Must read posters

[Kwaz]

Posters will always tailor their logic to fit their style of play.

Working out what one poster does better than the next poster is the hard part.

[CrayZee]

Apparently, most of the discussion here is shallow and confusing. So I guess that means there's few posters worth reading..makes sense given how popular pokering is these days.

Quick, someone agree w/ me for the mob effect.

[danzasmack]

that's cuz ed doesn't 5P33k int3rn3t

[milesdyson]

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently, most of the discussion here is shallow and confusing. So I guess that means there's few posters worth reading..makes sense given how popular pokering is these days.

Quick, someone agree w/ me for the mob effect.

[/ QUOTE ]
he really comes off as a tool

[Heisenb3rg]

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently, most of the discussion here is shallow and confusing. So I guess that means there's few posters worth reading..makes sense given how popular pokering is these days.

Quick, someone agree w/ me for the mob effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to have to agree with ed.

Ive learned a lot from this forum on 6 max, but it came from my rigorous analysis of posters logic, less from their conclusions. Disagreeing with people I can often learn as much from agreeing with them.

To learn what I have , I’ve had to sort through a lot of garbage.

Because of the large quantities of hands posted here, too many people merely offer a very quick opinion on the best action. In my opinion that offers little instructional value. I really wish more posters explained WHY x action is better than y action.

Even if a poster explains why he does x, it’s often a very high level analysis which can still confuse many players. They use theorems which they have seen proved before, but don’t bother to explain the theorem to justify their answer. This would offer great instructional value.

To further explain what I mean, I’ll go in to a little more depth.

In order to speed up our poker thinking we try to identify high level heuristics to analyze a situation. These heuristics, can be decomposed into lower level heuristics which in turn can ideally be decomposed into an +EV equation, or well known, established poker theory.

Here’s a very simplified example question to illustrate the advice I often see here:

Someone open limps QJs in MP, and asks “Should I raise this?”

An example of a very simple explanation, the type that offers no value: “Yes.”

This can be broken down to very high level justifications such as
“Yes, you should never open limp QJ”
“Yes, it’s never correct to open limp in 6-max”

This can be broken down into a slightly lower level explanation
“Yes, it’s rarely correct to open limp in 6-max. This is because in 6 max, it is very unlikely you’ll get a multi way pot, PF initiative is very important, Most hands it’s correct to raise, so if you limp the borderline hands you give too much information from them… etc.”


This can be broken down further to a lower level etc.

Obviously we have to assume a certain level of competence of the poster and it would take too much time to go into absolute detail. However, slightly more depth would have a much greater educational value to the poster.

To the post:
ILP and Myles Dyson are my favorite posters here,

ILP is a person who often gives detailed analysis and offers unique insight into a situation.

Myles I like because of his writing style, he can get deep in a situation and offers very sound advice.

[Hobbs.]

that being said, if you know certain posters almost always will give you the right answer (of course there isn't always a clear cut one) then there is still value in taking the starting point and end point and filling in the logic yourself. This is actually a fairly valuable. Specifically when I was posting a lot in SS a year ago ClarkMeister's one liners were always valuable because I knew he knew his [censored] and thus given the answer I could deduce his thought process. This exercise then helped me while playing hands as I sharpened and expedited my in hand analysis.

[CrayZee]

Despite my sarcastic comment at the end, I tend to agree as well.

There are some good posters on here, but many aren't great (including myself mostly because I'm a lazy bastard). The one thing I can understand about some bad posters is that many players aren't great because they're learning. However, I suppose there's a diff. between one bad poster and another: a true motivation to learn.

I wonder how many people are afraid to pull the trigger on their opinions simply because of the fact they're afraid to look dumb. It's okay as long as you're learning and being constructive about things. Hell, maybe a "dumb opinion" sparks interest in a thread.

Recently, I was thinking how useful a private discussion network would be.

Also, for those that missed the drama, I bumped into Miller's blog post because of this image I say today. Good times.

[ILOVEPOKER929]

There's a lot of posters I like, but my favorite people are the ones who create threads about marginal/debatable situations who are also not afraid to show the world when they make mistakes. Posters like Kwaz, Miles, sharpie, guruman, pokerbob and Surf and Mike1 lately. Im sure there are others that create threads that im missing. IMO, These people are the lifeblood of 2+2. I dont create enough threads(only 2 so far) probably due to laziness and other psychological reasons.