In Response To sthief's Shot At Strassa...

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
That type that comes to this forum and browses for a week and thinks they know everything is far more common

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention, they're more than happy to tell you how much they know everything. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Then when rebuffed, leave in a huff thinking 2+2 is just a bunch who don't know what they're talking about because they think he's a losing player when obiously he's the next unheralded genius.

Anyone ever read people in other forums and what they think of 2+2? Sometimes it isn't always kind.

b

[CostaRicaBill]

I think opening up the small stakes forum for the first time and reading some of the posts is initially so confusing and intimidating that most newbies will just say [censored] it, I just want to play.

"Raising for a free showdown v.s. the donk bet."
"Figuring effective outs on a hand with multiple draws"

Just two examples I found on the first page, not to mention VPIP posts and pokertracker lingo.

[jman220]

You know this is a good point. It took me a while to figure out what some of the pokertracker lingo was when I first got here, and I've had pokertracker for almost 9 months now.

[wabe]

adam, I think you underestimate the amount of people in the world that think that "only nerds spend time on Internet sites".

Seriously, how many people are out there that have bought SSHE and apply the advice incorrectly to their game?

[sthief09]

before I go defend or agree or whatever on each point, I feel like I need to bring up my character, because we have had no contact at all other than me lurking on the NL forums. I'm not an unreasonable person, I'm not an angry person, I'm not a bad person. you may not agree with the things I said, and after giving it some time and reading what other people have written, I don't agree with the things I wrote in the first post, or how I presented myself, but this doesn't represent who I am. I just wanted to add that.

secondly, I did mention in my original post that I don't know how it went or whether this has been discussed before. if it was completely innocent or he kind of got trapped into doing it, then fine. but the things I ammended a lot of the thigns I wrote immediately after the original post in other posts, and basically it boils down to me thinking that it's going to have some negative affect on games, even if it's small. I also think it was unnecessary for twoplustwo to have been mentioned. maybe it was unavoidable.

I've pretty much spent my entire time at 2+2 trying NOT to be contraversial about anything. I post here to discuss poker strategy and that's it. now I got a bunch of people thinking I'm taking shots at people, and that's not what I do and it's not what I'm here for. no matter what I wrote or meant in my first post, I'm not taking shots at him personally. I was, and still am to an extent, opposed to what he did. now maybe it was the writer. if he wrote the article, it would be an entirely different story. he didn't so he can't avoid what goes into print.


now that I've read over all your points, I really don't have much to say. on 1-3, you're right. my post was an immediate reaction to reading the article. I was pissed. I never claimed to know everything, or know him, or know what happened. I've barely even been on 2+2 for 2 or 3 weeks, so I was assuming this is something that has been discussed. again, I never claimed to know what I was talking about. it was a reaction.

on #4, it's just like anything else. I have my opinion and you have yours. everyone else is on the side you're taking, so I'm willing to admit that my assessment of the situation was most likely way off base. at the time I made my posts, that's not how I viewed it, so at the least you can understand why I was angry.

and on #5, I think you're wrong. I'm not angry about having to share 2+2 with other people. if I was then I'd have stopped posting strategy a while ago, because the number of members seems to be growing exponentially. it was purely a matter of the games he plays in, you play in, and I play in getting worse because of people finding this site and 2+2's books. again, we don't agree on this point, but I don't need to argue against 50 people because I'll end up being proven wrong.

so again, I'm not an unreasonable person. I don't think this should be a reflection on me or my personality. I wish I could say that I don't really care how anyone views me, but I do. I don't like to be in these situations. it's not like me. and as far as making a new post to Jason, I don't think that's necessary. he's seen me backtrack on just about everything I've written. I stand by my original post only because it reflects how I was feeling at the time. no matter what you say, I can't take that back because I meant what I wrote when I wrote it. all I can apologize for (and I do) is that I was so grossly misinformed while making the post. and it's nothing against Jason personally. if Nate or Clark, people for whom I have the utmost respect, did the same thing, I'd probably write something very similar.

[Buckmulligan]

I really need some primary source material. Someone give me the article or at least what is said verbatim and the context.

[ML4L]

Hey sthief,

[ QUOTE ]
before I go defend or agree or whatever on each point, I feel like I need to bring up my character, because we have had no contact at all other than me lurking on the NL forums. I'm not an unreasonable person, I'm not an angry person, I'm not a bad person. you may not agree with the things I said, and after giving it some time and reading what other people have written, I don't agree with the things I wrote in the first post, or how I presented myself, but this doesn't represent who I am. I just wanted to add that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your subsequent posts, including your reply to my post, make it very evident that the comments in the initial post do not reflect your true character.

[ QUOTE ]
I also think it was unnecessary for twoplustwo to have been mentioned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, your subsequent posts made it clear that this was the real point that you had been trying to make, which is valid to an extent.

