Why im not posting as much as usual.

[F Paulsson]

Recently I've added a whole bunch of things to my game that a year ago I would have considered bad play, and they would have been bad play because I wouldn't have understood what I was doing.

I'm a bit of a late arrival in this thread because... Well, I've been drunk. Anyway.

What Irexes says is true. Some plays that are absolutely awful when done by players who don't know what they're doing can be considered complete genius when done by someone who knows what they're doing. For several reasons.

One of them being that seemingly "bad" plays can still be profitable for meta-game reasons. But it takes a strong player to correctly exploit that edge.

Another is that a move that is probably -EV against typical players may be very +EV against the right opposition. Strong players can differentiate between the two, whereas weaker players may fail to see the distinction.

When we answer questions on a message board, especially when we're not given reads (which people fail to include more often than not) we're stating default plays against default players.

Furthermore, there's usually a tendency to recommend "safe" plays. Whereas I might 3-bet QJs from the big blind, I'd probably not recommend others to do the same. Often, balance is the name of the game and sometimes mixing it up is not the same as always doing something. See above regarding default plays; the stuff we post in HA is usually the "mostly" plays.

Also, risky plays that are profitable may only be profitable if they're done by someone who knows how to continue in the hand. Take again the example of 3-betting QJs in the big blind. Clearly not a winning play if I'm after that hell-bent on going to showdown with just top pair against what is clearly a monster. Or if I'm re-raised and then lay down much too easily against a maniac.

Anyway.

Finally,

 

[joeeagles]

What Irexes says is true. Some plays that are absolutely awful when done by players who don't know what they're doing can be considered complete genius when done by someone who knows what they're doing. For several reasons.

One of them being that seemingly "bad" plays can still be profitable for meta-game reasons. But it takes a strong player to correctly exploit that edge.

Another is that a move that is probably -EV against typical players may be very +EV against the right opposition. Strong players can differentiate between the two, whereas weaker players may fail to see the distinction.

When we answer questions on a message board, especially when we're not given reads (which people fail to include more often than not) we're stating default plays against default players.

Furthermore, there's usually a tendency to recommend "safe" plays. Whereas I might 3-bet QJs from the big blind, I'd probably not recommend others to do the same.

Also, risky plays that are profitable may only be profitable if they're done by someone who knows how to continue in the hand. Take again the example of 3-betting QJs in the big blind. Clearly not a winning play if I'm after that hell-bent on going to showdown with just top pair against what is clearly a monster. Or if I'm re-raised and then lay down much too easily against a maniac.

Anyway.

Finally,

I can agree with all this, it makes sense. But there is something about this whole thread that puzzles me, and I don't mean that in a bad way. Its understandable that, at times, one can get frustrated by certain responses on HA threads, mostly because certain plays have profitability or don't based on who and how they are played, as you point out. Also, the "mixing it up" , as you call it, is frequently overlooked. Still, I don't see any harm in it.

Suggesting to PM hands to the desired parties from which you would like a response, therefore putting in higher consideration opinions expressed by "old school" CCers, are both certainly within anyone's rights, they don't particularly bother me and are none of my business. They do, however, kill the spirit for which a poker forum is intended. Furthermore, opinions expressed by new and old members will always serve the purpose of giving an idea of what others think of the game, which, in turn, can be valuable information, regardless if its coming from a donk, a beginner or an expert. It still has, more or less, some sort of value.

Again, this is not an attempt to create controversy, I'm just a little puzzled and perhaps I'm just misunderstanding, but it seems to me that the line of thinking that I sense throughout this whole thread is not constructive and will limit the "good" that can come out of debating hands. Often it can happen that you express an opinion on a certain hand and the way it was played, and you post your opinion based on that. All this doesn't imply in any way, shape or form, that by reading another opinion you can't have a change of heart on the subject, assuming you keep an open mind and the will to reconsider your initial thoughts. Within that lies the greatness of poker forums.

That's just my 2 cents and I repeat, for the 3rd time, that I don't intend any harm.

 

[NineLions]

Geez joe, you're so polite.


But I can fully appreciate where you're coming from as the HH and strategy sections are the reason that I come here. The fact that most people are friendly and supportive of each other's situations is a plus and is part of the reason I chose CC instead of some others that I looked at, but on the other hand I don't post a lot in the social sections.

But I post with trepidation sometimes in some threads because I consider myself an advanced beginner. I don't mind making stupid comments so much but I don't want to annoy others with my ignorance. Rex and FP in particular have a lot of patience that way.


You know, in martial arts there are belt levels. Intermediate belts help train beginners, senior belts help train intermediates, and the sensei focuses on working with the senior belts. It might be difficult to structure, but something like that might be something to consider too.

 

[Effexor]

I think that there's a huge difference between playing the cards you are dealt and playing poker. The hand histories typically lend themselves well to how to play the cards, but there are so many other factors involved that it's sometimes very hard to come up with a good analysis. Is the table playing tight or loose? Is the initial raiser a maniac or a rock? Is the big blind in the position where they are fairly short stacked and probably will go all in with ATC? Do you have so many chips that you want to limp into 40% of the hands with junk and then make plays after the flop? A lot of these things get overlooked when looking at hand histories, and that leads to responses like "Easy fold PF" "Shouldn't be in the hand to begin with" etc etc.

I myself took a VERY long break from poker, and since I started up again I've found myself playing far better than a year ago, yet I'm hesitant to post any hand histories. "ZOMFG you raised UTG with QT soooted???"

Every situation is so different it's very hard to not respond with 'it depends'.