Friday, September 05, 2008

Attempt to define specialization

I take a look at the discussion forums at 2+2 every once in a while but I'm not a regular reader. For some reason I've never actually looked at their list of forums on PL/NL hold'em.

Here's a list of forums.

High Stakes NL
Medium Stakes NL
Small Stakes NL
Micro Stakes NL
Medium-High Full Ring
Small Full Ring
Micro Full Ring
Heads Up NL

I think that's just amazing. They don't distinctions between pot limit and no limit (which are actually different games) but do distinguish based on blind size. I'm just floored by that.

High Stakes
If you don't at least play 5-10nl or higher then don't give advice in strategy threads. Without a familiarity with the games and players in question your advice is not relevant to the discussion. If you are a lower stakes poster you probably are also not thinking on a high enough level for your advice to add anything but clutter.



Medium Stakes
It is generally assumed that players in the Mid Stakes forum will have a solid understanding of the fundamentals of NL Holdem. Questions related to math (odds), fundamentals, and basic ABC play belong in Small Stakes.


Small Stakes
The SSNL forum is centered around discussion of shorthanded no-limit hold'em cash games from the $0.50/$1 blind level to $1/$2. For full ring games or other blind levels, use the forums listed below.


This is all just nonsense. They are attempting to make fine distinctions between situations (blind sizes) where no actual distinctions exist. But the one place that has real distinctions -- the difference between pot limit and no limit -- they completely ignore.

I wonder if there's anyone at all at 2+2 who has any concept of what poker is actually about?

UPDATE:
I sometimes play in a cardroom in Newkirk, OK that spreads no limit games with two different blind structures. A 1/3 blind and a 1/2 blind.

But the one with the smaller blind also has a $5 minimum bet -- it's played as a "red chip game". That makes the 1/2 game much, much bigger than the 1/3 game. It also changes player habits. There's a lot more preflop raising in the 1/3 game than in the 1/2 game.

There's a hell of a lot more to strategic theory than the size of the blinds.

UPDATE:
I tend to agree with the commenter that says he thinks 2+2'ers are arrogant, egotistical jackasses.

I think there's an explanation for that which is important to keep in mind whenever you follow any sort of intellectual pursuit.

The 2+2 publishing company touts itself as a provider of "correct information". I'm not sure that phrase actually has any real meaning, but the thought behind it is very comforting to a class of people who want desperately to be able to think of themselves as intellectuals even though they don't actually have the mental capacity to engage in true intellectual pursuits.

Such people tend to be quick to support ideas that simplistic and rigid. Being correct takes on some sort of meaning with bears no resemblance at all to being accurate. Complicated situations make them very uncomfortable. So they are quick to just assume away situational complications.

Labels: ,

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

the 2+2'ers are almost without exception utter tools... some of the most arrogant egotistical jackasses ive ever encountered online (and when you consider the internet population at large, thats really saying something)

4:53 PM  
Blogger Dr Zen said...

Hi, on the one hand, I'm a 2p2er, I suppose (I post there) and I'm not a complete tool. I don't think I'm all that good at poker and i'm trying to improve. 2p2 is a bit like a mountain of shit hiding a nugget of gold a lot of the time.

Gary, the distinction between blinds is, I think, an outcome of whining in the original cash forum, not something that actually has any real conceptual basis. IMBW though, that's just my impression

6:55 AM  
Blogger DMW said...

Does anyone play pot-limit hold'em cash games anymore? I've never seen one in a B&M casino. While pokerstars used to have a mix it seems to be 95% nlhe.

Seperating games based on size makes sense to me. More fuzzy is when they break them down by 'what level' you are thinking on.

2:41 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home