Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

A frequent poster in the SS Forum is starting to receive some coaching from Ciaffone. He wanted to write up a review after the completion of the coaching session. He asked me if would be acceptable for such a review to be posted in the SS Forum. I told him I couldn't see why not, but I thought I'd throw it out here to see if such posts belong in a different forum.

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

Q,

Who is this? PM me if you don't want to post it here (or don't if it's not for public knowledge).

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

I'm against this. It's free advertisting for Ciaffone, and it's possible he even suggested to his student to do as much.

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

I personally have no problem with this. I highly doubt that Bob would ask someone to post a review here. That just doesn't seem like him. There have been many, many people who have taken lessons from him in the past and I can't remember any who have written reviews.

I don't see how this is too different than someone writing a review of a book, software package, poker room, etc. It seems like it would be helpful to the forum members in the same way as those reviews.

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

What if it's a bad review? I have no prob;em with this if the assessment is honest.

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

I don't see anything wrong with posting the review, but I think General HE would be a more appropriate forum than SS.

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

Hi QTip:

I have problems with it. While Bob Ciaffone is an honest person and would certainly never ask a student to do this as a form of advertising, we also have problems with his limit hold 'em advice. On Two Plus Two we should be steering our readers towards good information and away from questionable information, and based on their book Middle Limit Hold'em by Ciaffone and Brier, I don't feel comfortable in doing anything that may encourage someone to take lessons that in the long run might prove costly to them. So I think it's best we tell the poster that we feel this is a little too close to violating our rule of no advertising in a post.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

Well, this is the final word unless you guys hear otherwise.

This is one of those topics that's easily forgotten, so if it comes up again, and you think it should be revisited be sure to let let us know.

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

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. I think to say that it's the advertising rule could complicate other similar matters in the future. It's a bit duplicitous if we allow software developers to post announcements about their products and say that's not advertising but ban supposedly unbiased reviews by third parties (whether about software, books, or coaching). I understand that saying this could cause an issue between 2+2 and Ciaffone. The most honest approach would be to allow a review and if you (Mason) want to comment on the value of Ciaffone's advice then respond to the thread, certainly refering to your review of his books. I'm sure others would also voice their opinion. I've done so in the past where I've essentially said that the little money I paid him was not worth it.

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

Hi Lloyd:

Actually it's trickier than that. 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.

Your suggestion of letting the review go and then having us respond to it might be the best solution, but it might also create unnecessary ill feeling when we do think that Bob is a good guy. So I'm not completely sure.

What's the concensus?

best wishes,
Mason

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

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

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?

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with you 100%. All posts are the opinion of the poster unless otherwise stated. The only reason we use disclaimers on certain posts are because they are stickied and/or perhaps include the 2+2 name (like some of the forum tournies). If a disclaimer is included on any post, what does it mean when a disclaimer is NOT included? That the post IS endorsed by 2+2?

As for not including things like his hoursly rate, meh. I don't think it's a big deal and if somebody searched the archives they'd fine it.

The best way of dealing with both of these issues is to simply have people respond (including Mason) and address them. Point out perhaps where his advice is not necessarily correct, say that we he charges sounds great but in fact you really don't get much more than reviews of hands. This really isn't that big of a deal.

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

[ QUOTE ]
we also have problems with his limit hold 'em advice. On Two Plus Two we should be steering our readers towards good information and away from questionable information, and based on their book Middle Limit Hold'em by Ciaffone and Brier, I don't feel comfortable in doing anything that may encourage someone to take lessons that in the long run might prove costly to them. So I think it's best we tell the poster that we feel this is a little too close to violating our rule of no advertising in a post.

[/ QUOTE ]
Surely we don't want to censor good-faith posters because we fear they will give bad advice that could cost readers money? You might have to shut down the forums if you institute that policy.

A review is just another post unless you choose to make it something more. No one is going to think it is anything other than the personal opinion of one of Bob's students.

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

WD:

The poster is Flair1239, and I'm sure he wouldn't mind me mentioning that here. He's been respected and respectful in the forums to the best of my knowledge.

I actually forgot about this post for a couple days and came back here tonight expecting to find it on page 2 with 1 response.

Am I to understand that a consensus has not been reached?

Thanks,

QTip

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

As it stands now, the post is allowed as long as it's not a glaring advertisement and is unbiased (meaning pros/cons). In addition, it would need some sort of disclaimer that it's not an official 2+2 review. Several of us have voiced our concern with that type of disclaimer and hope that Mason will reverse that decision. If he's pressing to make a post now I'd send Mason a PM, ask him to review the thread again, and make a final decision.

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

Q,

I personally would be interested in Flair's review though I certainly agree that it would need a disclaimer re: Ciaffone's LHE advice.

Flair's a great contributor to the forum and I think his comments on the value of coaching in general would be a valuable contribution to the forum.

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

[ QUOTE ]
Q,

I personally would be interested in Flair's review though I certainly agree that it would need a disclaimer re: Ciaffone's LHE advice.

Flair's a great contributor to the forum and I think his comments on the value of coaching in general would be a valuable contribution to the forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain why you think it needs a disclaimer when this thread doesn't. While that isn't about Ciaffone, no posts in this thread have the disclaimer. Mason's reponse to Bobbyi makes it pretty clear that his post does not give the official 2+2 view.

