Like you say in that thread OP needs to learn. This is clearly retaliatory due to you calling him out, but really just reflects poorly on them. I disagree with a red tag on them for just being slanderous and wrong, I think neutral tags would suffice. Now if you think they are likely to scam someone or can show that then a red makes sense.

I know it's not what people like to hear but that's the system and it can work. If trusted Neutral feedback is just as visible as Negative or Positive.

Yes that will take care of it you if I'm not mistaken you don't even really have to say you are going to participate as I believe the password will just be common knowledge for the next tournament. This way late reg players can join freely without trying to get the password. If you want you can let people know your username for fun, so we know who we are playing.

I'm guessing this is in USD?? I'll be online most of today and can make this deal with you. Either respond here or send me a PM and we'll set the 35$ BTC rate against preev.

Had to get home to check something. I figured our odds had to be a little worse given we wouldn't know what they had. So I ran it through equilab. it came out with this. I used UTG raise range and BB defend against a UTG raise range then gave you QQ, I was surprised that it turns out my anticipated holdings for both were essentially backwards. I guess that's what happens when you make assumptions. I didn't have a chance to run it through icmizer… I thought I had it downloaded but I wanted to see how much stack sizes would play into the numbers. The math still says you should be good ~1/3 times but for tournament life it just feels wrong.  

      Equity     Win     Tie
MP2    25.39%  23.10%   2.29% { 99+, AJs+, KQs, AQo+ }
CO    35.93%  34.65%   1.27% { QhQs }
SB    38.68%  36.09%   2.59% { JJ+, AKs, AKo }

Edit: i forgot to run the same with us holding AKs or AKo, just to see what we get for numbers against those ranges


Splashing around in my pond lol. Were you in the cyclone?? I busted 2 bullets in 3.5 hours and was done with it. I will likely play it again but with a tighter approach to many loose plays and jams with that smaller buy-in I found. I have been picking better tournaments lately though which I think will help me play more profitably... given I learn from my mistakes like last night.


Yeah I'm still kicking myself for that. It was definitely what I would have done in the past. I think it's a learning experience that I have to not overthink things to much. I can't ignore premium jamming opportunities out of fear I bust out. Seeing as I can bust out regardless   . Part of me thinks it was a transitional problem as I had to play very conservative and pick spots to get to 10, but was stuck in that mind set.

Damn I have a buddy, non crypto who would probably love this stuff. Can you send me a list and I'll check in with him to see, might not want it all but likely something. He's the kind of guy who legitimately can quote any episode from the first 14 seasons; hates most of the new ones lol.  I'd pay in BTC for him if he's interested.

I'm studying up from a lot of what the boom brought out. It became a game of solvers and pure math for many of them, also online made it possible to rack up a lot of hands combined with HUD's for reads. The materials I see mostly point out to playing x hands this way pre-flop because over 10 000 hands it's +ev, or making this re-reaise or bluff here for the same reason. Tournaments get trickier as they talk about all the moving pieces as the levels progress and stack sizes change, not to mention Itm pressure. When it comes to cash they say it's more straight forwards and it's about getting stacks in when the numbers say you are +ev. They don't deny that there are still moments where you can exploit a player, but that overall you should have a range and play it the same way each time thinking of the long term.

I found that with the wealth = aggressive play is more prevalent making your way through a micro stakes tournament. I used to only play those as they were fun and I could get a lot of time out of the 1$ or less buy-in. It lost it's fun factor though when re-buys became more prevalent as so many people would spew off or jam all-in and say chill out it's only an 1$ tournament. I have always assumed that higher stakes don't really run the same, as most are there trying to play a higher level... unless you watch the Triton cash games  
Watching some cash game vlogs you definitely see some though that are willing to bluff jam for 100's if not 1000's just because, all you can hope for is to have them beat I guess.

How my previous hands finished off. Thanks for the insight guys let's see what I did.

