomizer, and it's proper use.

now, being in ignorance of paint, atomizers, and its application, i may decide that the eloquence of finger painter idiot is more appealing than the jargon of himwhopaintethforbreadeth. it followeth, therefore, some indication of the knowledge of him who speaketh is required to formeth my owneth opinioneth. amen.

therefore, in the interests of learning who are winning players, so that their perceptions can be weighed and balanced, and taken with respect, yea, unto my bosom, i did ask my woebegone question.

when and if it becomes an issue for me, that i cannot tell the rule from the instance, or cannot distinguish my right hand from my left, or any other like quotidian philosophical issue, i will post a question begging the knowledge thereof.

so again, let me iterate: is there a way to determine who is making the bread?; for i swear, i wish to paint my car, and live with the consequences, yea, mightily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jehova!

Mine's 9 inches.

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
Mine's 9 inches.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have a 9-in monitor? I thought you bought one of those 2001fp ones from Dell. WTF? Or am I missing something?

Re: respondents to questions
 

I'm always right...just listen to me.

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mine's 9 inches.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have a 9-in monitor? I thought you bought one of those 2001fp ones from Dell. WTF? Or am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Preflop is light in the loafers.

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
Jehova!

Mine's 9 inches.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignore everything Nate says, except for this. I haven't laughed at something this hard in a NC thread for quite a while. VNH, sir.

Bottomset, you'll have your (original) personal NC thread unlocked and free for use by Sunday ON THE CONDITION that you send me a PM with the link. I'm too lazy to dig it up.

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
So I almost have the ellusive 100%er at my table right now. Current VP$IP is 95.7%, but it's only through 30 hands. Needless to say, I feel priveledged that he's directly to my right, and I've been isolating frequently.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously, this guy is soooo bad.

Absolute Poker 1/2 Hold'em (6 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is CO with A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].
<font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, MP calls, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, MP calls.

Flop: (5.50 SB) 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
MP checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP calls.

Turn: (3.75 BB) A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">MP bets</font>, Hero calls.

River: (5.75 BB) 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">MP bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, MP calls.

Final Pot: 9.75 BB

Results:
MP doesn't show J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].
Hero has A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (three of a kind, aces).
Outcome: Hero wins 9.75 BB.

Re: respondents to questions
 

dear Aaron:

i viewed your website. you mispelled "consistantly".

apparently, you do not understand that "rationalization" is a term that describes the method whereby we think, but NOT what it is we think. the christian forefathers could and did, rationalize the number of angels standing upon the head of a pin.

i am not interested in rationalizing an incorrection. i am interested in learning to play poker well. i will learn to play poker well from those who play poker well.

you [censored] [censored], you.

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
Shillx

[/ QUOTE ]
Someone sent me a good upgrade for his avatar today:

http://www.keriandgreg.com/gregfiles/FGerber.jpg



Eh?

Re: respondents to questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
i am not interested in rationalizing an incorrection. i am interested in learning to play poker well. i will learn to play poker well from those who play poker well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck.