A Posting Handbook For Peace

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]


Not Results
I've written about this at length before, but basically: don't include results. They mess up the discussion.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of those opinions that somehow has evolved into fact simply by virtue of repetition. I, for one, like to have quick access to the results. I have seen no evidence that posting the results skews the discussion.

And for those of you who cling to the belief that posting the results up front is bad, is it really not good enough to simply post them in shaded white? I would like to continue to see shaded results, even if on more than one occasion I read a reply from one of the youthful posters here stating "Please don't post the results here, even in white, because [I'm so immature and impulsive] I will read them anyway even though I don't want to."

[Octopus]

[ QUOTE ]
"Please don't post the results here, even in white, because [I'm so immature and impulsive] I will read them anyway even though I don't want to."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you mean, "Please don't post the results here, even in white, because *others* are so immature and impulsive (or curious or whatever) and will read them anyway even though it skews their commentary."

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Please don't post the results here, even in white, because [I'm so immature and impulsive] I will read them anyway even though I don't want to."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you mean, "Please don't post the results here, even in white, because *others* are so immature and impulsive (or curious or whatever) and will read them anyway even though it skews their commentary."

[/ QUOTE ]

1) As part of my trying to be the kinder, gentler poster, I thought I edited out the "immature and impulsive" clause. Mea Culpa. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

2) The original quote actually was made by a poster, who was claiming that he preferred that results not be posted at the outset because he couldn't control himself from looking at the results before coming to his opinion. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Malcom Reynolds]

I think the idea with results is that they can only hurt the strategy discussion, with no real potential benefits other than satisfying human curiousity.

[StellarWind]

1. Many posters do read the results posted in white before analyzing the deal. Like it or not, right or wrong, this is unquestionably true.

2. It is virtually impossible for a person with knowledge of the results to analyze objectively as if they did not have knowledge of the results. The analysis is completely tainted. Appeals of "unauthorized information" rulings at duplicate bridge tournaments have established this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

3. Analysis that *might* be tainted because results were available to the author is less valuable to me because I cannot trust its objectivity.

4. Some posters lack the self-confidence to express an opinion that looks foolish in light of the results. The play they like would have been a disaster so they say nothing to preserve face.

Based on these four points, this ...

[ QUOTE ]
I've written about this at length before, but basically: don't include results. They mess up the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]
... is a major understatement.

[nothumb]

Dammit bison, how can there be peace when you don't post those poems you promised? I spent at least 5 minutes on the one I wrote for you. I was really hurt.

NT

[bisonbison]

Okay guys, Mat Sklansky tells me that he'll sticky an appropriate posting guide type post if we make one, so my idea is to revise what I've written until people are reasonably satisfied, add a chapter between 1 & 2 called: "what belongs in the SS forum", have a chapter called "the x most important posts you could ever read", and expand the "not results" section of "making good hand posts" to include an actual argument. Then I'll start a new thread with a boring, clear title and ask Mat to sticky it.


What I picked up from other people's responses:

1. shorten it up, so that someone might actually read the whole thing.
2. Define Small Stakes clearly (limit ring, certain stakes...)
3. Links to threads that cover overdone topics like downswings, PT stats, winrates, blah blah blah (PLEASE POST YOUR SUGGESTED LINKS)
4. explain the converter
5. other stuff I'm sure I've ignored.

I'll post a revised version of my original post soon (it will be a reply to this thread). Please make any suggestions you think I'm blind to - I'm not in charge of this, I'm just taking charge of this.

[bisonbison]

Welcome to the Small Stakes (SS) Forum, 2+2's biggest and handsomest place to post. If you're new to 2+2 or small stakes, please take a moment to read through this short guide. It'll help you fit in and keep this hectic place a little closer to fine.

There are 4 basic things to cover:
1. Where should I post this?
2. What goes in the SS forum?
3. Keeping SS Readable.
4. Hand Posting Etiquette.


1. Where Should I Post This?
2+2 has more than twenty subforums, and while the options can be a little overwhelming at first, a moment's thought can keep these subforums from getting clogged with repetitive or off-topic posts.

The basic rules:
1. Each forum has its own domain of topics.
2. Each forum has a population that wants to keep the noise level low and the signal level high.
3. It is each poster's responsibility to figure out where their post should go.

If you don't know which forum covers what, you can A) Read the descriptions on this page, B) Use the search function to find similar topics, and/or C) Lurk more until such wisdom is revealed to you. When in doubt, search. I know that 2+2's search function is kind of wonky and hard to use, but it does work.

Failure to put forth this basic effort will be met by one or more of the following attitudes: 1) contempt, 2) disdain, 3) pity, and 4) non-interest.

If A, B and C fail you, you can make a post in the Beginners Forum asking "Where should this go?" or "What does this term mean?" If you're met with attitudes 1, 2 or 4 in the Beginners Forum, rest assured that the responder is being a jerk and you are in the right.

That having been said: the Small Stakes forum is for discussion of fixed limit Hold'em ring games with stakes between 2/4 and 15/30.

What about: 1/2 and lower? Microlimits
Higher stakes? Mid/High.
Short-handed games? HUSH
Tournaments? 1-table Tourneys, Multitable Tourneys, and The WPT and TV Poker
No-Limit and Pot-Limit Hold'em? Here


2. So What Goes In The SS Forum?
Well, like I said: fixed limit Hold'em ring games with stakes between 2/4 and 15/30.

Now, there's a lot under that umbrella. The forum's bread and butter are posts about the play of specific hands (This one time, I had AKo in a 2/4 game blah blah blah); but we also cover more general questions about how to approach, say, middle pair heads-up against an aggressive opponent or a weak draw in the middle of a raising war; as well questions about moving up; table selection; opponent reads; evaluating your own leaks and so on and so forth.

