The poker forum - my take

I was a little bit childish in a thread on the theory page, i want to apologise for that (in particular to ste05 and van dice).

Just about to go to bed but i've been thinking about the nature of the Boards.ie poker forum, i'm going to do my best to articulate this properly:

People are judged on the poker forum by the content and quality of their posts, not by how much they make or what car they drive. Rightly so. For example, if Amaru returned having won the Euro Millions i dont think anyone would give any more weight to his advice than before it (that's assuming anyone in their right mind would believe he won the lottery :rolleyes:). On the flip side, if Hotspur were deprived of his life savings and every asset in some freak bank collapse, i'd still think his opinions are worth their weight in gold.

On a fundamental level on this forum (and any forum) imo cash game players are immediately at a slight advantage to tournament players in terms of the potential quality of their advice. I think it's easier to reach consensus on a "standard line" in a cash game than in a tournament.
The ability to reach a standard line on hands is something approaching a right answer. In poker, on any given hand there is never THE right answer, but (Without getting into EV), if you can consistently come up with the most correct solution to a given problem, you'll always be in good stead.

Cash games generally you're dealing with situations that are hundred(s) of bb's deep, against more well defined villains (PT), a higher volume of hands played thereby more recurring situations upon which to reach a consensus line. Repetition of these situations can only serve to help both on a conscious and subliminal level to strive to reach the most correct way to play a given situation.

Generally due to the time-consuming nature of tournaments people play far less of them, play far fewer hands, against villains who are less easily defined (identifying a villain as a LAG or TAG is not as transparent as 23/14/3 etc that pt can provide. Even assuming you use PT or similar software in mtt, the sample will generally be over a tiny amount of hands and rarely against the same villain, rendering it almost obsolete).

Then there is the nature of the disciplines themselves. Tournaments have slightly more variables, the only consistency is change. Changing stacks, changing blinds, changing villains, changing dynamics - always against the clock and with a finish line in sight. The core difference is the lack of control of your own changing dynamics. In a cash game you will encounter differing situations but something that remains constant is your ability to reload to x amount of bb's, thus retaining some element of control. You cant control villains leaving/joining the table but the ability to sit out, change tables, (i.e. game selection) is always available to you. The more control you have over your own variables, the greater your ability to react to changes in your environment. (e.g. a fish joins the table in cash so you reload to the max or move to his left/right as you see fit; a fish joins your table in a tournament and you cant add to your stack or move seats).

Basically (again all imo), a consensus standard line is more difficult to achieve in tournament hands, thereby often resulting in widely differing opinions on how to play a given hand. I always wondered why the likes of fuzz, HJ etc came up with very similar answers on a large spectrum of hands; the answer is that a more correct way of playing a hand is easier to identify in cash games; 1 hand will rarely polarise opinion in the way a tournament hand might do. For sure, there will be differing ideas but for the most part it's a shade of the 1 colour for cash game hands. A lot of the times in tournament hands it can be night and day in terms of differences of opinion.

Consistency of quality in advice is thereby harder to achieve in tournament hands. It's much harder to be concise; you're talking about a wider set of variables than in a cash hand, furthermore a lot of those variables are wide open to interpretation. Constructing concise, relevant theory posts on tournament HH is difficult. A lot of the time i have a really good idea in my head of what i want to say and struggle to articulate that in a presentable concise manner.

Cash game players on this forum dont place much heed in tournament results relative to respecting someones opinion (nor should they, tournament players wouldnt re: reported winnings on the cash tables.). And, as i've outlined above, tournament theory is a lot harder to form consensus on and much harder to deliver in an easy-to-swallow mouthful. The net result of all that is you often have 10 diverging opinions on a tournament hand compared to a converging consensus on a cash game hand.... and the cash game players thinking "see! lol donkaments!!". All of which for me explains why i feel there is a degree of apathy amongst some cash game players for tournament posters here. So many tournament threads end up wishy-washy with all the colours of the rainbow for different advice, and it can look amateurish at times.

One of my new years resolutions on this forum was to post less in the theory forum. I'm going to belatedly stick to that from now on, posting less frequently. Boards.ie is the single most important factor on 2 levels for my improved form in 2008. 1. I very rarely reply to them, but in reading the theory section i've taken a lot of it on board and i feel i've improved my understanding greatly of certain situations thanks to this forum. 2. i play 10-12 hour sessions as a rule, sometimes more, and boards.ie provides the mental stimulus to stay awake, focussed and concentrated for long sessions.

A final thought (jerry springer eat your heart out lol), some of the tournament players on this site are supremely talented and excellent poker players. It's a skill in itself to destroy the donkaments. I'm literally amazed every week watching the warmup on stars, ollie crushes it with an extraordinary consistency, it's great to watch. If tournament theory was easier to pin down i'm sure you would have a bigger theory section, but it's quite difficult and prone to arguments. I think tournament players deserve more respect than they receive at times, there's (sometimes) a lack of appreciation of the intricacies that go into consistently getting to FT's.

I've got a piece im writing on Timing Tells in Tournaments i'll post that up sometime over the next few weeks, if that goes well then i'll post a topic every month to try boost the tournament theory library. I feel a more worthwhile way of contributing to the site for me is through articles rather than responding individually on HH's daily.

ps. i'll probably update my blog daily in dortmund or perhaps a thread here tracking my progress (assuming i donk my way past day 1 ).