Stop the weak-tight madness.

[Preytar]

I think I advocated comparing one's advice in a post to that of the aforementioned individuals.

I am not a poker snob. There are tons of great posts by relatively unknown people every day. I think every post has merit. Some are just inherently better. And before someone takes that last point the wrong way...I am not saying that mine are the best.

[Buckmulligan]

I just don't know the point in the thread.

Obviously, no one is going to read and see a light bulb in their head. The advise is vague as hell and there isn't the slightest bit of authority behind it, so I really don't understand why you wasted your time.

[milesdyson]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to get better at this game, read posts from players like milesdyson. Compare his advice to yours, and improve.

[/ QUOTE ]
thanks but you shouldn't have

[Shalara]

Heh, gotta say this: good points for the most part. However: responsibility to the responsible!

I don't understand the need to put the phrase "grunch" in any post--I assume that any response is sincere, subject to scrutiny, and possibly not perfect. Even posters like Sfer and Shillx, even Ed Miller himself--I examine their replies carefully and think about what they say. It's up to me as a player to determine if and why they're right. It's my responsibility, and being a strong player involves taking responsibility for my choices, not blaming someone else's advice. All replies are um, grunches (*shudders*, what a god-awful word!) as far as I'm concerned, no matter the post or post count. And all can be learned from.

We post. Sometimes we are glaringly wrong. Sometimes we are shiny and right. None of us are perfect though, and a bad response is just as valuable as a good one in that people can point out why a mistake was made.

Though I agree with a majority of your post, were it me, I would put it under individual hands ie "Fold a suited Ace in the CO with 3 limpers because we might be dominated" sounds bad to me because XYZ. Might open some debate, and those willing and able to learn will learn a lot more this way. In my non-professional opinion, that is [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

/grunch

[DeuceHigh80]

[ QUOTE ]
All replies are um, grunches (*shudders*, what a god-awful word!) as far as I'm concerned

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be misunderstanding the concept of "Grunch"... it simply means you are posting your advice without reading any of the previous replies. It's not meant as an alert to readers that "I'm new so I don't know what I'm talking about...".

This comes from a classic post by "The Grunch" a year or so ago where he suggested this as a posting technique -- too frequently people will read previous responses to a strategy question and just rephrase them (maybe not even intentionally) when writing their own response.

So when you tag a response with "Grunching" you're indicating you have only read the original post and your response is fresh.

[Preytar]

[ QUOTE ]
/grunch

[/ QUOTE ]

NH. I deserved that. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Absolution]

I really don't feel that this is necessary. Granted, I haven't read any hands today because I've been busy so maybe there has been a slew of these today, but the last few weeks have been pretty good I think. When people make the errors you're talking about they generally get corrected (or sarcastically aggreed with by miles).

Edit: Almost every post I make is a 'Grunch' since I like to think about a problem unbiased and I would hope that I would get corrected if I give bad advice. That's kind of the point of this board.

[Darth_Holdem]

I like your ideas.
One potential problem for newbies trying to put SSHE to work is the 'transfer' from tight play to the more aggressive style you mention.
When I try to get more aggressive I find I'm losing fast.
This can easily be a lack of experience, but I guess one issue for new players is that it can be hard to find that 'balance' or the 'proper' aggressive tactics.
I guess this is a learning curve that has to happen.

[swong4444]

I'd fold here. Villain clearly has the case T and our tens over aces boat is no good.
</weak-tight> [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I've only played months of poker, and my first weeks of lurking around here quickly turned me into a postflop LAG to the point where I almost never called (fit or fold, baby!). In general, it's always easier to defend aggressive play because of 1) giving opps worse odds, 2) protecting your hand, 3) taking the lead, 4) allowing opps to fold, 5) save pots, not bets, etc... all good things in a vacuum and great things if applied correctly.

However, some of the best postflop advice I've learned from this forum appeared weak-tight on the surface at first (at least to a relative newbie). But, after thinking about it and working through the hand, it's actually very good poker. I can't dig up any specific examples right now (at work), but a lot of Boz's posts come to mind where he challenges an "obvious raise" poster with "how is raising the flop protecting your hand?" "what hands are you protecting against?" "what hands are you trying to fold?" "why do you want a hand you are crushing to fold?" "why are you raising?" etc., etc.

I guess my point is that giving blanket weak-tight advice is obviously bad (as OP seems to agree), but sometimes the apparently "weaker" play on one street is the stronger overall poker play. I know it's helped my game to have this side of the discussion around.

Edit: Boz, I am in no means labelling/implying/calling you weak-tight. Just citing some occassions where I/others thought pushing the pedal was right, and you gave me/others the bozness.

[bozlax]

Why, I oughta...

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: Boz, I am in no means labelling/implying/calling you weak-tight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, all right then...see to it that you DON'T. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]