Replying To Daniel Negreanu

[David Sklansky]

This is a repost of how I replied to Daniel in a different thread. Its too important to have it lay buried because of the subject matter, because of Daniel's stature, and because it should teach people a lesson. Namely, don't criticize someone based on second hand information. Especially if first hand information is readily available. (This appears to be the second time Daniel has done this by the way. The first being when he heard an innacurate report about my comments about his head up challenge.)

Someone originally posted that it seemed I was saying in an essay in Poker Gaming and Life, that it can never be logically right to risk your life. Daniel quoted him, then gave an example that seemed to refute me. But he never read the actual chapter. What follows is the original post, Daniel's response and my response to him.

(Original Post)
"I have read "Poker, Gaming & Life" by David Sklanksy (is it socially acceptable to admit this in this forum?) and most of it seems logically correct, and is interesting, but one bit I disagree with

Basically DS says that it is illogical for some one to take a 1 in 1000 chance of dying for $25,000. He reasons no one would accept $2.5 million and take certain death, and this has the same mathematical EV as the 1 in 1000 case, therefore it is illogical to take the 1 in 1000 chance of dying for any amount of money.

I would quote a few paragraphs, but I'm not sure about the legality and morality of that or whatever

anyway, before I get into this, I thought I'd let Sklansky confirm or deny this claim, maybe I have missinterpreted what he was trying to say or whatever, but it looks to me like a big mistake "

(Part of Daniel's Reply)
"It's comments or posts like these that show me how disconnected some people can be to human emotion. By not factoring in human emotion you'll often come to the WRONG conclusion as David did here. Here is an example where taking this chance would be ENTIRELY logical:

A father see's that his son needs a transplant or he will die. He has no medical insurance and no way of paying for the procedure for his son which costs $25,000.

"Some goofy scientist tells him that if he can retrieve a rare poisonous bird from the wild he'll give him $25,000. Let's say the odds of him dying in the process are 1000 to 1.

Would it be "illogical" for this father to try and save his son?

Love isn't logical David."


(My reply to Daniel)
Here is what I wrote in Poker Gaming and Life:

".....If you are not willing to take $100,000 to be fired, you shouldn't take a one in 100 chance of being fired to gain $1000.........It should be obvious why this same type of analysis FALLS APART when you are risking your life,...."

Later on this:

"There are times however when it is logically correct to risk your life. I will mention three:

1. When you are trying to prevent something even worse than death, such as torture OR YOUR CHILD DYING.

2. When you are trying to prevent something almost as bad as death, such as slavery, and the risks of dying are small.

3. When not taking the risk results in an even greater risk of dying for you or (if you want to be altruistic) FOR OTHERS."

[Daniel Negreanu]

Hey good one David! Obviously all I read was the OP and that's clearly not accurate according to what you wrote. My apologies for assuming that he gave us all the correct information.

It doesn't however change my overall opinion that you'll often underestimate human emotion when related to poker. That's just in your nature being such an analytical person.

Your strengths lie in numbers rather than understanding human emotion and WHY people do what they do. In a nutshell, you being a math major versus a physchology major has a significant impact not only on how you play poker, but also how you approach thinking about it.

That's not really a knock on you at all. Not everyone excels at the same things. For example, I spend much less time worrying about the mathematical side of the game and much more time thinking about things like, "With John Doe being recently divorced, how is that going to change the way he plays the river?"

IMO, to be a great poker player it takes a steady diet of BOTH types of thinking. I think you'd agree with that broad generalization.

[JoshuaD]

It would be really funny if "Daniel Negreanu" wasn't actually Daniel N, and just a really good gimmick account.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a repost of how I replied to Daniel in a different thread. Its too important to have it lay buried because of the subject matter, because of Daniel's stature, and because it should teach people a lesson. Namely, don't criticize someone based on second hand information. Especially if first hand information is readily available. (This appears to be the second time Daniel has done this by the way. The first being when he heard an innacurate report about my comments about his head up challenge.)

Someone originally posted that it seemed I was saying in an essay in Poker Gaming and Life, that it can never be logically right to risk your life. Daniel quoted him, then gave an example that seemed to refute me. But he never read the actual chapter. What follows is the original post, Daniel's response and my response to him.

(Original Post)
"I have read "Poker, Gaming & Life" by David Sklanksy (is it socially acceptable to admit this in this forum?) and most of it seems logically correct, and is interesting, but one bit I disagree with

Basically DS says that it is illogical for some one to take a 1 in 1000 chance of dying for $25,000. He reasons no one would accept $2.5 million and take certain death, and this has the same mathematical EV as the 1 in 1000 case, therefore it is illogical to take the 1 in 1000 chance of dying for any amount of money.