Hand #3 *** RIVER *** [5c Ad 5s 6d] [Js] Main pot 13335.00 Hero bets 3485.00 Villain calls 3485.00 Hero wins [As Qh] Villain had [Ts Ah]

Hand #5 *** TURN *** [Jc 2h As] [Qh] Main pot 4167.00 Villain checks Hero bets 5908.00 and is all-in      Villain folds

Hand#6 *** RIVER *** [7h 8s 3c 7d] [9h]      Main pot 1807.00 Hero bets 904.00 Villain folds

Hand #7 *** RIVER *** [9c 4d 2c 8s] [2h] Main pot 21035.00 Villain shows [9s Td] (two pair, Nines and Deuces [9s 9c 2h 2c Td]) Hero shows [Th Ts] (two pair, Tens and Deuces [Ts Th 2h 2c 9c])

---

Yeah I elected for a slightly larger sizing. I hadn't really considered the pocket J's at the time and that would have been crushing.
In the future I'll leave out as much as possible. Thanks for the feedback. These are the spots I hate to call down as I've lost to an A high so many times in the past. It's also still a profitable play in the long run, so it's an uncomfortable part of my game lol
Yeah hoping not to go broke on it lol. I probably would have had to fold to a re-raise as there aren't many hands I should have been a head of.  In the moment though I likely wouldn't have and that's something I need to think on in the future, I know in these spots I tend to think I need to bet to win the pot, but I should be trying to get to showdown cheap at this point and hope I have enough equity. I'm definitely trying to push the check-call into my gameplay more often.
Pre-flop it was a bit of a toss-up to call the 3-bet. I think it was their sizing that made me go for it, had they been 1075 or more I probably would have laid it down. I can't remember but I believe this was a player I had seen making a few 3bet/re-aises in a short amount of time. It may have been more of a taking a stand with a marginal hand, with his smaller 3-bet, so I wasn't getting pushed off my ranges. It is likely the worst hand I could have done this with. It definitely could have ended in me folding post to a worse board texture.
pf- They RFI, I 3-bet, they called. I elected to Jam here. I remember thinking back on some of your previous insights along the lines of what my stack to pot ratio would be for my next street. I was a little concerned also about them being able to get there with if another broadway came up making it 4 to a straight. If not for the J in the flop, I would have probably slowplayed this with a smaller betsizing working towards a river jam
In this spot I just saw it as a good opportunity to bluff. It really just came down to ranges, it was much more likely that I had hit this board, and that he stuck around hoping to hit his overcards. River was his most likely chance to hit a pair A9s or A8s, this would have explained the call on the turn. If he did have something me starting to barrel the turn would have rep'd the 7x hand fairly well. Just one of those spots that I felt good about the bluff, especially with a decent stack behind.
I couldn't get them in fast enough lol. With them not 3-betting me pf, I wasn't to concerned about overpairs.

---

Okay I did not expect that. Pretty much the holdings I expected just in the wrong players hands, and to hit 4 to a flush for the win what a way to double up +. Good fold. I'm torn on folding in these multiway all-ins sometimes as people either come in nutted or just tossing darts with mid connectors. I imagine that will die down a bit if I earn my way up to higher stakes, but for now I'm generally out unless I'm rocking AA, KK, and AKs and offsuit if I'm not at risk.

Wow, I must say I'm amazed he called pf with that. It's not bad to maybe a 2-2.5X RFI, but I wouldn't be defending the BB with those cards given the situation. It's funny I kept thinking about this hand for a couple hours afterwards going back and forth on the jam/call.

---

I had a deep run last night with a dissapointing finish. 10th, playing an 8max which was fun full of ups and downs. Fired 2 bullets, as my first one was essentially neutered when I got coolered KK in the CO, and AA in the BTN. I RFI, he 3-bet, J high board rainbow, I C-bet they jam I call. Left me with about 5 BB. I did get my equalizer though later on with a similar situation where I had the AA in LJ, and I believe it was the SB with KK had to do more work for it but got my double up at a critical point waiting out the money bubble. Wound up about 80BB deep or so.

