Trying to clear the air.

[Josh W]

Oh man. I get the award for "Most misunderstood". I'm not bragging. It's my own damn fault for not making myself clear.

See, I've received some flak (both from people via AIM and the personal messages here on 2+2) for my response to Clark(e). I've been asked why I'm pissed, why I flew off the handle, and, if poker means so little to me, why did I get so upset at his actions.

I'm not upset. Not even a tiny bit. I laughed at a couple of my friends who asked me why I was so pissed. See, the problem with text is that you cannot tell tone.

I wasn't even a little pissed off. I was surprised that Clark did that.

And then I see a lot of posts (including a private message from Clark, trying to clear the air, which I appreciate) saying that he meant well...saying that Clark didn't have any ill will or bad intentions.

Apparently all of you that said that missed my post last night at 11:14 where I said I'm sure he meant no ill will, and that he meant to help. Not a doubt in my mind.

But his methodology was wretched.

If anything, I'm most upset by Clark's continued refusal to respond to what people actually post. This has been going on for a while. Oh, he'll snip out a quote here or there, but miss specific information too frequently. This is obviously the case. I mean, how many times in my "To Clarkemeister and other psychoanalysts" post did I say "it's just poker", then the first thing he does is accuse me of flying off the handle.

But I have no problem with Clark. I have no problem with harsh responses to my posts. I do have a problem with people taking what I say out of context, putting words in my mouth, and twisting the meaning of what I say.

This is all me now. Two weeks ago, I played 4-8 and 80-160 in the same week. Why? Because I love to play poker. I mean, in any given night, I'll receive 6 to 10 phonecalls from friends who are playing or want to play. I often don't play, but if I'm going to play, I want to play with my buddies. And I'm not embarrassed to play low limits. See, I play to have fun. It's just poker. I don't care about the money.

And that's one of the reasons Clark digging up the old GummyWorm posts rubbed me the wrong way. See, a year ago, my head was all screwed up. Poker was a way of life for me. My results affected my esteem. My ego was what drove me to play.

And I'm embarrassed now by what I was then.

There is a reason why a criminal defendant's prior arrests aren't admissable in court.

But Clark thought that I was slipping into my old ways. Fair enough. I mean, I am the most misunderstood poster here. But that's not at all the case. I mean, I'm running a little bit towards the bad side right now, but not really bad. I'm probably, with the exception of one 1-hour period on Saturday, playing the best poker of my life.

I think that some of you recognized this. Astroglide surely did, saying that there was no reason for Clark to bring up what he did.

I realize, after all of this, a number of errors in my ways. I write too emotionally. At least, given the way I write my posts, people have said that they think I get too emotional over poker, which couldn't be further from the truth. I come across, because of my word choice, I guess, as being pissed off when that's completely not the case.

But I've done everything I can to make it abundantly clear to people that it's just poker to me. Its a hobby that I hold my own at. It's a form of entertainment. It's a social outlet, much like going to the bar for a couple of drinks after work. As Clark went to great lengths to point out, it didn't used to be that way for me. And, to an extent I thank him for the reminder of what I once was.

So, yeah. That's about it. I'm not pissed. I don't get pissed about poker. However, those who know me know that I don't get pissed at all. Life's too short to be upset. To think about what I once was is embarrassing to me. Having it all brought back to light is anything but a joy. But I fully understood (as many of you pointed out after I did) that it was done with no ill intent.

And I don't really care what happens from here out. I really don't. I mean, I'm sure one of you will respond with "if poker is just a game, why do you _____ (fill in the blank)". And I realize that some of you just refuse to read what the author is actually saying, and want to come up with your own line of thought. And that's the way the world is. So be it.

The first paragraph of my "to Clarkemeister and other psychoanalyists" said it best, so I copied and pasted it here:

See, I play poker a fair amoount. Sometimes once a month, sometimes 20 times a month. And, for the most part, I play pretty well. And, for the most part, I'm a good guy to have at the table, because I'm pleasant, friendly, never complain or throw cards, or chastise. I stand up for players and dealers who are being abused. And most importantly, when somebody apologizes to me, I tap the table and say "Hey, its no big deal. It's just poker. I've never gotten upset at a poker table before, and I'm not about to start now."

And, finally, there is a reason why I referred to all of you as psychoanalysts...you try to find out what's going on in people's heads. For me, you don't need to do that. I've got a long history of posting my questions from "why am I running bad" to "should I really read the books" (which, by the way, I still haven't finished [img]/forums/images/icons/frown.gif[/img] ) to "how should have I played my A3s". If I have a question, I ask it. You don't need to dig deep to find it. Just read what I write. And if you want to respond, great. I'll read, try to understand, and take into account what you say. If I ask how to play A3s, please don't take that to mean I need help on my lifestyle that can be found in a thread from a year ago titled "confessions of a losing poker player".

Really, guys. Just respond to what I say. Don't psychoanalize. Please. But if you don't, no hard feelings. It's just poker.

Josh

[Josh W]

err, um, I meant to put this one at the top. I suck.

[Tommy Angelo]

"Oh man. I get the award for "Most misunderstood". I'm not bragging. It's my own damn fault for not making myself clear. "

"... the problem with text is that you cannot tell tone."

"I do have a problem with people taking what I say out of context, putting words in my mouth, and twisting the meaning of what I say."

