2

It is vitally important in the early days to ask high quality, expert-level questions. It looks to me like too many of the questions right now are about rules and odds. Right now we are defining what this site will look like for potential future members. If they come and see mostly rules and odds questions, they might not want to stay. We need more questions with substance. We need more strategy questions. We need more questions like this one.

I'd also like to see more questions that have specifics rather than generalities. In two days I've only seen 2 questions.

When you see a great question, please vote it up. When you see a lousy question, don't be afraid to vote down or close...you can be more brutal during the private beta than you might be later on.

2

I think the expert level questions will come when we get expert-level participation. The Phil Galfonds of the world don't know about Stack Exchange, and they're not in the private beta. We need to try to extend invites to experts to get them here, so that we can get expert level discussion started.

I have reached out to the Top Pair podcast guys - they are not expert strategy type players, but they may be able to spread the word a bit, and they do have a lot of good home-game experience. Other somewhat accessible people that I think we may be able to pull in are Bart Hanson, several 2+2ers (Phil Galfond, limon, some from LLSNL like AcePlayerDeluxe, venice10, KurtSF of the top of my head), Barry Greenstein (appeared on Top Pair so he must be somewhat accessible).

I think that if we come up with a strategy for getting the word out to the experts on 2+2 in an ethical manner, we will be much closer to our goal.

1

(I actually think this is more a comment than an answer, but the space wasn't big enough. Please forgive me)

There in lies the problem. Expert questions will generally be asked by expert players. There is also an issue with how people will react to hand history questions as, for the most part, they are subjective and thus against the general ethos of StackExchange sites, no? You can argue that there is not just one "correct" way to play a hand.

Personally, I think this site, with it's rating system is ideal for hand histories, (which is why I joined) but it could be deemed too subjective. https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/ is an offshoot of an objective "Stack" site specifically to cater for this problem. I believe that this site would benefit from the same mindset and that the quality of subjective responses would be adequately dealt with by ratings, upvotes, correct use of the , etc.

I have hand histories, I'd like to post already, yet I'm dubious that people would take the time to post, as they may be fearful of reprisal based on subjectivity concerns. I don't see the mentality present for that yet!

For further reference, here is article about subjectivity in StackExchange...

Good Subjective, Bad Subjective. It's an important read IMO.

  • 1
    Post your hand histories... I'm about to start mining 2+2 for some interesting hands to lift just to seed the site. If you have something, post it. – Chris Marasti-Georg Jan 13 '12 at 2:53
  • Good. I considered that. Lots of decent threads in the stickies but i'm sure you knew that too. I'm going hand hunting. :) – Toby Booth Jan 13 '12 at 3:04
  • My gut reaction to hand history questions is that they are bad subjective and potentially asking for "yes call" answers. But I have been doing my best to give good reasoned answers for them. – Chad Jan 20 '12 at 20:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .