The odds questions noted before are one example of this, but we will see others. For instance, there was just as question about "How should I play AA?"
Questions like this are too broad to have an answer. How should they be dealt with?
General questions can sometimes have general answers. I think I provided a semi-decent general answer to the question you linked above.
However, I can see already that this site is going to struggle with questions that are too general versus questions that are too specific. We can let general questions through if we decide to give that kind of slant to this site, but the answers can be only so helpful. They can still be insightful, but without a specific playing field to which an answer applies (such as NLHE $1/$2 Live) the answers can't get very deep.
The other side of the coin is if we enforce more specificity on questions, we gain the capacity for depth of coverage in answers, at the expense of breadth of coverage to a degree.
So we need to decide: Do we want the site to be general with a lot of breadth of coverage in answers? Or specific with a lot of depth of coverage?
I think that other sites such as SO focus on specificity and depth. If we are to follow that lead, then we should focus on depth and specificity.
In private beta: Suggest edits to author.
In public beta: Moderators should close with an instructive close reason; other users should vote to close.
This site will be hard enough for newly-arrived experts to wade through with all the hand-histories floating around, we need to keep the questions specific, answerable, and organized.