Different Websites Serve Different Purposes

I recently visited a home poker game in which I used to play when I lived in Atlanta (about eight years ago). The game had changed considerably: The players had gotten better, the games were now conventional cardroom games instead of wild and bizarre home variants, and the stakes had moved from $15-$30 up to $50-$100.

I still knew most of the players, although (predictably enough, given the increase in stakes) most of the very weak players had dropped out of the scene. Most had heard that in the interim, poker had changed from my avocation to my vocation, and one of them, Gary Bernson, asked me for the web address of where I do most of my writing. I told him about the information site poker.casino.com, and soon got a nice e-mail from him.

"I'd really been unaware of the whole Internet poker information phenomenon," Gary wrote. "I have to admit, I'm more than a little hooked: It's like a door into a whole new information world. I've read the books, but the web stuff - not just the site you write for, but some of the others you put me on to - is so up to date, so interactive with the questions and answers, it's been hard to stay away from my computer."

Probably most Card Player readers are more familiar with the different information sites than Gary was, but knowing about a resource and knowing how and when to use it are two entirely different matters.

Things Change Quickly on the Web

Because the state of affairs can and does change so quickly on the web - one week a writer can be found at one website, the next he has departed; one week a site exists, the next it is gone - I thought it would be more useful to analyze, in general terms, what different kinds of information sites are available. You'll then be armed with a general set of guidelines for what kind of site you want to use when you're looking for information, and (I hope) will have some useful guidelines for separating the wheat from the chaff when visiting these sites.

I'm dividing these sites into "Category One," "Category Two," and so on, not because I believe Category One sites are better: I just want you to get used to thinking of them in very different terms, because the services they provide, and the value of the information they provide, vary greatly.

Category One: Moderated Newsgroups. Examples of these would be twoplustwo.com and the newer unitedpokerforum.com.

Moderated groups tend (and you can assume that unless I specifically state otherwise, the word "tend" should apply to all statements I'm making in evaluating different web resources) to be most useful when you have a specific question about how to play a specific hand. Because they are moderated, you won't see a lot of poker gossip. On the other hand, because they are moderated and in business (either directly or indirectly) to make a profit (a goal that, last time I checked, was not a crime), certain folks who have ulterior motives are not only answering your questions, but are moderating whose posts can stay up and whose posts can't.

Most of the time, the post-deletion accomplishes what I consider to be "good." That is, a lot of ad hominem (attacks against an individual, rather than against his or her ideas) get sliced out. I'll talk more about ad hominem attacks when I get to unmoderated newsgroups. Occasionally, poker viewpoints of certain individuals get censored, for a variety of reasons, some of which I applaud, some of which I dislike.

Moderated groups tend to be web-based, which means that unless you have some kind of fast net access like a cable modem or DSL, they may be too slow for regular use. It's time that you got yourself fast access, anyway, so don't let that stop you.

Ask Good Questions to Get Good Answers

Here's one piece of advice that applies to any poker question: Try to make "the setup" as specific as possible. In other words, don't just say, "I was playing $10-$20, the flop came J-4-3, and I raised with my K-J. Did I make the right play?" The old computer term "GIGO" ("garbage in, garbage out") will apply. In order to get a useful answer, you have to give your respondents as much information as possible. What's your usual table image? What is it at the moment? What styles do your opponents play? How many people saw the flop? What position were you in? Do you usually play $10-$20, or do you usually play lower (or higher)? If you're asking about a tournament, chip positions, the payoffs for ladder climbs, and the blind sizes are also critically important factors. The more information you provide your teachers, the more useful the answer will be.

Category Two: Unmoderated Newsgroups. The main example here is RGP (rec.gambling.poker). A lot of people like to call RGP "rec.gossip.poker," because quite a bit of nontactical matters get discussed. RGP can be very useful, but you need to go in prepared. First, you need a thick skin. There are lots of very sad, lonely, pathetic "get-a-life" types who spend hours a day on RGP trying to make themselves into someone important. They hide behind screen names (there are legitimate reasons to use screen names - an example would be someone who had a job in banking who didn't want people knowing he was an avid poker player) and toss out the most egregious insults possible, secure in the knowledge that they can't ever be held accountable (that is, they are safe from the punch in the face that their words would bring if uttered in other circumstances).

