SSNL Session + review posts?

[ludo72]

From GrunchCan:

[ QUOTE ]
Another thing I might recommend with reservation is the idea of a weekly session post & review. This is another new thing happening in micros, and it has a lot of potential. Once a week, someone is selected to post a session of about 100 hands, including all the PF folds. That person can be anonymous or known, and the session can be from any level or structure. The rest of the forum then reviews the session, and posts hands that they find interesting in some way. The resulting discussion has been really good. Many topics are covered that otherwise would not be covered, because everyone sees an entire session. Everybody benefits, including obviously the session poster, and the people who review the session but don’t post reviews, and those that do post reviews or replies to reviews.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a post from the "A few procedural things for SSNL" thread. After checking out the micro-thread about this thing I felt like it was a pretty neat idea, and without thinking the whole thing really through I already started converting one of my sessions at the 50NL. I've now done over 60 hands and I just realized it might be good thing to first ask what the forum users think about this idea before I possibly waste anymore of my efforts.

1. How do people in general feel about this idea? Good/bad?

2. Would it be rude if a newbie like me who has contributed very little for this forum this far would do the first session post?

3. I'm probably not as experienced as most of the posters here. Is this a problem? I have recently moved up to 50NL and I'm quite sure I'm beating the game.

4. I play 6-max. Is this a problem?

5. This far I have converted every hand I played in the session so naturally there's lots of folding included. Should I remove the boring hands or do people want a raw session?

6. How many hands should be included? My session has 120 hands total.

7. Is this kind of thing worth getting stickied like in the micro forum?

Discuss :-)

[xorbie]

Assuming we decided to do this (and I see no compelling reason not to), I'm fine having you post a session. Whether or not that goes for the rest of SSNL I don't know.

120 hands sounds good, but leave them all in there. Folds can be interesting too.

[stu-unger]

im interested to hear what others say, but this sounds like an interesting idea to me. 100 hands is a lot of hands to read through but i think if they were compiled into an easy to read form it could really be helpful and bring up some interesting discussions. i think it would be good to see sessions from LAGs and TAGs and to see where people do different things. i vote yes if anyone cares.

[whittiphil]

I vote yes... I'll give you any tips I can think of for a few of the hands - not promising I'll read them all [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[jacknine]

Great idea.

[raisins]

Even though I'm not a regular here, I say go ahead and do it.

I like the way the Micro and Small Limit forums are handling it and I think they have set a good precedent. If the forum moderator is willing to lock the thread and sticky it for three or four days while people respond that would be the way to go. Also, copying the notes, regarding format of replies etc., that the session posters have ahead of the history is a good idea as well.

Definitely include your folds, no one will go through that many hands with action in them for free. Those are also important hands for new players to see what the default play is, as they may be considering some of them worth getting involved with.

I wouldn't go much over 100 hands, the sessions I've seen on the Micro and Small Limit forums stop at 90.

I don't know which converter you're using, on the Small Stakes forum they used Dave G's. You may want to check it out and see if it does a batch faster.

regards,

raisins

[GrunchCan]

The only reason they stop at ~90 on the micros forum is becasue there is a limit to max post size. There have been multiple-post sessions where there were 150 hands or more.

There's no doubt about it: the MicroPoster sessions (that's what they're called in micros) are a lot of work. Both for the person posting hands and for the forum as a whole. But the resulting discussion has been beyond compare. Try one out (I'd recommend ~100 hands, but ~50 might be ok). If SSNL takes to it the way micros has, it will live on. If not, live & learn.

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
5. This far I have converted every hand I played in the session so naturally there's lots of folding included. Should I remove the boring hands or do people want a raw session?

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion, definitly not. The boring hands should be included in the post. You'd be surprised how many hands are an automatic PF muck for one person, and an automatic raise for another.

[GrunchCan]

2 miscelaneous things:

First, I'd suggest putting this to a vote to see how much interest there is in a weekly session post here. I'll post the thread, if nobody objects.

Next, regarding the way in which the session contributor is selected. Once this gets started, everybody will want to get a chance at posting thier session. Obviously, it's like a free coaching session. Who wouldn't want that? In micros we decided very early on that this great benefit should go to someone who has given something to the forum. They don't have to be a carpal/tunnel, but strangers and newbies were excluded. Its nothing personal against the lurkers and new posters, but it just doesn't seem fair to the people who contribute a lot of personal time and effort to not get a chance at the session post. Besides, all a newbie has to do to become eligible to post a future session is contribute to the forum. We came up with a soft & arbitrary rule that only those posters with > 200 posts were eligible to be the session contributor.

[imported_anacardo]

I'm totally down. I don't want to live in a world where limit players are out-analyzing us. There are several guys here whose histories could make for some really educational reading, and of course I could always do one, if you dig carnivals of folly.