How I got elimed though was just a big stack being splashy and lucky. I had watched him Suck out on 5 players to this point which was great for the ladder, until I was a rung. Hero BB defend 2.5X with AJo against BTN, board came up 3 5 9 rainbow. Checks through, then a J on the turn, he jams and I call. Villain shows J5o. In retrospect the only thing I could have done is 3-bet pf, and I likely should have. I made that maneuver earlier on against the same player, the sizing though for an effective 3-bet should have been around 4X which would have been about 45% of my stack. If I'm going to go for it I almost have to jam, would have been about 1/3 of their stack. I can't even be sure they would have folded. Not sure what I will do in the future.

Either way it earned me 5 buy-ins, so that's a bonus. Would have been 6 if I didn't accidentally register for the wrong tournament that was on last round of reg 

Thanks for looking at my hands guys. I'll respond soon. Just wanted to take a moment to review these 2.

Well we know I'm already so bad at giving up paired broadways. QQ was right on the cusp and completely situational. This one I would have probably folded. I know you said they had been aggressive, but how loose was the UTG with his entire stack? I'm less worried about the SB big stack because I think he's trying to isolate or push you guys off. The call from UTG, makes me think AA or KK, maybe something like AK but not much else given he's going into 2 people and probably assumes you are committed.
I can't believe I'm saying this but I would likely be putting him All-in guessing he has an overpair or maybe something like 88 or 99, he might just be assuming you missed the board and were bluffing your c-bet. With him not jamming there I'm guessing he's hoping for a fold. I'm guessing with your bet size you were hoping to hit the flush and get stacks in anyways once you were sure. You could just flat it and see the turn to save some chips but some people will still fold holding on to their last 10BB or so.

Now given how late it is and that it would leave you with sub 20 BB, it could be a case for just folding them and waiting for something more sure.

55 - steamtyme

You've been legendary long before now to many.

I just remove personality from it and you are left with Good or Bad, which you would have to derive from their actions/behavior. This is going to be subjective based on who is casting judgement. In going through this you would be pointing to whatever the person has done to trigger that decision in tipping the scales for you to be confident in assessing them as a risk. This would then become your reference for the feedback.

Then pointing to the quoted portion I used in my previous reply, if the majority then agrees with it the feedback would be valid. The reference should be accurate and strong enough to warrant the proactive tag you decide to place. Active scam hunting will bring this about and there will rarely be a unanimous agreement. That alone doesn't necessarily mean you are abusing or misusing the system. Some will ~ maybe, some will include you. Then when it comes around to DT-1 there will be a more active discussion possibly on the validity of your ratings.
Touched on this above. I believe it comes down to actions. Take my stance on tagging accounts that use locked and self moderated sales topics to prevent legitimate discussion on their thread and lure people off forum for dealings. These actions and behaviors put up flags for me, but not everyone.

If you take personality out of the sentence how would you proceed. If someone is a blatant liar or has shown a dishonest approach to life it seems reasonable they would be a potential trade risk. Adding personality to the end of those descriptors makes no sense apart from trying to bridge the gap and bring personalities into the fold of taggable offences.

It does open up what you consider to be a lie and dishonest but I think that's covered in this portion.

Here's the final play on that hand. I took it down
Hero bets 2355.00
Villain calls 2355.00 [Ac 9c]

So my thoughts on just calling as opposed to RRAI the flop  was that he would continue to barrel on the turn. I thought he had something like 88+, and any Axs , A9o+, KTs+, and maybe some KQ KJ off. The 3-bet was worrisome at first but I credited it more to his stack size than his overall hand strength. I didn't want to scare him off with a 3-bet on the flop, I was confident in the hand I had and wanted to let him push the action being in position. The turn really F'd that up I think, as he shut down, and I was not feeling it at all. I know I didn't have him on many 5's but the thought was still bouncing around in my head. The river had to be bet, and I likely would have called a re-raise up to 9000ish.