"I mean, I am the most misunderstood poster here."

"I come across, because of my word choice, I guess, as being pissed off when that's completely not the case."

"But I've done everything I can to make it abundantly clear ..."

"And I realize that some of you just refuse to read what the author is actually saying ..."

Josh,

I'm guessing that most people think of 2+2 as a poker forum. I don't. I think of 2+2 -- and all online forums -- as writer forums. That's because every act of participation comes from writers. And the first rule of writing is that if the intended meaning didn't get across, then the writer is always wrong. (I know that because I just took a writing class and the teacher said so.)

"Just read what I write."

"Really, guys. Just respond to what I say."

Okay. Go ahead and say something.

Tommy

[HDPM]

Some of your posts invite the psychoanalysis you are asking us to refrain from doing. I say this not as criticism, but from my reading of them. I understand why you want to avoid the psychological stuff. In fact, back in the Gummyworm day I had a long, careful response to one of your posts, reviewed it, though about it, and didn't send it. I guess I thought it might be too personal or something. Maybe I thought it wouldn't be well-received. Maybe I thought it wouldn't accomplish what I intended. I don't remember exactly. (I am not saying that Clark should have refrained from posting how he did at all. In fact, I basically think what he did was fair game and not intended maliciously but don't want to go into a full discussion of that etc...) What I am saying is that your posts invite a look at what is going on in your head because of the way they are written. I have thought about what was going on in your head more than once after reading them. You have some very good posts and I don't think it would be good to lose them, but if you continue to write about things the way you do, expect people to psychoanalyze. Change what you write and the thrust of people's responses will change.

Also re-read Mr. Angelo's post above.

[Kevin J]

No offense Josh, but what has this got to do with mid-limit poker strategy?

Maybe you should privately e-mail Clarky.

Or if he'll agree to it, maybe enter into joint counseling to see where these deep seated issues you seem to have with him came from.

At the very least, you should consider putting these posts on the "other topics" forum.

[Zeno]

Josh,

Tommy makes a very important point in his post - that forums are about writing. Writing about poker sure, but the writing comes first. And writing well is more difficult than playing poker well. I have copied below seven rules on writing (out of eighteen) that Mark Twain listed in a remarkable essay called, Fenimore Cooper's Literay Offences:

"In addition to these large rules there are some little ones. These require that the author shall -

1) Say what he is proposing to say, not merely come near it.

2) Use the right word, not its second cousin.

3) Eschew Surplusage.

4) Not omit necessary details.

5) Avoid slovenliness of form.

6) Use good grammar.

7) Employ a simple and straightforward style.

Even these seven are coldly and persistently violated in the Deerslayer tale. ........ "

Twain continues on and slays Cooper in the grand manner.


I hope this post; Clears The Air.

-Zeno

[Jimbo]

Josh W wrote "There is a reason why a criminal defendant's prior arrests aren't admissable in court. I believe that only applies when they are keeping their mouth shut, not testifying in their own behalf. Anyway Josh I do not read your posts seeking useful poker content rather for the same reason that I search out Beetle Baily in the funnies. You are quite entertaining, in your own California sort of way. [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[Josh W]

I greatly regret my "to clark and others..." post. That should have been a private message, no question about it. However, because of the overwhelming (and unwanted...I didn't know so many of you considered yourselves psychoanalysts) response, I decided to post this followup post here. We did talk privately somewhat. But it's all done now. At least I am done with it, and it looks like he is.

Josh

[bernie]

i think any good or aspiring player will be part psycho-analyst. it's to a poker players advantage to know why a player thinks the way he does about a given situation...and many times similar situations off the table play out the same way...

many good poker players dont psycho-analyze to show off, or to show malice or anything...

they do it out of habit.

it comes with the part about not just knowing the plays, but why one plays a certain way...and since usually the good players are using this info to bludgeon opponents, on here it can be used to help fellow players...

and since this is a poker forum, there's nothing wrong with a poster maybe digging to find out why one plays a hand a certain way. his thought process....or why they may be in a rut. sometimes the rut could be an end result of factors
outside the game...

just answering posts as if they were just totally generic doesnt help the poster as much as if he looks a little deeper into his own game. and learns why he may be playing a certain way...

anyone can look into a book and give a generic answer to a typical question on a hand we've all seen/been in 1000s of times...but if it's a tailored answer, it should help even more...

once in a while ill guess about a players style or what he may do on certain streets, based on how he comments on plays. not to insult him/her, but to maybe have them stop and look a little more into the innerworkings of their games...

however, it can be a delicate situations depending on the poster. i answered a post awhile back, and took a shot at how the poster may see certain hands based on his comments he wrote. on the surface it didnt have much to do with his hand in question. i thought i may have dug too deep with my response after i sent it...BUT, i figured, screw it....it's on there...ill explain and rectify should a situation occur...

luckily, he took it the right way, and he saw something to look into as far as a different aspect of his game that he initially didnt think about at the time...

he couldve took it the wrong way....

i have no comment on the situation that this thread is built on...

have a good one...

b

[brad]

'
say "it's just poker", then the first thing he does is accuse me of flying off the handle.
'

heh. like if you play at a chess club and devote hours and hours and hard work and then have a practice match or something and analyze with your buddy and then go, ' ah, its just a dumb game'. many things might happen but i guarantee your chess buddy wouldnt agree with you. heh