[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
However, this is quite different in my opinion. Here, the player asked for your help. That get's rid of his ignorance right? O.k. so tomek322 gave a rather ambiguous answer, but it still hid the truth. It implied that he was winning through his skill. This, after him asking directly for tomek322's help. Recognising that he was a decent player. Is this wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you might be giving him too much credit for asking for 'actual' help on top of his ability of assessing players.

I'm sure the guy wasn't asking so he could change his ways right then and there depending on how it was answered. Some might, but it's rare. And most that might do that would give up, or forget, and revert back to their donating ways since playing 'right' can be too boring or whatever.

He also isn't likely to really recognize a 'decent' player from any other player. Think about what he'd be basing that on? Especially if this was his first time playing with tomek, not to mention him being a newbie. Most think that the guys with the most chips in front of them are the better players. Not how they got those chips. Or a guy who doesn't play many hands. Which is usually a sign, but even some donators get bad runs of cards or some tight guys don't play that well postflop. This isn't to say anything about tomek, just in general terms.

Most of the time, this is more casual of a question than it seems. I'd give them some vague answer to placate them and encourage them to stay or whatever. I don't like to teach at a table. After all, if you answer that question, others might be listening in at that point.

It is amusing, though, listening to a guy who isn't that good give an assessment of a player like this as if he really does know what he's talking about when most of what he's saying is wrong. Usually it involves the guy answering bragging about himself to some degree and stating wrong strategy. Question: In that case, would you jump in and correct the guy giving a wrong assessment/strategy of a newbie player?

If a guy came up to me away from the table, I'd have no problem giving him an assessment. Though in doing so, you have to watch as you answer to see how he's reacting. Ego can still rear it's head in that situation. Sometimes they just want a pat on the back and don't like criticism. In that case, you just cut it short, change the subject and save any other analysis. They're not ready to learn at that moment.

For instance, a bud of mine is tough to really talk to when we get into some poker discussions as he really doesn't do much to improve his game. Even after I've pointed him in the right direction from different angles on different topics. For some reason he'd just rather be superstitious about seats and play on a short BR.

b