[ QUOTE ]
I've pretty much spent my entire time at 2+2 trying NOT to be contraversial about anything. I post here to discuss poker strategy and that's it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto.

[ QUOTE ]
on #4, it's just like anything else. I have my opinion and you have yours. everyone else is on the side you're taking, so I'm willing to admit that my assessment of the situation was most likely way off base. at the time I made my posts, that's not how I viewed it, so at the least you can understand why I was angry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely understand where you are coming from and respect your opinion. I disagree, but it's fairly subjective, kinda like the "Where will online poker be in 10 years?" threads. So, there's no point in people quibbling over it...

[ QUOTE ]
so again, I'm not an unreasonable person. I don't think this should be a reflection on me or my personality. I wish I could say that I don't really care how anyone views me, but I do. I don't like to be in these situations. it's not like me. and as far as making a new post to Jason, I don't think that's necessary. he's seen me backtrack on just about everything I've written. I stand by my original post only because it reflects how I was feeling at the time. no matter what you say, I can't take that back because I meant what I wrote when I wrote it. all I can apologize for (and I do) is that I was so grossly misinformed while making the post. and it's nothing against Jason personally. if Nate or Clark, people for whom I have the utmost respect, did the same thing, I'd probably write something very similar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't worry about anyone thinking less of you because of this (I certainly don't). You were pissed, made a post, thought about it some more, and amended your comments. Not a big deal... I agree that no further apology is necessary.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

ML4L

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
before I go defend or agree or whatever on each point, I feel like I need to bring up my character, because we have had no contact at all other than me lurking on the NL forums. I'm not an unreasonable person, I'm not an angry person, I'm not a bad person. you may not agree with the things I said, and after giving it some time and reading what other people have written, I don't agree with the things I wrote in the first post, or how I presented myself, but this doesn't represent who I am. I just wanted to add that.

secondly, I did mention in my original post that I don't know how it went or whether this has been discussed before. if it was completely innocent or he kind of got trapped into doing it, then fine. but the things I ammended a lot of the thigns I wrote immediately after the original post in other posts, and basically it boils down to me thinking that it's going to have some negative affect on games, even if it's small. I also think it was unnecessary for twoplustwo to have been mentioned. maybe it was unavoidable.

I've pretty much spent my entire time at 2+2 trying NOT to be contraversial about anything. I post here to discuss poker strategy and that's it. now I got a bunch of people thinking I'm taking shots at people, and that's not what I do and it's not what I'm here for. no matter what I wrote or meant in my first post, I'm not taking shots at him personally. I was, and still am to an extent, opposed to what he did. now maybe it was the writer. if he wrote the article, it would be an entirely different story. he didn't so he can't avoid what goes into print.


now that I've read over all your points, I really don't have much to say. on 1-3, you're right. my post was an immediate reaction to reading the article. I was pissed. I never claimed to know everything, or know him, or know what happened. I've barely even been on 2+2 for 2 or 3 weeks, so I was assuming this is something that has been discussed. again, I never claimed to know what I was talking about. it was a reaction.

on #4, it's just like anything else. I have my opinion and you have yours. everyone else is on the side you're taking, so I'm willing to admit that my assessment of the situation was most likely way off base. at the time I made my posts, that's not how I viewed it, so at the least you can understand why I was angry.

and on #5, I think you're wrong. I'm not angry about having to share 2+2 with other people. if I was then I'd have stopped posting strategy a while ago, because the number of members seems to be growing exponentially. it was purely a matter of the games he plays in, you play in, and I play in getting worse because of people finding this site and 2+2's books. again, we don't agree on this point, but I don't need to argue against 50 people because I'll end up being proven wrong.

so again, I'm not an unreasonable person. I don't think this should be a reflection on me or my personality. I wish I could say that I don't really care how anyone views me, but I do. I don't like to be in these situations. it's not like me. and as far as making a new post to Jason, I don't think that's necessary. he's seen me backtrack on just about everything I've written. I stand by my original post only because it reflects how I was feeling at the time. no matter what you say, I can't take that back because I meant what I wrote when I wrote it. all I can apologize for (and I do) is that I was so grossly misinformed while making the post. and it's nothing against Jason personally. if Nate or Clark, people for whom I have the utmost respect, did the same thing, I'd probably write something very similar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Sthief, I probably wouldn't have written my critical response to your post in the other thread if I'd read this first.

--Zetack

[roundhouse]

nh

[bernie]

I've read alot of your posts long before this. I never considered this to be a character debate or a gross personal attack on someone by you. I don't think I've ever seen you take a shot at anyone, so it never entered my mind that that's what you were intending with your post.

I think you presented your issue with the article well enough that it was basically about the concept regardless of who was interviewed.

b