We're not all business here, but off-topic posts that aren't explicitly labeled (off-topic) in the subject line tend to get a very negative response. To save yourself some anguish, you might want to entertain these kinds of questions before you hit "Submit":

If I am posting about PokerTracker, why not post it in Books and Software or on the official PokerTracker forums?
If I'm posting about table selection for hold'em, is it really specific to Micro or SS, or would it be better suited to the General Hold'em Forum?
If I have a question about sample sizes and my win rates, shouldn't it go in the Probability or Poker Theory forums?
If I don't know what X is and everyone else seems to, shouldn't I either ask about it in a thread or make a new post in the Beginners Forum?

The other kinds of posts that are frowned upon are those that have been covered here, in depth, a hundred times. Most of the regular posters here have been playing hold'em seriously for several months or more. None of us care if your pocket aces got busted by 72o or if you made your first straight flush. The things we prefer to discuss are: "Am I thinking about this the right way?" and "Did I play well, given what I knew?"


3. Keeping Small Stakes Readable.
When you make a new post, you get to pick a title. Posters want responses, so they make catchy, novel titles. Readers want to know what they'll be reading, so they like precision and some kind of fidelity between what the title says and what the post contains.

These two urges are in conflict, but the outcomes aren't equal. When readers' desires are ascendent, the forum gets a little dry: "T9s in the CO" followed by "JTs in the CO" followed by "JTs on the Button". When posters' desires are ascendent, though, the forums get almost unbrowsable. Random song lyrics. Testimonies to the physical genius of Salma Hayek. Shoutouts to the shorties. Not good, and it causes a dropoff in the serious strategic discussion that keeps the forum going.

Luckily, there's a happy medium. Clarity and interest can coexist if you take ten seconds to think "Will this make any sense to anyone outside of my own head?"

Titles To Be Emulated:
pocket 4s in the SB
AKo in BB vs. EP Raise
AJs against Gus Hansen and another 2+2er.
TP On The River - How is this fold?
Bottom two pair against a LAG.

Titles To Be Avoided:
C'mon!
Could I have saved money here?
Dealt AA twice in a row!
Hero does the flush draw.
Clueless
Help.

Benign Middle Ground:
JTs in MP, turn question - YANKEES SUCK
Pocket 8s miss the flop, Olivia Williams is purty.
Help, I am losing my shirt at Party 3/6.


4: Hand Posting Etiquette
There are a lot of different types of threads, but the backbone of Small Stakes is discussion of specific hands played live or online.

You'll probably notice that a lot of the hand posts here look alike. Many have been formatted using bisonbison's hand converter. All you have to do to convert a hand is take a hand history from one of the supported sites, paste it into the top box, hit "Convert Hand" and paste the contents of the bottom box into your 2+2 post.

Despite the converter's popularity, there's more to a good post than a pretty face. A good hand for discussion has four things: context, text, a prompt, and NO results.

Context
Poker is a complex social game. It is not played in a vacuum and your opponents, aren't cardboard cutouts sent to shovel you their money. Context is vital to proper play. Context means reads.

If you don't understand that reads can change the play of even the simplest hands, then you're going to be forever shrifted on good advice. That's it.

So tell us what your opponents are like. Qualify it as needed, but give us something. "Bob seems tight after two orbits" is a read and is much better than the damning "NO READS".

If you've got nothing to share about your opponents, tell us anything you know about the table: how long you've been there, whether it seems aggro or passive, whether it was a Friday night or Monday morning, etc, etc, etc. Give us something. Make an effort beyond clicking the post button and hold others to the same standard.

Text
The meat of a hand post is the hand itself. It doesn't need the converter to be a good hand to talk about, but it does need a certain level of detail.

In order to give you decent advice on any reasonably close decision, we're going to need to know the following:

A. your cards (ranks and suits, please)
B. Your position at the table.
C. the board cards for each round (ditto to A)
D. the number of opponents still active for each round
E. The size of the pot.
F. Any betting action that affects D or E.

If it's folded to you in MP, you can just say it's folded to you. If all the active players call, you can just say that everyone called, but if you bet and get two callers on the flop, it's vital to know which two callers. It matters whether it's the CO and the Button or the CO and the BB. So be precise.

A Prompt
The prompt in a hand post is often implied. Post a hand and you're basically asking "Does this look alright?/Did I mess this up?"

However, if you've got a more specific question, don't be shy about shaping the whole post around it. If you're not sure you did the right thing on a given flop, stop the hand text at your last flop action. If you're not sure about a fold, STOP at or even before the fold. Don't taint the interpretation with info you didn't have at the time of the decision. Put us in your baffled shoes.

NO Results
When you post a hand and either include ("Button shows 9h 9d, three of a kind nines) or indicate ("Should I slow down anywhere here?" "Any place I can fold this?" "You won't believe what UTG raised with") the results, you tell the reader to ignore certain possibilities. You provide information that wasn't available to you at the time of the first round, the flop, the turn or the river. You lock responders, however subtly, into the the hand your opponent did have, instead of the ones he could have had. And you'll never know whether the advice you've gotten is really what others would have done in your place. So don't include results.

[bisonbison]

Well guys, I'm just bumping this cause I want comments.

[arkady]

Great post, but I am more than sure that you are one of the individuals that started the crazy title trend. I recall a time several months ago where some of the titles were simply baffling and while you were letting your creative juices flow the rest of the people abused the hell out of it. No reason for me to point out this hypocrisy I suppose, especially given the fact that you are trying to rectify the matter.