Furthermore is this post giving the official strategy of 2+2 publishing for how to play AQs when the flop is A48r, turn is J completing rainbow, river is T, one opponent is a total lag and the other is a tag that drops out after the flop gets raised? It doesn't have a disclaimer and the idiot making the post is even a mod.

I have no clue why this post, or any other, should get a disclaimer. The situation is extremely similar to reviews of books in the book forum. Those never have had a disclaimer as far as I know. Strategy posts don't have a disclaimer. Articles published in the magazine have no such discliamer. Putting it into just this one post makes no sense.

If it is necesary for this post please explain why it isn't necesary in the examples cited above.

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

Hi JaredL:

The reason I feel it needs a disclaimer is that Ciaffone isn't just a typical person. He comes under our policy of holding authors to a higher standard. So I feel the review can be posted but we do need a polite disclaimer.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

Mason,

I agree with your position that authors should be held to a higher standard. That's fair enough, I just wonder what people will think when the post has a disclaimer attached, and others such as the examples I've given above don't. While there could be legal ramifications I'm not aware of, I don't see why a poster reading a review of a book or a coach would misconstrue it as your company supporting this person (or being against in the case of a bad review). People reading the review will get to the disclaimer and wonder why it's there. My guess is that the thread would then either get fully derailed or at least split into some sort of two threaded monster with one discussing the actual value of Ciaffone's coaching/coaching in general and the other discussing why the disclaimer's there and whether you treat "your competition" unfairly. If this were to happen we would have a thread go from being hugely beneficial to simply making everyone frustrated. In this scenario it's also not likely that you would come out looking like the good guy, despite being well intentioned.

Based on little I know of Ciaffone's limit advice I agree with your position. I haven't read his books but from hearing and reading about various examples of hands where his advice is clearly too weak-tight your view seems to be correct. While I can see why you would want a disclaimer, for the reasons mentioned above I think it would be best if it were left out and you responded to the post saying that you think his limit advice is often bad but his NL and legal advice is good. (on a sidenote, his discussion of rules seems interesting as well I'm curious what you think on that) That would get your view out there, make it very clear that the review isn't giving the official 2+2 publishing opinion, and would be much less likely (though still not probability zero) to end in a flame war. Hopefully, no matter your decision such a problem doesn't develop.

By the way, after all of this disclaimer discussion I skimmed the pages of the magazine looking for such a disclaimer and didn't find one. Shouldn't there be one? I'm being 100% serious here, this is in no way a continuation of the argument above. I would assume that the magazine is something like the editorial page of the newspaper where you accept and publish writings even if you disagree with the view given therein, assuming they are well thought out and written reasonably. Most (all?) newspapers have a similar disclaimer, and this would seem necesary in your case as well, especially since there usually are 1 or 2 controversial articles every month.

Your humble servant,

Jared

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

Lloyd, I just don't get this:

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that the thread would then either get fully derailed or at least split into some sort of two threaded monster with one discussing the actual value of Ciaffone's coaching/coaching in general and the other discussing why the disclaimer's there and whether you treat "your competition" unfairly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't see why you think this would happen.

At worst a disclaimer makes the review a little redundant.

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

[ QUOTE ]
Lloyd, I just don't get this:

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that the thread would then either get fully derailed or at least split into some sort of two threaded monster with one discussing the actual value of Ciaffone's coaching/coaching in general and the other discussing why the disclaimer's there and whether you treat "your competition" unfairly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't see why you think this would happen.

At worst a disclaimer makes the review a little redundant.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're quoting the wrong guy.

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

[ QUOTE ]
Lloyd, I just don't get this:

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that the thread would then either get fully derailed or at least split into some sort of two threaded monster with one discussing the actual value of Ciaffone's coaching/coaching in general and the other discussing why the disclaimer's there and whether you treat "your competition" unfairly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't see why you think this would happen.

At worst a disclaimer makes the review a little redundant.

[/ QUOTE ]

People tend to notice odd things in posts. I would be surprised to find no discussion of why it's there, in particular if it was put there by a mod and not the OP. As for the discussion of Mason and Sklansky treating other authors unfairly, that's flaired up on a few occasions primarily in Books (well then it was books/software) when one of the two names above give negative reviews of non-2+2 books. The Lee Jones thread comes to mind.

I personally think that being very critical of authors in general is a good thing. As an example, given Mason's positive review of Kill Phil (even if it changes near the end) I plan to pick it up. If he was like many in the publishing industry, I'm thinking of many player/authors here, his positive review would be worthless due to good reviews of books I know to be bad. Similarly, as someone who's first two books were Ken Warren's Winning player teaches hold'em (or whatever it is) and Phil Helmuth's book, I'm certainly behind the effort to not lead people to bad advice. Unfortunately, others don't see it this way and things could head that direction.

Jared

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lloyd, I just don't get this:

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that the thread would then either get fully derailed or at least split into some sort of two threaded monster with one discussing the actual value of Ciaffone's coaching/coaching in general and the other discussing why the disclaimer's there and whether you treat "your competition" unfairly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't see why you think this would happen.

At worst a disclaimer makes the review a little redundant.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're quoting the wrong guy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oops! My bad. Sorry. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

FYI... Poker coaching thread in Psychology forum

Re: Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums
 

That's some ad by Dan!