A humble question

Didn't mean to offend anyone. I read the posts here because I like to get a glimpse about how the game might be if I some day in the future will be able to move up to a higher level. I'm asking because sometimes I see people raise and reraise flop call or bet turn and then fold river. Then I say to myself, couldn't it have been done in a more unexpensive way?
It's still interesting to notice that almost every reply advocates the style I'm questioning. I live and learn.

PS. I've read them all, they usually cover the lower limits, that's why I hang around here.

[andyfox]

Judge not by ego, or lack thereof, but by logic and strength of argument. My complaint is not that players are too aggressive or egotistical or passive or anything other than uninformative. Here's a thread up right now, an original post and three reponses:

Original post:
"30/60 party 10 handed. I'm in third position w/ 55, 2 limpers in front of me, I limp, folded around to the bb who raises, 3 calls....flop comes 278 rainbow, bb bets, 2 folds, I raise...turn 4, bb checks, I bet....river 9, no flush possibility.... bb checks, I??? is this too thin for a value bet?"

The three responses, in their entirety:

1) "Bet with impunity."

2) "Bet . . . not thin."

3) "I check behind here."

Why bother to respond if you're not going to explain why you would either bet or check behind? What value is there in just saying do this or do that if no reason for the action is given? What will the poster learn from these answers and how will this help any of us improve our poker?

[climber]

[ QUOTE ]
Judge not by ego, or lack thereof, but by logic and strength of argument. My complaint is not that players are too aggressive or egotistical or passive or anything other than uninformative. Here's a thread up right now, an original post and three reponses:

Original post:
"30/60 party 10 handed. I'm in third position w/ 55, 2 limpers in front of me, I limp, folded around to the bb who raises, 3 calls....flop comes 278 rainbow, bb bets, 2 folds, I raise...turn 4, bb checks, I bet....river 9, no flush possibility.... bb checks, I??? is this too thin for a value bet?"

The three responses, in their entirety:

1) "Bet with impunity."

2) "Bet . . . not thin."

3) "I check behind here."

Why bother to respond if you're not going to explain why you would either bet or check behind? What value is there in just saying do this or do that if no reason for the action is given? What will the poster learn from these answers and how will this help any of us improve our poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of this just comes from simple situations people post that have what are at least perceived to be easy answers.

You read it and think to yourself "wow what an easy question, this guys must not be very good, he really plays X/X limit!?! I'm a better player than that, blah, blah,blah..." then your filters that help you deal with the real world kick in and you go "oh well no need to be mean, easy answer, easy three word post, i feel smart and my post count goes up", you click reply and move on with your day.

So in the example you gave I understand the first two responses and can guess at their thought process. When guy #3 comes along though it really would be helpful if provided some logic or reasoning.

Aggressivity isn't a word, Barron.


Aggressiveness.



Tex

those were the only 3 replies to my post I might add, lol.... I did not get much help from that one

[Tommy Angelo]

[ QUOTE ]
Aggressivity isn't a word, Barron.


Aggressiveness.



Tex

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm a little more curious than most about such matters, so I took a look. I found many mentions. Here are three, one about cars, one from a dictionary, and a book title.

--------------

The research program examined U.S. crash statistics to determine the characteristics and extent of the vehicle compatibility problem. One obstacle to quantifying the compatibility of a vehicle is the lack of an accepted measure of compatibility. A primary objective of our research effort was to develop a clearly defined a metric for measurement of vehicle aggressivity. To date, the NHTSA aggressivity research program has developed two potential aggressivity metrics.

-----------------------

Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. 1995.

aggressivity

-----------
KERNBERG, Otto F.

Aggressivity, Narcissism, and Self-Destructiveness in the Psychotherapeutic Relationship: New Developments in the Psychopathology and Psychotherapy of Severe Personality Disorders. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004. 271pp. $60.00 (h).

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aggressivity isn't a word, Barron.


Aggressiveness.



Tex

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm a little more curious than most about such matters, so I took a look. I found many mentions. Here are three, one about cars, one from a dictionary, and a book title.

--------------

The research program examined U.S. crash statistics to determine the characteristics and extent of the vehicle compatibility problem. One obstacle to quantifying the compatibility of a vehicle is the lack of an accepted measure of compatibility. A primary objective of our research effort was to develop a clearly defined a metric for measurement of vehicle aggressivity. To date, the NHTSA aggressivity research program has developed two potential aggressivity metrics.

-----------------------

Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. 1995.

aggressivity

-----------
KERNBERG, Otto F.

Aggressivity, Narcissism, and Self-Destructiveness in the Psychotherapeutic Relationship: New Developments in the Psychopathology and Psychotherapy of Severe Personality Disorders. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004. 271pp. $60.00 (h).

[/ QUOTE ]

ty tommy.

i was going to use the 'ol webster to prove how easy it would have been to prove its a word rather than to blindly post that it's not, but that quotation you provided does just fine.

so are you a tautologist or something since you're "more than a little" interested in this stuff? or is it your personal interest in writing in general that fuels such concerns.

Barron

[Tommy Angelo]

"so are you a tautologist or something since you're "more than a little" interested in this stuff? or is it your personal interest in writing in general that fuels such concerns."

Neither. I just like words.

"i was going to use the 'ol webster to prove how easy it would have been to prove its a word ..."

Hundreds of words are made from scratch every day. And hundreds more are fashioned from existing words and phrases. Dictionaries, by definition, lag far behind in keeping track of production.

For example, everyone here knows what "donk" means, but we won't find our definition in Webster's.

Is the poker version of "donk" a word?


Tommy

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
-"super-aggressivity" is correct in some settings, sometimes overapplied or more readily applied than would be best

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
given certain restrictions. there are outliers from the restrictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
a predominant amount of aggressivity prevales

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
it appears that this board backs these hand posts' actions in all similar settings- as could be interpreted selectively

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
those resulting in possible correct aggression

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
sample selection bias and selective interpretation,

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
other probabalistic wording.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, yeah.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
other probabalistic wording.

[/ QUOTE ]

means my present tense should be takenas follows

[ QUOTE ]
-"super-aggressivity" is correct in some settings, sometimes overapplied or more readily applied than would be best

[/ QUOTE ]

is= is likely to be

[ QUOTE ]
given certain restrictions. there are outliers from the restrictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

restrictions= not crazy play i.e. playing every hand.

outliers=DERB

[ QUOTE ]
a predominant amount of aggressivity prevales

[/ QUOTE ]

in the limits we post about. if you play tight passive to counter against good hand readers on this board your strategy will not earn the most. you have to be able to mix it up in order to extract the long term maximum.

[ QUOTE ]
it appears that this board backs these hand posts' actions in all similar settings- as could be interpreted selectively

[/ QUOTE ]

i.e. its a misinterpretation to interpret that since A was applied in setting 1 A should also be applied in setting 2 where setting 1 is not the same as setting 2 but appears to be close to it. thus overabundant agrression would APPEAR to be "backed" by the boards.

[ QUOTE ]
those resulting in possible correct aggression

[/ QUOTE ]

snipet of a sentance to which i think refers to the actions where aggression is correct but i dont know from where you pulled it.

[ QUOTE ]
sample selection bias and selective interpretation,

[/ QUOTE ]

two things discussed above.

[ QUOTE ]

Uh, yeah.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah.

Barron