Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
What's the concensus?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,

If you are asking for opinions from the peanut gallery, then I have to say I think it is best to allow the reviews. I understand we can't allow sheer anarchy, but allowing objective third party reviews is precisely the kind of thing 2p2 should allow. However, they could come with a disclaimer, added by the poster or edited in by the mod, that states this is the opinion of the reviewer and not 2p2.

As to you responding to a review of him:

[ QUOTE ]
On certain subjects, such as no limit hold 'em and gambling law, we feel that Ciaffone is very good and has a lot to contribute.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could mention that, perhaps add some balance and make it clear 2p2 has nothing against Ciaffone. Lloyd's suggestion is a good one IMO.

Greg

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Gregatron:

[ QUOTE ]
they could come with a disclaimer, added by the poster or edited in by the mod, that states this is the opinion of the reviewer and not 2p2.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this solves the problem. If the poster does not say something like this, then the moderator could do it. With this statement plus my other comments about keeping the review non-commercial, I think it can run.

Thanks everyone,

Mason

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Gregatron:

[ QUOTE ]
they could come with a disclaimer, added by the poster or edited in by the mod, that states this is the opinion of the reviewer and not 2p2.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this solves the problem. If the poster does not say something like this, then the moderator could do it. With this statement plus my other comments about keeping the review non-commercial, I think it can run.

Thanks everyone,

Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,

I'm coming in a bit late here but was basically going to say what Gregatron said.

As for the disclaimer I don't see how that's necesary. If someone makes a post where they suggest some particular betting line on a hand does that somehow confuse people into thinking it's the official suggested line from 2+2? How is this any different. I could see how that would be important in a stickied post or even a post made by one of us, but does the disclaimer really need to be applied to every post? How would a coach review be different from say the Kill Phil review thread in books/publications?

Speaking more specifically about Ciaffone, my impression based on what I can remember from your posts, is that he is systematically too weak preflop and too tight/folds too much postflop. If that's the case I think a short post in the thread with the review saying something like that and emphasizing that in certain things his advice is top shelf material would do the job.

Jared

[Lloyd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they could come with a disclaimer, added by the poster or edited in by the mod, that states this is the opinion of the reviewer and not 2p2.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this solves the problem. If the poster does not say something like this, then the moderator could do it. With this statement plus my other comments about keeping the review non-commercial, I think it can run.

Thanks everyone,

Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

As for the disclaimer I don't see how that's necesary. If someone makes a post where they suggest some particular betting line on a hand does that somehow confuse people into thinking it's the official suggested line from 2+2? How is this any different. I could see how that would be important in a stickied post or even a post made by one of us, but does the disclaimer really need to be applied to every post? How would a coach review be different from say the Kill Phil review thread in books/publications?

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with you 100%. All posts are the opinion of the poster unless otherwise stated. The only reason we use disclaimers on certain posts are because they are stickied and/or perhaps include the 2+2 name (like some of the forum tournies). If a disclaimer is included on any post, what does it mean when a disclaimer is NOT included? That the post IS endorsed by 2+2?

As for not including things like his hoursly rate, meh. I don't think it's a big deal and if somebody searched the archives they'd fine it.

The best way of dealing with both of these issues is to simply have people respond (including Mason) and address them. Point out perhaps where his advice is not necessarily correct, say that we he charges sounds great but in fact you really don't get much more than reviews of hands. This really isn't that big of a deal.

[W. Deranged]

On Ciaffone's Small Stakes advice in Small Stakes:

I actually often advocate certain features of the book to players in SS, specifically those who have problems with being too loose and/or too aggressive. I think it is too tight-weak in general, but for some players a dose of tight-weakness is actually exactly the right presrciption for getting their games under wraps. I personally have learned a ton from Ciaffone's MLH, though I come to a lot of different conclusions from what he advocates.

Overall, I do still think that next to SSH and HPFAP, Ciaffone's MLH is still probably the most important book on limit hold'em, particularly at the levels that I play (and those in my forum play or aspire to play).

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi W. Deranged:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
I personally have learned a ton from Ciaffone's MLH, though I come to a lot of different conclusions from what he advocates.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is part of the problem I have. Once you reach a certain level of expertise you can certainly do this. But what if you're much more of a beginner which is the usual level where books are purchased?

In this case the semi-beginner who purchases and studies these books, we may be doing a dis-service. And that's why I'm having trouble with this issue.

Also, there's a difference between playing less hands versus playing hands weakly. For example, there are many spots where you should either three bet or fold ace-queen offsuit. But compromising and calling (for just two bets) becomes bad poker.

Best wishes,
Mason