[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
They tend to vent this frustration by teasing the posters.

[/ QUOTE ]Hi Chucky – That’s what I thought too. A problem is teasing someone who is not a good friend can quickly get out of hand and is inappropriate behavior on this strategy and tactics forum.

[ QUOTE ]
One solution is that they could avoid posting on threads that they believe involve shortstack play or tactic questions.

[/ QUOTE ]Sorry, but I don’t like that suggestion. I like counter strategy proposals better than avoiding the issue.

Gordo suggested playing tight and 3-betting with “hands in the range of AA-QQxx and any run-down 4567.” That seems good, solid advice. I appreciate it.

I also greatly appreciate Elrazor’s excellent suggestion “buy in full and sit to his left, then 3 bet any hand you feel is ahead of his range” and “this way you can work on getting his entire stack rather than just 10-20% of it.”

I’d rather have those posters offering their advice than sitting out the discussion once it involves short stack strategy.

<font color="green">Anyone member is entitled to ask or give advice about short stacking or any other strategy or tactic.

And any member is entitled (actually encouraged) to offer a constructive opposing or alternate point of view.</font>

In this particular thread, Waffleticket asked for advice on how to cope with maniacs. There's nothing wrong with that.

ChuckyB responded with excellent advice in a well worded, very intelligent post. Indeed, ChuckyB's post was an outstanding response to Waffleticket.

Read it again if you don't believe me. It's right on the money. ChuckyB's post suggested a way to cope with the maniac strategy. In it he suggested Slotboom's short stack strategy and also Greenspan's loosen up and raise strategy.

<font color="green">Agree with it or not, nobody gets to ridicule ChuckyB's point of view.

And nobody gets to ridicule it and say they are or were only joking. Joking and making fun of somebody's point of view is exactly how to go about ridiculing it.</font>

[ QUOTE ]
I would point out that when one asks advice of others it is important to recognize when the question will offend those that are being asked.

[/ QUOTE ] Certainly someone could ask a question that would be offensive, but Waffleticket merely asked for advice on coping with maniacs. That seems entirely reasonable and innocuous to me. It’s something we all confront at one time or another.

[ QUOTE ]
Likewise, those posting in this forum about short-stacking should not be surprised to receive critical and sometimes unfortunately ill-worded responses.

[/ QUOTE ]<font color="green">Constructively critical responses are fine. Responses that insult or ridicule the poster at whom they are aimed are not fine.

Posting about short stack strategy has to be fine. Asking for advice about short stack strategy has to be fine.

Please, anyone, if you disagree with a point of view, simply offer an opposing or alternate point of view if you can come up with one. Please, anyone, do not ridicule or insult any poster or suggest banishment.</font>

[ QUOTE ]
Short-stacking to play a level than one is not rolled makes it harder not easier to learn how to play at the higher level because short stack hand selection and strategy is different that if one expects to play preflop, flop, and turn at least with hands.

[/ QUOTE ]Fine. That’s a constructively critical rebuttal. I like the part about learning to play the flop and turn – and I’d add river.

Buzz
<font color="green">stuff in green color is speaking as forum moderator

[/ QUOTE ]