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!