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.

[MrWookie47]

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."

[numeri]

[ 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]

[benkath1]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is absurd.

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.

[NateDog]

[ 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.

[numeri]

[ 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!

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.

[numeri]

[ 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.

[benkath1]

[ 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!