I would quote a few paragraphs, but I'm not sure about the legality and morality of that or whatever

anyway, before I get into this, I thought I'd let Sklansky confirm or deny this claim, maybe I have missinterpreted what he was trying to say or whatever, but it looks to me like a big mistake "

(Part of Daniel's Reply)
"It's comments or posts like these that show me how disconnected some people can be to human emotion. By not factoring in human emotion you'll often come to the WRONG conclusion as David did here. Here is an example where taking this chance would be ENTIRELY logical:

A father see's that his son needs a transplant or he will die. He has no medical insurance and no way of paying for the procedure for his son which costs $25,000.

"Some goofy scientist tells him that if he can retrieve a rare poisonous bird from the wild he'll give him $25,000. Let's say the odds of him dying in the process are 1000 to 1.

Would it be "illogical" for this father to try and save his son?

Love isn't logical David."


(My reply to Daniel)
Here is what I wrote in Poker Gaming and Life:

".....If you are not willing to take $100,000 to be fired, you shouldn't take a one in 100 chance of being fired to gain $1000.........It should be obvious why this same type of analysis FALLS APART when you are risking your life,...."

Later on this:

"There are times however when it is logically correct to risk your life. I will mention three:

1. When you are trying to prevent something even worse than death, such as torture OR YOUR CHILD DYING.

2. When you are trying to prevent something almost as bad as death, such as slavery, and the risks of dying are small.

3. When not taking the risk results in an even greater risk of dying for you or (if you want to be altruistic) FOR OTHERS."

[/ QUOTE ]

Something David leaves out is his part in this misunderstanding. Jazza made the original post on that thread. Then David replied to Jazza's post with this:

DS --
"There are various flaws in that EV calculation argument when the chance of dying is tiny and the rewards are huge."

David makes no attempt to clarify Jazza's description of the article. In fact he infers that Jazza's description is correct except for a flaw in a special case of it. Only later, after many people have responded based on Jazza's original post and based on David's original response, and only after Daniel Negreanu has taken the bait does David give the clear explanation he shows above:

DS --
".....If you are not willing to take $100,000 to be fired, you shouldn't take a one in 100 chance of being fired to gain $1000.........It should be obvious why this same type of analysis FALLS APART when you are risking your life,...."

If he had given this explanation immediately instead of the misleading one he did choose to give, "There are various flaws in that EV calculation argument when the chance of dying is tiny and the rewards are huge", there would have been no cause for confusion.

David did not choose to mitigate the damages from Jazza's innacurate post. Instead David chose to reply in a way that exacerbated the damages. Jazza made an accident possible, but David gave it the green light. A case could be made that David owes some apologies, not only to Daniel but to everyone who took the bait on that thread.

The reply shown by Daniel on this thread is NOT a reply to David's post on this thread. It was his response to David's finally revealing the truth on the other thread. It included an apology and a friendly opinion. David's response to Daniel's apology is his OP on this thread.

It would be nice to have Daniel's participation on these boards. I wonder if David will allow it.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

Hi Daniel,

Apology accepted (assuming you now buy the book.)

I'm also glad to see you come here. (It makes Mason more money.)

As to this:

"In a nutshell, you being a math major versus a physchology major has a significant impact not only on how you play poker, but also how you approach thinking about it."

I don't think about poker quite the way you think I do. You haven't played with me much, especially in games where I am comfortable with the stakes and I am not distracted. So you are relying on a non representative sample of observations, things I write, and conversations I've had with you. But my writings are purposely more technically oriented than my "thoughts" for the sake of my readers who are playing mainly in games where the fundamntals are so important. My conversations with you have been of the logical puzzle variety because they have definite answers, I find them amusing and you have done so well with them. (Oddly it almost seems like you are EMBARRASSED by the fact that only you and Howard Lederer got almost all of them.) But again you can't deduce from those puzzles what goes through my mind regarding poker strategy. It is definitely less technical than you assume. (There ARE some situations, notably all in preflop ones, where I believe one must defer to the math and am quite sure those who don't are costing themselves money. Harrington and Ferguson agree with me and if you don't, you're probably wrong. But situations like this are relatively rare.)

The main reason I feel compelled to dispute your quote by the way, is for the good of the readers of these forums. I am quite sure that 95% underestimate the degree of importance I place on non mathematical factors when playing higer stakes poker. And 98% underestimate the degree of importance you DO place on mathematical factors (especially in a ring game). You may not realize it yourself because it has become second nature to you. But you would be doing these readers a favor if you admit that most of your thoughts are NOT on whether an opponent is in the midst of a divorce.

[David Sklansky]

"David did not choose to mitigate the damages from Jazza's innacurate post. Instead David chose to reply in a way that exacerbated the damages. Jazza made an accident possible, but David gave it the green light."

Did you think this was like a TV show where I was trying to trap everybody? I didn't set the record straight because I forgot the gist of the chapter (which by the way relates to war more than anything else). I just reread it an hour ago and thats when I put up my post.

"It would be nice to have Daniel's participation on these boards. I wonder if David will allow it."

PairTheBoard

Are you OK? I'm starting to worry about you.

