Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

[ QUOTE ]
What's the concensus?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,

If you are asking for opinions from the peanut gallery, then I have to say I think it is best to allow the reviews. I understand we can't allow sheer anarchy, but allowing objective third party reviews is precisely the kind of thing 2p2 should allow. However, they could come with a disclaimer, added by the poster or edited in by the mod, that states this is the opinion of the reviewer and not 2p2.

As to you responding to a review of him:

[ QUOTE ]
On certain subjects, such as no limit hold 'em and gambling law, we feel that Ciaffone is very good and has a lot to contribute.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could mention that, perhaps add some balance and make it clear 2p2 has nothing against Ciaffone. Lloyd's suggestion is a good one IMO.

Greg

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

Mason, I honestly don't understand your position here. Users frequently post reviews of books, both good and bad, on the forums. If a new online cardroom appeared, reviews of it would be welcomed on the internet forum. If a new poker software product were released, reviews would be allowed in the software forum. Discussion and reviews of all manner of poker-related products and services are always permitted. Members of the forum rely on such disucssions to guide and inform their purchasing decisions and thus posts of this nature significantly enhance the value of the forums.

If reviews submitted by users are generally allowed, then why is this one in particular considered inappropriate before we've even seen it? Is it because the service being reviewed is personal coaching? I imagine not because reviews and discussions of coaching have taken place before numerous times. In fact, there is even a sticky right now in one of the strategy forums soliciting reviews of poker coaches. So even though we allow reviews of any schmo who calls himself a coach, this one review is inappropriate because the coach happens to be someone who after publishing some of the finest poker books ever written and making inumerable contributions to the game co-authored one book that had some questionable advice? I think this should be an open and honest discussion. The poster should be permitted to post his review and anyone who wants to is free to respond and give whatever critisms they want of Mr. Ciaffone. From past Ciaffone-related threads on this forum, I don't think there is reason to be concerned that there will be any shortage of bashers crawling out of the woodwork to share their opinions.

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

[ QUOTE ]
If it comes up again, why not tell the person asking the question that 2+2 simply doesn't think Bob Ciaffone will provide value to 2+2ers.

[/ QUOTE ]
As it stands, this is a horribly offensive and inapproriate statement for 2+2 to make. You at least need to qualify it somehow. In its current form, how would you defend it to the overwhelming plurality in MHPLNL who voted his book the finest book on the subject of cash NL games?

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

I think bobbyi has a good point. Anyone who calls themself a coach can get posted in a sticky in the mhush forum and not allowing a review of ciafone would be kind of not-standard for how the forum is sometimes used.

And maybe the guy will say he wasn't all that impressed with his limit holdem advice anyhow.

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

Mason,

I can't see how on one hand 2+2 in response to the Baron Von Vagertooth debate over his 2+2 Internet Magazine article, would allow poor strategy to be posted not only in the forum but on a 2+2 product, while not allowing this review to be posted on the forum.

At the time of the debate I believe you said something to the effects that even though some of the information contained in the article may be been poor advice there was value in the consequenting debate. I think this issue would be very much the same. I also think that like with Barron's article any poor or incorrect strategy would be quickly and mercilessly pointed out and corrected by 2+2ers, as it did in that instance.

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

Hi bobbyi:

I think you're probably right. What I want to avoid here is an advertisement for Bob Ciaffone or a Ciaffone bashing thread. Perhaps the answer is to tell the reviewer that he needs to stick to the facts of the actual coaching and not to introduce any possible advertising information such as how much it costs or how many lessons someone typically needs.

best wishes,
Mason

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

Hi Gregatron:

[ QUOTE ]
they could come with a disclaimer, added by the poster or edited in by the mod, that states this is the opinion of the reviewer and not 2p2.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this solves the problem. If the poster does not say something like this, then the moderator could do it. With this statement plus my other comments about keeping the review non-commercial, I think it can run.

Thanks everyone,

Mason

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Gregatron:

[ QUOTE ]
they could come with a disclaimer, added by the poster or edited in by the mod, that states this is the opinion of the reviewer and not 2p2.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this solves the problem. If the poster does not say something like this, then the moderator could do it. With this statement plus my other comments about keeping the review non-commercial, I think it can run.

Thanks everyone,

Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,

I'm coming in a bit late here but was basically going to say what Gregatron said.

As for the disclaimer I don't see how that's necesary. If someone makes a post where they suggest some particular betting line on a hand does that somehow confuse people into thinking it's the official suggested line from 2+2? How is this any different. I could see how that would be important in a stickied post or even a post made by one of us, but does the disclaimer really need to be applied to every post? How would a coach review be different from say the Kill Phil review thread in books/publications?

Speaking more specifically about Ciaffone, my impression based on what I can remember from your posts, is that he is systematically too weak preflop and too tight/folds too much postflop. If that's the case I think a short post in the thread with the review saying something like that and emphasizing that in certain things his advice is top shelf material would do the job.

Jared

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

On Ciaffone's Small Stakes advice in Small Stakes:

I actually often advocate certain features of the book to players in SS, specifically those who have problems with being too loose and/or too aggressive. I think it is too tight-weak in general, but for some players a dose of tight-weakness is actually exactly the right presrciption for getting their games under wraps. I personally have learned a ton from Ciaffone's MLH, though I come to a lot of different conclusions from what he advocates.

Overall, I do still think that next to SSH and HPFAP, Ciaffone's MLH is still probably the most important book on limit hold'em, particularly at the levels that I play (and those in my forum play or aspire to play).

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

Hi W. Deranged:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
I personally have learned a ton from Ciaffone's MLH, though I come to a lot of different conclusions from what he advocates.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is part of the problem I have. Once you reach a certain level of expertise you can certainly do this. But what if you're much more of a beginner which is the usual level where books are purchased?

In this case the semi-beginner who purchases and studies these books, we may be doing a dis-service. And that's why I'm having trouble with this issue.

Also, there's a difference between playing less hands versus playing hands weakly. For example, there are many spots where you should either three bet or fold ace-queen offsuit. But compromising and calling (for just two bets) becomes bad poker.

Best wishes,
Mason