Table Coaches are Prawns (Low Content)

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One I can think of off the top of my head that ppl run to far with is the Clarkmeister Theorem. Ppl will [censored] quote that [censored] like its gospel everytime the situation comes up.


[/ QUOTE ]

What is the thereom?

[/ QUOTE ]


LINK to very recent thread in Midhigh. Scroll down a bit, should shed some light.

Basically,
clark proved that the highest EV on average is to bet any 4 flushed board that become 4 flushed on the river when OOP no matter what your holding. I personally think, 'proved' is a bit heavy, but its still a worthwhile concept.

[naphand]

What you say makes a lot of sense.

All this rancour probably stems from the days when every hand that was posted in HUSH was clinically dissected, with EV calculations and hand ranges for opponents, PT figures carried less weight than table-reads, and the likes of schneids/Nate thaGreat/Peter_Rus stalked the forum looking to grapple with each other over the minutiae of respective strategies. Glory days indeed.

Maybe I expect too much; there are still some ground-breaking posts from time-to-time and the standard of discussion remains quite high. Perhaps many posters are more interested in having a community of buddies to chat with about poker than exposing their egos to public excoriation and seeing their game comprehensively dismantled.

I've been here too long.

[waffle]

[ QUOTE ]

naphand: "LOLOLOLOL"

naphand: "MUHAHAHAHA"

Good times... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me the strategy.

I call BS on the entire thread. Take this to the psychology forum.

[oreogod]

I just started actually going back into the archives from about early 04 to the end of 04...and yeah that was pretty much the golden age of this forum. But it was also closer knit community as there were not a ton of posters back then. Wish I had been around at that time. Would have been sweet.

[naphand]

<yawn>

This might have been witty were it not for the fact you are the nth person to wheel this line out, as well as failing to note the "Low Content" warning. Are you a bot?

I think you should check-fold more often.

EDIT: Maybe I should check-fold more often, just not this hand. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
All this rancour probably stems from the days when every hand that was posted in HUSH was clinically dissected, with EV calculations and hand ranges for opponents, PT figures carried less weight than table-reads, and the likes of schneids/Nate thaGreat/Peter_Rus stalked the forum looking to grapple with each other over the minutiae of respective strategies. Glory days indeed.

Maybe I expect too much

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe HUSH seems less worthwhile to you now because your learning curve isn't so steep any more.

I wasn't around in the "glory days" but I suspect that a great deal of the threads then are quite similar to what gets posted now. And while there may be a fair amount of repetition here, it would be nice if the long-time HUSH participants would temper their impatience with the simple recognition that a discussion which they find boring may well be eyeopening to the less experienced.

[naphand]

It was more than sweet, as well as producing a number of outstanding poker players, it inculcated a tremendous mind-set for hand-analysis and strategic thinking. You would be well-advised to thoroughly familiarise yourself with the material there. Time well spent IMO.

[naphand]

Of course the threads were similar - but the responses to them were most definitely NOT.

I don't think the problem is with people getting tired of repetitive posts - that is perfectly accpetable and inevitable. The problem is the general standardisation or "woolliness" of responses (typified by the over-use of PT figures). It would be really great to see posters bother to post hands along with observed reads, hand ranges, EV calculations and take the time to post their thoughts in detail or at least bother to read in-depth analysis and comment.

Not so long ago I was basically being told my posts were too long to bother reading. Now, it was true some of my posts were very long, but when you take the time to post 200+ words of analysis and have someone say "I could not be bothered to read all that, but basically I do not see an alternative to X" you kinda feel you have wasted your time posting (it is certainly never a waste of time to do the analysis). I remember one post where _OMG_ I disagreed with Mason Malmuth's definition of an "ideal table". I was not wrong (neither was Mason, technically) but was booed off the stage...[img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

The point is that people seem only concerend with ABC or play-by-wrote, rather than learning the reasons why. The learning never ends in poker, and as you move up new understandings and new strategies emerge that deserve investigation. The power of this forum is being under-utilised IMO and the bland acceptance of irrelevant and unoriginal posts is seriously off-putting.

I know there are posters capable of this kind of investigation - and it would benefit them, indeed every participant, to engage in in-depth analysis. Even seemingly unimportant hands can throw light on subtle nuances with big implications. That these situations are rare is not important - the principles underlying them can have far reaching implications which will only be revealed by proper investigation; Peter_Rus's famous calculations on the EV of calling in the SB is one such example.

PS
In typical style, one of my rants has meandered so far off topic as to produce something moderately interesting.

[Surfbullet]

What happened here?

Wow.

Locked because it's basically become a flame war.

Surf