NO MORE STATS POSTS

[___]

[hemstock]

you suck

[___]

[ QUOTE ]
*** You are ignoring this user ***

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks.

[Peter Harris]

I agree, to an extent, with ___.

from the posting Guidelines:

[ QUOTE ]
Pokertracker Stat Posts

-Identify your post with Stats in the subject line.

-Posts without a significant number of hands will lead to few replies and unhelpful and possibly misleading advice. Consider waiting until you have 30k or more hands in your database.

-Some good information can be found in this thread (be sure to check out all the posts for some additional links.)

stats info

[/ QUOTE ]

We are seeing too many 10, 15, 20k posts, too often. If it says consider sticking to 30k, maybe this should be enforced.

Most experienced posters will know that in 20k hands a lot can change. If these people had read the "stats post" link they will know if they are stealing too little, going to SD too much, etc. etc. and we wouldn't need to waste space and time dealing with it.

So yeah, not "no more" stats posts, but please, fewer and a larger sample.

[numeri]

I don't have a problem with posters asking about stats, but they clutter up the forum a bit. I think Wookie's thread that we used to have in Micros was nice to keep them all in the same thread.

[Buzz-cp]

stat thread +30K strong recommendation sounds goot.

[Benman]

My game has improved more by identifying particular stats that were way off from the 2+2 norm than reading all the hand analysis posts combined.

As to people who say no stat posts unless x+ number of hands, that's really silly in a lot of situations.

It takes many hands to identify certain things, true, such as whether you are winning or losing.

It doesn't take many hands at all to identify other things, such as whether a VPIP is appropriate for a paricular level. I recently moved up to 3/6 from 2/4 and am confused about how much the different blind structure should affect my limping in the small blind. I don't need any certain number of hands before I can ask about this, thank you very much.

Bottom line, the microsecond of inconvenience it takes you to skip stat threads that I find useful is outweighed by what I gain from them. Please realize that your views about what is useful information aren't universally shared by everybody.

[Dazarath]

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line, the microsecond of inconvenience it takes you to skip stat threads that I find useful is outweighed by what I gain from them. Please realize that your views about what is useful information aren't universally shared by everybody.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't take many hands at all to identify other things, such as whether a VPIP is appropriate for a paricular level. I recently moved up to 3/6 from 2/4 and am confused about how much the different blind structure should affect my limping in the small blind. I don't need any certain number of hands before I can ask about this, thank you very much.

[/ QUOTE ]

in this situation it would serve you and the forum much better if you searched past posts and wrote a post gathering what you found, and asking pointed and specific questions about differences between the blind structures.

so much better than taking screenshots and asking to be spoonfed information

[Benman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line, the microsecond of inconvenience it takes you to skip stat threads that I find useful is outweighed by what I gain from them. Please realize that your views about what is useful information aren't universally shared by everybody.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol

[/ QUOTE ]


I assume you're trying to point out some irony in my statement--ie I'm criticizing others for their selfish dogmatism but ignoring it when it comes out of my own mouth.

But there's a key diffence here. Any type of post that someone finds useful has its place. I LOVE stats posts. If you don't like them, just don't read them. I objected to the OP's original comment that I interpreted as discouraging stats posts because he doesn't find them useful. Why do that? If all stats posts ended, a few people would save a few microseconds by not having to scroll past them unread. I would lose a lot, since I find them important.

I wasn't saying that a disdain for stats post isn't a legitimate view, and I wouldn't discourage posts whose sole purpose what to express that disdain. Cause I'd just skip those, no harm done. If that was all the OP was saying (and not trying to ban or otherwise dicourage them, then I your point is well taken and I apologize.