I simply don't agree that training sites are bad for poker. They've caused players to step up their game but learning through play and educational material has always been a fair and fundamental part of what poker is about. But selling information about particular players, whether it is through PTR or training videos, provides stats to students about their opponents that weren't obtained at the tables, which is not what poker is about.
Again using phrases like "not what poker is about" is meaningless. Besides the set of rules, and some laws about the game, there is nothing to say what poker is or isn't about.
I'm the one oversimplifying the way poker works??? You're the one who seems to think that players can simply be put in neat little catagories like TAGS or Mice or Daffy Ducks or whatever type system it is that you use. Money is made in poker by exploiting weaknesses. It's entirely possible that a Daffy Duck, Spotted Elephant and Chartreuse Orangutan all share the same weaknesses. Weaknesses aren't necessarily type dependant. Just because an instructor can spot those weaknesses doesn't mean that a student is going to spot them on his own any time soon.
A load of poker videos in the past talked about beating specific types by prescribing a fairly easy to learn strategies as the counter. These were obviously not perfect, but take something like Prinnyraiding HU, which broke down into types of players which were fairly common and a general strategy that can be used to gain an edge versus these players. All you need to do was play them for a few minutes to be able to pigeonhole them with a strategy. You would not be beating them perfectly because there will be small differences in their game, but overall they had are categorised by glaring weaknesses and just watching the video meant your edge would shoot up hugely.
If I am oversimplifying that an edge can easily be gained from watching some videos like these back in the day, then you are oversimplifying that an edge can easily be gained from taking the stats from a video, or by what is said in these videos. Even though these stats are given out, counter-strategies are talked about, there is absolutely no way that they outline the entire strategy of beating a player based off an hour video.
You don't have to spend a life-time analysing videos, I just want a link to a single video that offends in the way that you describe. I just don't believe that the degree is that bad.
There you go parsing words again. Now you're fixated on the definition of "about". Poker is about figuring out your opponent's strategy not being spoon fed the information about a specific opponent.
If I were to start analyzing videos with you, you will spend a week discussing the meaning of the word "the" and we will get nowhere. If you can't admit now that instructors show individual player weaknesses it's obvious that going over a video isn't going to dislodge you from your dug in position.
Who cares if some videos talk about player types? And who cares if that information is useful? That isn't what I am talking about. I'm saying that instructors talk about specific player weaknesses. Those weaknesses aren't necessarily type specific. I made it very clear that I was disputing your cookie cutter view that players games are interchangeable once they've been typed.
There are players out there who have almost exactly my stats, essentially the same VPIP, same PFR, same WTD, etc. and yet play very differently from me. They are what you consider my "type". If an instructor shows students how to adjust to those players weaknesses that knowledge can't simply be transferred over to me because I am the same type, which is exactly what you claimed in an earlier post.
I'm not overstating the edge gained, because I've used the info in these videos to specifically search out opponents who I have never played against; and I have taken their money with information about those specific opponents that I never should have had.
I'm going to parse your words as long as you keep using them wrong to try and argue your case. Poker is about winning by any means possible barring some rules in place, such as the rules of the game, rule of law, what rules can be enforced by poker sites, and then other things like what is accepted by the rest of the community.
If you want to stop something happening then there needs to be a disincentive to do that. Maybe instead of exploiting the players that are being treated unfairly, you should tell all of them what's going on and they might speak up about the issue. Instead, you gladly use the unfairness for your own gain, then even use the line "What ever happened to just doing the right thing?"
Are you kidding me?
In your first paragraph you state that playing poker is about winning by any means possible barring some rules in place. In your second paragraph you criticize me for winning by any means possible barring some rules in place. Then you criticize me for not telling players what is going on so they can speak up about the unfairness. You seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that that is exactly what I am doing and for which you have been criticizing me for the past day. Are you even living on the same planet as the rest of us?
Yes I stated that "poker is about winning by any means possible barring some rules in place" in my view.
In my second paragraph I'm actually criticising you for an inconsistency between your views and your actions. I have no problem with someone who wins by any means possible barring some rules - the inconsistency is the issue.
No, simply speaking up is not what I just suggested. I was suggesting you tell those players on the sites that are being singled out. After all, they are the most likely to agree with you. This was a real piece of advice actually.
First of all, your assumption that this is the only place I've brought this issue up is dead wrong.
Secondly, I am assuming that you don't live in the US. If you did you would be aware that I don't have access to most sites.
Thirdly, if you are suggesting that I log on to tables and start posting in the chat boxes, that is absurd. Not to mention that the Merge chatboxes in mini mode are closed by default and cover almost the entire table when used. Trolling the chatboxes would be a pretty good way for me to get thrown off the last remaining viable US network.
There has been absolutely no inconsistency in what I've said. I've simply said that the status quo way making videos is unfair to certain players. I haven't criticized anyone for watching those videos or using them to their advantage. Most of what you write in your posts is complete nonsense.
muggles, believe me when I say that you I get what you're saying...I really do. Yes, usernames should probably be edited out.(it's not that difficult Schweig, but poker players are on a whole, lazy to some degree) The thing is is that as coaches, you could still talk about how to beat this 42/5 fish and yada yada yada, but don't have to reveal the actual players name. Revealing his stats would be sufficient in teaching.
That said muggles, I don't believe that the situation that you describe in players searching out other players in videos is as rampant as you claim. I for one, have never gone that far seeing how there are countless of other players just as weak as the players in the videos so it's pointless and a waste of time to me. If you have to search out specific players that you see in videos in order to feel like you have an edge, then you're just as lazy as the rest of us.
Overall, this just isn't as big an issue as say skype colluding, sweat sessions with your 10 man poker group, etc. like mentioned previously in this thread. My question is did you find yourself talked about in a video and therefore upset for whatever reason?
I also want to say that PTR being removed from Stars is a great step forward for mid to high stakes regs.
Poker is about figuring out your opponent's strategy not being spoon fed the information about a specific opponent. [...] I'm not overstating the edge gained, because I've used the info in these videos to specifically search out opponents who I have never played against; and I have taken their money with information about those specific opponents that I never should have had.
i don't think poker is for you. also, you overestimate how much edge people are willing to give up because they just want to have fun or are just bad at math. a trip to your local casino will dispel all noble views of man's rationality.
as for PTR, i think stuff like it and HUDs killing games is being overestimated. it was the restriction of moving money and then rampant mishandling of monies that made the rest of us not feel safe in putting money on a site anymore that's killed the games off (not to mention confirming to those on the wall about "rigged sites"). and i think people keep underestimating just how popular poker is in America and just how fishy the average American was.
Noobalube, I think what you are saying is true for days gone by but with the limitations of where US players can play, things have changed. I generally play Limit Holdem. There are very few tables available to play so there is a very small population of Limit Players. On off hours there are practically none. In Limit videos I recognize most of the players, so it isn't a matter of searching them out. I've put a lot of time into studying my own data base to understand my opponents only to watch instructors using their own database or that of others to point out the weaknesses of specific players. Isn't this exactly the problem people find with PTR?
I think that, because of the tiny player pool, currently the educational value of these videos is outweighed by the leveling effect that these videos are having on the game.
It is just a matter of time before my game is put on the screen and analyzed which isn't going to help my profit margin. It is not only just a matter of laziness in editing out names. No attempt is made to let the players at the table know that a video is being made so they have the option to leave the table. The same educational value can be acheived with anonymous players. Actually, it would probably be better for the student because with the names changed, the student would be forced to approach the lesson from a more theoretical perspective rather than being shown how to defeat a specific opponent to whom they have been losing money.