Coach Reviews in Strategy Forums

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi QTip:

I have problems with it. While Bob Ciaffone is an honest person and would certainly never ask a student to do this as a form of advertising, we also have problems with his limit hold 'em advice. On Two Plus Two we should be steering our readers towards good information and away from questionable information, and based on their book Middle Limit Hold'em by Ciaffone and Brier, I don't feel comfortable in doing anything that may encourage someone to take lessons that in the long run might prove costly to them. So I think it's best we tell the poster that we feel this is a little too close to violating our rule of no advertising in a post.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Lloyd]

If it comes up again, why not tell the person asking the question that 2+2 simply doesn't think Bob Ciaffone will provide value to 2+2ers. I think to say that it's the advertising rule could complicate other similar matters in the future. It's a bit duplicitous if we allow software developers to post announcements about their products and say that's not advertising but ban supposedly unbiased reviews by third parties (whether about software, books, or coaching). I understand that saying this could cause an issue between 2+2 and Ciaffone. The most honest approach would be to allow a review and if you (Mason) want to comment on the value of Ciaffone's advice then respond to the thread, certainly refering to your review of his books. I'm sure others would also voice their opinion. I've done so in the past where I've essentially said that the little money I paid him was not worth it.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Lloyd:

Actually it's trickier than that. 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.

Your suggestion of letting the review go and then having us respond to it might be the best solution, but it might also create unnecessary ill feeling when we do think that Bob is a good guy. So I'm not completely sure.

What's the concensus?

best wishes,
Mason

[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

[bobbyi]

Mason, I honestly don't understand your position here. Users frequently post reviews of books, both good and bad, on the forums. If a new online cardroom appeared, reviews of it would be welcomed on the internet forum. If a new poker software product were released, reviews would be allowed in the software forum. Discussion and reviews of all manner of poker-related products and services are always permitted. Members of the forum rely on such disucssions to guide and inform their purchasing decisions and thus posts of this nature significantly enhance the value of the forums.

If reviews submitted by users are generally allowed, then why is this one in particular considered inappropriate before we've even seen it? Is it because the service being reviewed is personal coaching? I imagine not because reviews and discussions of coaching have taken place before numerous times. In fact, there is even a sticky right now in one of the strategy forums soliciting reviews of poker coaches. So even though we allow reviews of any schmo who calls himself a coach, this one review is inappropriate because the coach happens to be someone who after publishing some of the finest poker books ever written and making inumerable contributions to the game co-authored one book that had some questionable advice? I think this should be an open and honest discussion. The poster should be permitted to post his review and anyone who wants to is free to respond and give whatever critisms they want of Mr. Ciaffone. From past Ciaffone-related threads on this forum, I don't think there is reason to be concerned that there will be any shortage of bashers crawling out of the woodwork to share their opinions.