quick turn decision

[cartman]

[ QUOTE ]
"You don't have enough information to make an accurate decision."

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion no response is usually (not always) better than that one. There is often too much focus on what to do in the specific hand posted vs the specific opponents involved and not enough focus on the conceptual reasons for the answer and how the answer may or may not change for related situations or other opponent types. When I used to post hands, I would always intentionally make the reads vague because I wanted to discuss which line was best vs which opponents and why instead of just have everyone's opinion of that unique situation.

[The Bryce]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"You don't have enough information to make an accurate decision."

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion no response is usually (not always) better than that one. There is often too much focus on what to do in the specific hand posted vs the specific opponents involved and not enough focus on the conceptual reasons for the answer and how the answer may or may not change for related situations or other opponent types. When I used to post hands, I would always intentionally make the reads vague because I wanted to discuss which line was best vs which opponents and why instead of just have everyone's opinion of that unique situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering how strongly I disagree with this viewpoint you can see why I never post these days. I think the message boar discussion, as used, is generally a pretty weak tool. It's not hard to break most of the questions down mathematically yourself and all you have to do after that point is plug in your assumptions about the player's actions and see what's going to have the highest yield, so I obviously think poker is generally pretty judgment-intensive (unless you're playing 10 handed or something like that and there are really tight mathematical strictures on what cards your opponents can be playing).

[Victor]

cartman says "focus on the conceptual reasons for the answer and how the answer may or may not change for related situations or other opponent types"

bryce says "ll you have to do after that point is plug in your assumptions about the player's actions and see what's going to have the highest yield, so I obviously think poker is generally pretty judgment-intensive "

im having a hard time understanding how these statements differ.

[The Bryce]

Cartman is saying you should try and make a speculative read and I'm saying that you don't have enough data to make any sort of substantial speculation: aka shot in the dark. I'm further saying that it all boils down to experience: in this hand you don't have enough experience with what people do here in general given this "class" of player (weird spot = too small a sample size) and you don't have enough experience with the player to make any sense of the data available. I'm then saying that this sort of speculative-judgment oriented discussion isn't productive, because it does hinge on experience and open discussion isn't really a substitute for that. Most likely no one's played this spot a few hundred times in the context set by the data in the OP. The best you can do here is "players in general are sometimes stupid so I should get to showdown."