Sweat Session Formats

[martybonus]

Thanks to all who helped iron out the sign-up procedure for the sweat sessions. I'm sure there will be variations and changes made as it goes along, but it sounds like we've got a decent rough idea of what to do.

I promised I'd post about format, so here we go.

-roles-

'Sweater' - the person who comments
'Sweatee' - the person who gets commented. yes. commented. that's a verb now.

this should not be confused with 'sweetie', which is probably not how you should refer to your sweatee, unless you feel a very special way about him.

I'm leaving it up to each pair to decide if they want to a) try each role, or b) have both partners stay in the same role both times. Whatever goes on behind closed doors is none of my business, sweetie.

- realtime/post hoc -

This is also up to the partners. If both feel comfortable with it, the sweater can provide realtime comments to the sweatee DURING the hand. This may be considered by some to be a bit ethically dodgy, but I'm not going to make any pronouncements on the matter. It's not really my place, and those pictures of me and the donkey are still out there somewhere and I'd hate to have *another* scandal to deal with.

In the realtime variant, the sweater and sweatee can decide on what amount of control the sweater has. In some instances, the sweater basically plays the hand for the sweatee. Again, this is up to the partners. note that time usually prohibits long discussion. Keep your love poems to roughly haiku length.

The alternate form is to discuss hands AFTER they end. In this situation the sweater can provide comments to the sweatee after the hand ends. This may appeal more to those who feel the realtime discussion is a bit off.

I'm sure you guys can come up with other ideas. I'm not here to tell you HOW to do a sweat session, just to facilitate them. So go nuts. If you have a way that works for you, maybe share it with the group.

I think i'll post the first signup thread this weekend for all interested.

[nichtsnutz]

If you discuss after the hand has happend it's basically no different to a session review. Amiright?

[Ampelmann]

[ QUOTE ]
If both feel comfortable with it, the sweater can provide realtime comments to the sweatee DURING the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
This would mean that the sweatee would have to share his hole cards with the sweater during a hand. Isn't this frowned upon by the poker sites?

[fretelöo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If both feel comfortable with it, the sweater can provide realtime comments to the sweatee DURING the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
This would mean that the sweatee would have to share his hole cards with the sweater during a hand. Isn't this frowned upon by the poker sites?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about this but sharing the hole cards is basically the whole idea. What benefit could there otherwise be in it?

[martybonus]

@nichtz,

yes and no. Yes, it's the same idea, but a sweat session allows considerably more discussion, etc at the time of the hand. A sweat session is a dialogue, a session review is more of a lecture. I found the increased flexibility of a sweat session very helpful in getting real understanding of quite a few poker concepts.

also, with a sweat session, the hand is just over so it's fresh in your memory and you have a good idea (presumably!) of why you did what you did. it's easy to forget why you made play X against player Y when your session was several days ago.

also, in a sweat session, your commentor is observing the table so he can get a slightly better idea of reads, etc, than would be possible in a session review.

so, yes, you're right in a manner of speaking, but there are some things that sweats offer that session reviews don't, and vice versa.

I wouldn't want to suggest we just reinvent the wheel ! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

@amplelmann,

there's been some discussion on this in a previous thread.

I'm leaving this decision up to the individual partners. I'm not sure what the various sites say on the matter and I'm not going to weigh in personally. I'm also not advocating either alternative, so nobody gets to say that I'm encouraging bad behaviour.

Let me say that again: i'm not encouraging players to break gaming website rules.

If the 'after the fact' method sounds better to you, go with that. It's each pairs' choice and responsibility, not mine [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Zeldark]

I had a more elaborate response in the other thread intended to be a little more thought provoking. But here I'll just give a shorter (thought slightly different) version.

There's a lot of rules in poker that are expected to be kept. Some are easy to spot/enforce. Like talking in english*, don't talk about other peoples cards during the hand, don't say what you have after you folded. Other things are harder to spot/enforce, like collusion.

I think if you have a sweater who doesn't give advice until the hand is over, you are still satisfying the "one player per hand" rule while helping the sweater and not giving an unfair advantage to the sweated.

Edit: I think there are some things that are obvious that can be said. Like if some one is sweating me in a NL tournament, I have AA and some one raises half my stack. Now is the sweater really giving me an unfair advantage by yelling "ARRRR INNN!!!" But if the sweated is in fact confused, then I could see problems with this statement:

[ QUOTE ]
If both feel comfortable with it, the sweater can provide realtime comments to the sweatee DURING the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

*There are exceptions.

[KingOtter]

I responded to the 'poll' post before I saw this post.

If there is any discussion of the hand in progress other than sharing of the hole cards, I think it violates all kinds of poker etiquette, etc and shouldn't be done.

The person playing should share hole cards so the sweat-er can understand what is going on during the course of the hand, but any discussion should wait until after.

Yes, it's like a real-time session review, where you can use what you learned in the beginning of it before you finish the session. Plus the reviewer is watching the opponents and has real-time reads that might be lost in a hand-history review.

Any method of sweat-er controlling the sweat-ee's chips/bets would be bad, IMO.

[DrModern]

Marty,

It's cute and nicely hands-off to say you aren't advocating either alternative, but it's empty. By leaving the real-time method open, what you're effectively saying is "fine by me if you tell another player what to do during a hand" and hence "fine by me if you violate one player to a hand." As someone trying to organize sweat sessions, it's your responsibility to understand the issues involved in real time vs. post hoc sweating. See my response in Bona's thread for more.

--Doc

[Bilgefisher]

Ive participated in over a dozen sweat sessions. The only way Ive seen it done. You say your hole cards as soon as you get them. This allows the sweaters to be actively thinking about the hand while in progress. Really no different then openly showing your buddy behind you your cards while he sits there silently throughout the hand. When the hand is over...let the discussions begin. Instead of "I would check here", you get, "Why did you raise the turn?" This ensures that one player per hand is not violated.

That said, it also imperative that only the sweatee sits at the table. Having the aim chat window open if both are in the same hand implies collusion whether you said anything or not.

I strongly suggest that you follow those guidelines and have them clearly stated when setting folks up. While 2+2 is merely hosting the forum, I can see them forcing wookie or aussie to lock any thread pertaining to these session sweats if its comes back and shows foul play is involved.

Note: I know your purpose is genuine, so I'm not saying that foul play is intended. I'm merely trying to say what can happen and what will be perceived.

[DrModern]

Holla Farmland Mob. Bilgefisher is right.