I used to get angry and call these people gutless cowards, and perhaps some of them are, but these days I mostly feel sorry for these folks, because no one who had any sort of real life would spend that much time trying to achieve "status" on something as unimportant to the world as a poker newsgroup, and certainly no one with any skills would try to raise himself up solely by trying to bring others down or hurt feelings.

Well, at Least They Aren't Claiming Millions of Fans

I've read some of the more obnoxious megalomaniacs talk about their "thousands of fans," and they might even believe this is true. If that belief makes them happy, maybe RGP has served a therapeutic use, admittedly at the expense of the poster's "victim." I've learned to ignore anonymous attacks aimed at me, although recently I did rush to the defense of a friend about whom someone wrote some unconscionable things.

The majority of strong poker players tend to stay out of RGP, because they grow tired of the nonsense, and believe that they are giving far more than they are getting. A few are willing to hang in despite the noise. I go through cycles when I start posting for a while, then get sick of the place and leave for a few months, until someone tells me about an interesting post that lures me back for a while.

It sounds like I'm advising you to stay away from RGP, but I'm not. RGP serves a very useful function because of its uncensored status. No one can filter whose opinions we read, and in an era in which many people have agendas, that's important. There are also many intelligent poker players who offer advice there, and while I doubt this is the reason why the jerks post the nasty stuff, you really do need a thick skin to play poker well … so in their own way, the nasty boys have helped my game.

The only really big beef I have with RGP is when someone posts a rumor or an opinion as if it were a fact. I believe people have a duty to make that difference clear. Just as eternal vigilance is the price we pay for freedom, exposure to irresponsible posts is the price we pay for freedom from censorship. Note that someone doesn't even have to post a rumor as a fact to try to inflict damage to a reputation: A simple "Have you stopped beating your wife?" kind of question can leave the named party with little room to maneuver.

A Caution for Both Kinds of Newsgroup

In both moderated and unmoderated groups, be careful about accepting any one responder's advice. Just because someone claims to be an expert doesn't make it so, and I've seen some truly terrible advice offered by folks who sounded very smooth. I've also seen some truly outstanding advice offered by people I'd never heard of. Make the answers you receive part of your educational tapestry, not the entire cloth.

Category Three: Information Sites. Examples of these include Cardplayer.com, pokerpages.com, poker.net, and poker.casino.com. These sites usually present articles by writers and players on a wide range of topics. Of course, two age-old problems apply:

1. Most of the people who can write and/or teach well can't play well, while most of the people who can play well can't write or teach well; and

2. Most of the people who can really play well don't want to give their best information away, because they use it to make a living. I don't think anyone gives his best information away (I have a tell on a former world champ that I'd be willing to sell for $25,000, and since no one is going to offer me that much, it's going with me to my grave), but some players have decided that a steady, lucrative income from books and articles is worth giving away some of their better stuff.

In general, you are better off at a site that feature lots of writers, because then you're bound to find at least a few good ones; but you do need to be careful, because many sites aren't all that picky about who they let write for them: Cash being short, they'd rather take a free or inexpensive article from someone looking to make a name for himself than an expensive one from someone who can really deliver the goods.

In other words, just as you need to be careful separating the good advice from the bad on the newsgroups, you need to be equally careful separating the good writers from the bad on information sites. I shake my head in disbelief at some of the junk that gets published more often than I feel like giving a standing ovation for a magnificent insight.

The bottom line is that someone trying to learn has infinitely more resources at his disposal these days than someone did even 20 years ago: It's just tricky figuring out which information is helpful, which is meaningless, and which is actually harmful. If you look for logical analysis instead of "I'm right because I'm great" analysis, and don't make any one writer/player your sole guru, you'll probably find yourself learning so fast that you'll be the one offering advice instead of the one asking for it.

Andrew N.S. ("Andy") Glazer, "The Poker Pundit," is Card Player's tournament editor, writes a weekly gambling column for the Detroit Free Press, and is widely considered to be the world's foremost poker tournament reporter. He serves as a quality control consultant for www.TotalPoker.com, for which he also writes the free biweekly "Wednesday Nite Poker" newsletter. Andy welcomes your questions through the "Ask Andy" feature at TotalPoker.com.