It was KQs fixed it in the post. Yeah the ranges I've been studying are definitely a higher variance, and I'm trying to apply it while not being mindless in situations. Part of it is a go for it Pre, and be ready to fold after evaluating post.
It was tough to say what he was pushing. I had him down to any pair, maybe not 2,3,4. AXs, 9Ts+,maybe AJo+, I didn't really put him on any gappers which is why I was surprised at the end. It seemed like a bold shove. If my stack had been 18000 or less I probably would have laid this one down. Stack size and perceived odds made it seem like a good call here, I toss it up to being a flip, but not one that puts my tournament life on the line.

Your game sounds like it would be crazy. I'd likely just be handing over cash trying to wrap my head around the side bet portions. Not sure if friends was popular where you are but it reminds me of "cups"  

Shit my bad that's who I was thinking of  . I was assuming this list was older and Whatsminer hadn't broke out yet as a real competitor. Apart from the likes of Bitfury I can't think of who else was even producing gear at the time whatsminer launched their first miners, and earlier.

All I can say is that the numbers are likely accurate and only represent the small selection of manufacturers that produced large amounts of gear. Despite them having absolutely shit hardware with massive failure rates, and shit customer service they pumped out a large amount of gear and presumably produced a couple of NEX-gen miners in late 2018/early 2019 though I don't think anyone ever saw them. Where did you see the listing? How old was it? I'm guessing it looked something like this.

1-Bitmain 2-Canaan 3- Whatsminer 4- Ebit

Below is the most recent post encompassing the trust system by theymos. I want it to have it's own topic in reputation for people to view periodically as needed.

I do not intend for this to be a discussion thread, maybe that changes but for now follow the link and discuss it in meta. I am leaving it self-moderated to remove discussion topics but want anyone to be able to bump this if I'm not keeping up with it; as I feel it is Page 1 worthy.

---

Quoted from Re: theymos could you sticky your intent on the reputation board on January 30, 2020, 09:13:15 PM

"LoyceV's guide seems reasonable.

The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.

In part, the idea of the system is to organically build up & enforce a community consensus on appropriate trading behavior. However, those parts of the consensus which have less agreement should be more difficult to apply than those parts which have widespread agreement, and also subject to change. Everyone agrees that if Alice promises Bob 1 BTC for $8000 and doesn't pay it, that warrants flags & ratings, and it should be very easy to create these flags and ratings. If Alice promotes something without disclosing that she was paid to do so, and the thing later turns out to be a scam, then 65% of the community will call this highly shady behavior, and 35% will call it not a contractual violation and therefore more-or-less fine; it may be possible to make flags and/or ratings stick, but the people doing so should feel as though they are on less solid ground, and maybe the community consensus on this will shift against them (depending on the exact facts of the case, politicking by interested parties, etc.). I refuse to set down a single "correct" philosophy on ethical behavior, since this would permanently divide & diminish the community, and I am not such a wise philosopher that I feel the moral authority to do so.

For ratings and type-1 flags, proactive scam-hunting is good! But as explained above, if you're acting near the edge of community consensus, it should be more difficult. If the community is not overwhelmingly behind you on your scam hunting, then it's probably going to end up creating more drama, division, paranoia, and tribalism than the possible scam-avoidance benefit is worth.

