I'm ot going to put general internet acronyms in there, but I will add GII and MHIG.

VPIP, PFR, SPR

Added, thanks.

Thanks for doing this, Garick. Couple more:

HU (heads-up)
MW (multiway)

Good ones. Added.

COTW?

Sent from my Z851M using Tapatalk

Concept of the Week. A series of threads in the micro full ring forum some years back. This forum doesn't move as fast, so our series is COTM (month). You can find them in the Best of LLSNL sticky.

I've been off 2p2 for a couple of years, and am curious when the whole 'black guy' / 'white guy' thing started being a thing.

If this topic has been covered already at length please direct me to the thread in question. Otherwise, I'm a little 'wtf'. Can we not see this is the literal definition of racism - judging people on the colour of their skin? Racial profiling is dubious at best but could potentially be justified if security is what's on the line, i.e. at airports, but when the best outcome is your wallet gets a little fatter, any sort of justification starts to feel a little shaky.

Not to mention that in my 12+ years of playing live poker for a living, I do not remember a single time that race affected my decision, nor even how it could have done. Nor have I ever heard anyone refer to it on this forum before I started posting again, nor while discussing hands with anyone irl, recs and regs alike.

Could anyone actually give me a solid, justifiable example where you might change your play based on racist stereotypes? I'm genuinely curious.

I'm not sure it's relevant except for Asian guys Do you think that age is relevant to how an unknown may play often enough to justify mention?

Mawg, the "wg" makes the acronym a bit longer and less likely to be misinterpreted so I think it has some value over just "mag" or "map" if you want to replace "guy" with "person" because sex doesn't matter either, right?

Could have yaer, maer and oaer for young ager, middle ager and old ager.

You said you've been away for a few years but mawg has been around forever, no? Have I misunderstood what you're talking about?

I do not ever remember seeing 'mawg' and similar.

With no data at all, I have had to take into account someones appearance in order to inform my reads. Yes, age, sex and clothing have all informed my decisions over the years. I often go to play poker in the vic, london, which is in a very muslim / arabic area, and you'll often see rich arabs in there playing badly. But the fact that they're arabs has not ever nor could it ever have informed my sight-unseen reads more than the facts that, for example, the guy is wearing a suit but doesn't look like he works, and is middle-aged, and he handles his chips like a rec.

Yes, I pigeonhole players based on their appearances, out of necessity, just like you all do, but not based on the colour of their skin, a) because it doesn't help at all, and b) it's racist to judge someone on the colour of their skin.

Sometimes politically-sensitive descriptors are needed to point someone out. 'You're looking for a tall black guy with a scarf'. In my book, that's ok, because there's no value judgments inherent in the statement. If you're asking your buddy how to play a hand and he needs you to refer to their race, implicit in that detail is that different races play better or worse than others.

I'm kinda surprised this hasn't come up before, in the form of someone coming into a thread and saying 'hey hold on, why does it matter that villain is black? I'm black, what are you suggesting?' But then again, this kinda chat would probably turn a lot of people away and they may not bother to make a complaint, so you don't even realize that people are getting upset at what you think is entirely innocent.

"judge" is maybe not the right word. I don't think it is always meant to mean a player is good or bad. Good or bad is not a useful description anyway -- okay so a player's a fish, so what? How do they play bad, how can you take advantage?

But I agree it's not helpful. If there's any meaning in the race of a player, it would only be relevant on a regional level due to local socio-economic factors. Not worth mentioning on an international forum.

Gender too, for that matter. Sure, there aren't a lot of good female players. There aren't a lot of good male players either. It just seems like there are because there are so many more men playing in total.

Skin color doesn't influence how people play poker. Cultural background does. Ethnicity does not determine culture, but they often go together. This does not replace individual reads, but like age and clothing can offer hints for population reads.

It has nothing to do with judging and everything to do with getting what reads one can, absent other info.

You'll rarely see the acronyms used if anyone has more solid reads on a V, but will see them in HHs where hero is new to the table.

Obviously, beware of stereotypes, especially if a V seems competent enough to use the image their stereotype gives against you. But if you have nothing else to go on, a MAWG is more likely to be l/p than average.

So not racism, but statistical discrimination.

I agree with everything in your post up to this point.

Different cultures might relate to gambling in different, quantifiable ways, but I'd be shocked if you were to take a representative poll of poker players and ask them exactly the above: how does skin colour relate to your unseen reads? Neither sociology nor science would be able to give an answer to how or why that might be case, nor have I every met anyone who referenced race in their reads. Are you quite sure that a 'mawg' is more likely to be l/p than average? And if so, by how much? Could it be that, actually, you're right, but the effect is so minimal as to be not worth your time? How could you verify that you're right?

What if you're wrong?

Of course you might be wrong. That's why I said to beware. If you combine ethnicity with clothing, jewelry, grooming style, etc., though, you often have a good initial read. If I see a middle-aged Mediterranean guy dressed a little sloppy with big gold jewelry and a short beard, I feel pretty confident that he's gonna be gambly.

Even with that additional info, it's just an initial read and you really need to pay attention to Vs as individuals, as statistical likelihood is no substitute for actual observation.

All that said, this is just the acronym thread. There are threads out there on reads that this discussion would fit better in.

Why is this derail even being entertained? Thread is for commonly used acronyms, not debating whether they should be included in HH or not. OP should start a new thread somewhere else...

It's a reasonable issue to debate; but this is not the thread in which to debate it. Mods....?

For what it's worth, in my player notes I use acronyms like MAWG, YBG, MAAW, etc., as descriptions. e.g.: "YWG, beard, sunglasses, Red Sox ballcap, blue hoodie, headphones." As it happens the YWG descriptor is less likely to contribute to any profiling I might do than some of the other description.

This mod already noted above that this isn't really the thread for discussing it.

Debate it in a thread elsewhere, or don't, I'm not here to debate, I just wanted to point out to you that this may not sit right with some, do whatever you want with that info

this is pretty good

OTTH is missing.

Clearly, the thread is TL;DR.

Added, thanks.

what is I/rr?