Ratings

 - Leave positive ratings if you actively think that trading with this person is safer than with a random person.
 - Leave negative ratings if you actively think that trading with the person is less safe than with a random person.
 - Unstable behavior could very occasionally be an acceptable reason for leaving negative trust, but if it looks like you're leaving negative trust due to personal disagreements, then that's inappropriate. Ratings are not for popularity contests, virtue signalling, punishing people for your idea of wrongthink, etc.
 - Post-flags, ratings have less impact. It's only an orange number. Some amount of "leave ratings first, ask questions later" may be OK. For example, if you thought that YoBit was a serious ongoing scam, the promotion of which was extremely problematic, then it'd be a sane use of the system to immediately leave negative trust for everyone wearing a YoBit signature. (I don't necessarily endorse this viewpoint or this action: various parts of the issue are highly subjective. But while I wouldn't blame people for excluding someone who did this, I wouldn't call it an abuse of the system.)
 - Exercise a lot of forgiveness. People shouldn't be "permanently branded" as a result of small mistakes from which we've all moved past. Oftentimes, people get a rating due to unknowingly acting a bit outside of the community's consensus on appropriate behavior, and such ratings may indeed be appropriate. But if they correct the problem and don't seem likely to do it again, remove the rating or replace it with a neutral. Even if someone refuses to agree with the community consensus (ie. they refuse to back down philosophically), if they're willing to refrain from the behavior, their philosophical difference should not be used to justify a rating. For example, in the YoBit mass-ratings example above, ratings should be immediately removed after the person removes the signature, even if they maintain and continue to argue that they didn't do anything wrong. If someone agrees to "follow 'the law' without agreeing to it", that should be enough.
 
Flags

 - Use flags only for very serious and clear-cut things. They're an expression of ostracizing someone from the community due to serious, provable misconduct or really obvious red flags.
 - Use type-1 flags when the message which will be shown to newbies/guests is appropriate: "the creator of this topic displays some red flags which make them high-risk. [...] you should proceed with extreme caution."
 - Use type-2 and type-3 flags only if the person is absolutely guilty of contractual violations. Imagine a legal system in which there is no law but contract law, and consider if this person would owe damages.

Trust lists

 - If you find someone who has sent accurate trust actions and has no inaccurate/inappropriate trust actions, add them to your trust list. Inclusion in trust lists is a more a mark of useful contributions than your trust in them, though at least a little trust is necessary.
 - If you think that someone is not using the trust system appropriately, or if you disagree with some of their subjective determinations, exclude them from your trust list. If bad outcomes happen in DT, this is partly the fault/responsibility of: the bad actors themselves; DT1 who include the bad-actors; DT1 who don't exclude the bad-actors; DT1 who include or don't exclude failing DT1; anyone else who includes failing DT1. While it's best to spend some time trying to fix things at the lower levels before escalating it, it's reasonable to complain to any of those people, as I did regarding Lauda that one time, for example. (Of course, the system itself is probably also imperfect, and that's on me.)"

Below is the most recent post encompassing the trust system by theymos. I want it to have it's own topic in reputation for people to view periodically as needed.

I do not intend for this to be a discussion thread, maybe that changes but for now follow the link and discuss it in meta. I am leaving it self-moderated to remove discussion topics but want anyone to be able to bump this if I'm not keeping up with it; as I feel it is Page 1 worthy.
Quoted from Re: theymos could you sticky your intent on the reputation board on January 30, 2020, 09:13:15 PM

"LoyceV's guide seems reasonable.

The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.

In part, the idea of the system is to organically build up & enforce a community consensus on appropriate trading behavior. However, those parts of the consensus which have less agreement should be more difficult to apply than those parts which have widespread agreement, and also subject to change. Everyone agrees that if Alice promises Bob 1 BTC for $8000 and doesn't pay it, that warrants flags & ratings, and it should be very easy to create these flags and ratings. If Alice promotes something without disclosing that she was paid to do so, and the thing later turns out to be a scam, then 65% of the community will call this highly shady behavior, and 35% will call it not a contractual violation and therefore more-or-less fine; it may be possible to make flags and/or ratings stick, but the people doing so should feel as though they are on less solid ground, and maybe the community consensus on this will shift against them (depending on the exact facts of the case, politicking by interested parties, etc.). I refuse to set down a single "correct" philosophy on ethical behavior, since this would permanently divide & diminish the community, and I am not such a wise philosopher that I feel the moral authority to do so.

For ratings and type-1 flags, proactive scam-hunting is good! But as explained above, if you're acting near the edge of community consensus, it should be more difficult. If the community is not overwhelmingly behind you on your scam hunting, then it's probably going to end up creating more drama, division, paranoia, and tribalism than the possible scam-avoidance benefit is worth.

Ratings

 - Leave positive ratings if you actively think that trading with this person is safer than with a random person.
 - Leave negative ratings if you actively think that trading with the person is less safe than with a random person.
 - Unstable behavior could very occasionally be an acceptable reason for leaving negative trust, but if it looks like you're leaving negative trust due to personal disagreements, then that's inappropriate. Ratings are not for popularity contests, virtue signalling, punishing people for your idea of wrongthink, etc.
 - Post-flags, ratings have less impact. It's only an orange number. Some amount of "leave ratings first, ask questions later" may be OK. For example, if you thought that YoBit was a serious ongoing scam, the promotion of which was extremely problematic, then it'd be a sane use of the system to immediately leave negative trust for everyone wearing a YoBit signature. (I don't necessarily endorse this viewpoint or this action: various parts of the issue are highly subjective. But while I wouldn't blame people for excluding someone who did this, I wouldn't call it an abuse of the system.)
 - Exercise a lot of forgiveness. People shouldn't be "permanently branded" as a result of small mistakes from which we've all moved past. Oftentimes, people get a rating due to unknowingly acting a bit outside of the community's consensus on appropriate behavior, and such ratings may indeed be appropriate. But if they correct the problem and don't seem likely to do it again, remove the rating or replace it with a neutral. Even if someone refuses to agree with the community consensus (ie. they refuse to back down philosophically), if they're willing to refrain from the behavior, their philosophical difference should not be used to justify a rating. For example, in the YoBit mass-ratings example above, ratings should be immediately removed after the person removes the signature, even if they maintain and continue to argue that they didn't do anything wrong. If someone agrees to "follow 'the law' without agreeing to it", that should be enough.
 
Flags

 - Use flags only for very serious and clear-cut things. They're an expression of ostracizing someone from the community due to serious, provable misconduct or really obvious red flags.
 - Use type-1 flags when the message which will be shown to newbies/guests is appropriate: "the creator of this topic displays some red flags which make them high-risk. [...] you should proceed with extreme caution."
 - Use type-2 and type-3 flags only if the person is absolutely guilty of contractual violations. Imagine a legal system in which there is no law but contract law, and consider if this person would owe damages.

Trust lists

 - If you find someone who has sent accurate trust actions and has no inaccurate/inappropriate trust actions, add them to your trust list. Inclusion in trust lists is a more a mark of useful contributions than your trust in them, though at least a little trust is necessary.
 - If you think that someone is not using the trust system appropriately, or if you disagree with some of their subjective determinations, exclude them from your trust list. If bad outcomes happen in DT, this is partly the fault/responsibility of: the bad actors themselves; DT1 who include the bad-actors; DT1 who don't exclude the bad-actors; DT1 who include or don't exclude failing DT1; anyone else who includes failing DT1. While it's best to spend some time trying to fix things at the lower levels before escalating it, it's reasonable to complain to any of those people, as I did regarding Lauda that one time, for example. (Of course, the system itself is probably also imperfect, and that's on me.)"

Glad this generated some discussion and a response. I try not posting a topic like this when I will be afk for the next few hours but figured it would get the ball rolling with or without me here discussing it. I think some missed the point of what I wanted out of this, and what I got from theymos was more than I had expected. I was not looking for policing or punishments or hard and fast rules, just clarification and opinion after seeing how the system has progressed and been used/misused.

There are many veteran members whom I've long given up on trying to discuss the system with, it was going no where. Some have been more receptive and even come around prior to this, with some seemingly regretting it soon after. My biggest concern was that as veteran or more noticeable members of the forum we set an example whether we want to or not to new/junior members on how this community should function. Similar to real life the loudest and most opinionated are the most visible and heard, which isn't always the best and many get sick of it or wore down in trying to defend the intent of an idea. I think this was a healthy addition to what was previously written in the [ANN] of the new system, and will be useful going forward.

People will abuse or deliberately try to use a system as they see fit. That isn't going to change and I would be foolish to believe that now everyone will just fall in line. I do feel strongly however that this will help shape the use of the majority towards appropriate feedback and flag usage in the future.

I am going to post this quote on the reputation board in a self moderated topic so that anyone can bump it at will, as I'm not always going to be able to keep it on page 1. I'm doing this as I want it to be visible continuously, which the quote in my OP was not. I'm open to opinions on if people think that is the place to discuss it or not, but am more inclined to let this thread be the discussion, and keep that one clean.

You missed my point a little here. I knew where to look for the quote and several others. The problem is they were scattered, hidden and buried. What benefit does that do for members who might try to educate themselves on the system. Like I said that quote in itself was the most recent I believe, and was buried as a paragraph that most members wouldn't find, without being led there by someone else. More people learn from what they see, and can be biased towards whether they like someone in deciding what they feel is right.
While my plan was similar to what LoyceV said about creating a topic myself, I wanted to publicly see if theymos felt like giving an update or would create the topic himself. It just means more as the architect behind the system, and as someone who people may be more inclined to listen to.

Edit: Reputation thread created Trust system - Feedback - Flags - intent - idealogy by theymos

It seems there is a growing disagreement/misunderstanding on the appropriate use of feedback, I know shocking. Hell I might even be the one who misunderstands how feedback should be left, though I feel it's fairly self explanatory. Some out there feel it is wildly open to interpretation, without some sort of statement made by you. All I'm asking for is a sticky at the top of the reputation board that can serve to replace people needing to piece together snipits you've posted in various locations. Lay out your intent behind the 3 levels of feedback, and maybe an example or 2 of what falls outside acceptable use in your opinion.

This would also be a nice update so people aren't relying on posts from several years ago when the trust system landscape was vastly different. Given that the system has been in place for some time now, you can see how it has been used or misused, and if you like the direction it's going. Paint with broad strokes if you like, but anything would help clarify things for newer members who are grappling between opposing views on what is an acceptable use. Think of it as adding to the net benefit the system brings the forum as a whole.

Below is the best quote I can think of by you for the intended use. The problem is it's in a topic floating in meta, and the title doesn't reference the feedback portion making it difficult for users to find. Title "Trust Flags"

Edit: Reply from theymos below
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221908.msg53741011#msg53741011

Do whatever you want. If you feel you should be compensated then put that out there.
I don't know what sort of meetup you hosted or what the idea behind it was. If you are bringing complete newbies into the space though, you should expect follow up questions. Were you planning to host these meetups on a continual basis? If yes, you should tell them to send their questions and you will address them at the next meetup. This helps create boundaries and sets expectations for when they should expect answers. The meetups themselves could then be centered around answering group questions - these could be pooled or asked in a discord channel or something similar and anyone could then brainstorm/research the answers.

Now some people just want to be spoon fed everything so for them you could promote yourself as a paid tutor/guide. Set a fee and if they are willing to pay it then there you go, if not, then you can explain it's a service you provide for a fee. I've attended a local meetup that's been running for years, and they also do another one strictly for newbies. The one I attend has a 5$ fee, that covers a delicious meal and coffee though so it's not exactly the same thing. They are just trying to grow the crypto space.

It really comes down to what your plan for these meetups was, and how you want to execute it.

Even without the laptop pressure your stack was worthy of it, I was having a hard time near the end waiting for the final dead money to blind out. I really shouldn't have even got into that one hand where I called down until the jam on the river. Pocket 10's were almost my undoing lol

It was fun, and I'll definitely be in for the next one schedule permitting. Hopefully I'll be at home as I'd prefer not to play on mobile next time. To annoying to try and make custom betsizing.

That's great advice I played a few just to get the feel for it on my phone.

If I am at home next time around I'll see about doing a screen capture and then maybe put together a little video just editing out dead time in between . Might be interesting to watch, I'll be able to capture everything from whatever table I'm at, and if people want to discuss their plays afterwards it would be pretty cool I think.

Weird I thought I deleted that when they moved it out of meta lol. I was trying to reach other forum members who don't really pop into the gambling section but might enjoy a game.