[David Sklansky]

"The reply shown by Daniel on this thread is NOT a reply to David's post on this thread. It was his response to David's finally revealing the truth on the other thread. It included an apology and a friendly opinion. David's response to Daniel's apology is his OP on this thread."

The original post on this thread was written before I knew Daniel apologized on the other thread. Daniel reposted his apology here. What are you trying to say?

[PairTheBoard]

DS --
"Are you OK? I'm starting to worry about you. "

That's so sweet of you to worry David. Yes I'm fine. Although you never know when I might need rehab for something like this:

Credit ThrysiodB
================
news story....A WEST NYACK, N.Y. MAN was found dead at his computer apparently the victim of trying to keep up with too many professional forums. Childress H. Wanamaker, 54, an account executive at a New York-based new media company, died of starvation according to the West Nyack coroner's office. Wanamaker's emaciated body was found by Loraine, his wife of 26 years, who told MediaPost she had been bringing her husband meals on plastic trays for weeks, but that he never took the time to eat them.

"He was glued to his computer 24/7," she said tearfully. "He was so afraid he was going to miss an opportunity to contribute a comment or start a discussion, that he just stopped eating." She added that Wanamaker's last words were "OK Picard, stick that in your pipe and smoke it..."

Computer forensic specialists from SUNY at Cortland discovered that Wanamaker was subscribed to 48 different forums and networking communities including one apparently having to do with the elderly called "oldtimers" and another apparently limited to just 100 people. They also found that he posted a comment into one forum or another on an average of two per minute every hour of the day for the past seven weeks.

"He felt under terrible pressure to be part of the online community," said his son, Lucian, who says he tried several times to get his father's attention and lure him away from the computer. "The only time he even looked up was when I told him I had seen Dane Madsen trying to steal his car out of the driveway."

Police found what appeared to be an organization chart taped to the wall of Wanamaker's den with lines linking small photos of people unknown to the police including a Tom Hespos and an Adam Boettiger. Neither is considered a suspect in Wanamaker's death.

"Once, I thought I had him," said Lucian Wanamaker, "when I said that mom had made cookies, but half out of his chair, he just sat back down mumbling something about two Roman gods; I believe it was Jupiter and Atlas having some sort of titanic battle. 'Let them eat PIE,' he bellowed banging on his keyboard."

Computer forensic specialists reported that there was no order or continuity to Wanamaker's forum postings. "It looks like he just sort of randomly commented on whatever was in the discussion string at the time," said Stephen Hall, CUNY-Cortland adjunct professor of intemperate and impulsive behavior. "He let nothing go by unchallenged by his own point of view, nor failed to respond to any other community member asking for advice or a new job. This consumed not only 24 hours a day, but also, apparently, his physical health."

In what must be a record, Wanamaker was linked into to over 15,250 other community members, many of whom he exchanged notes with daily. He also contributed to 375 blogs and was expected to start an online column about the impact of interactive communications on health, when he died.

A virtual memorial service will be held online at a date to be determined.

--------------------
If anyone needs me, I'll be banging my head against the wall for an hour or two. I've got to knock some sense out of my head if I'm going to survive the next few years.
================


PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
"The reply shown by Daniel on this thread is NOT a reply to David's post on this thread. It was his response to David's finally revealing the truth on the other thread. It included an apology and a friendly opinion. David's response to Daniel's apology is his OP on this thread."

The original post on this thread was written before I knew Daniel apologized on the other thread. Daniel reposted his apology here. What are you trying to say?

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted my comment after I'd read your OP but before I realized Daniel's reply on the other thread and Daniel's reply on this thread were made after my response on the original thread but before my reply to my response on that thread here on this thread.

PairTheBoard

[Jazza]

jeez, did no one see this in my OP?

[ QUOTE ]
maybe I have missinterpreted what he was trying to say

[/ QUOTE ]

[laurentia]

Your argument that one shouldn't take even the smallest risks of dying would only be correct if when not taking risks one could expect to live forever.
If one's expectation of dying sooner or later is practically 100% then everything is negotiable for either money or for experiences. On the other hand one's possible infinite experiences can't be bought for finite amounts of money.

[AndysDaddy]

I think this factor is huge - you're not going to live forever, so you are not risking an infinite amount. This is obvious, as we all take risks to our lives every day - driving a car, playing sports, or making that clever quip after a massive suckout on the big burly guy in seat 4.
--
Scott

[slickpoppa]

Daniel, you should join our debates on religion. I'd love to see you and DS trade jabs on that subject.

[ihardlyknowher]

[ QUOTE ]
news story....A WEST NYACK, N.Y. MAN was found dead at his computer apparently the victim of trying to keep up with too many professional forums. Childress H. Wanamaker, 54, an account executive at a New York-based new media company, died of starvation according to the West Nyack coroner's office. Wanamaker's emaciated body was found by Loraine, his wife of 26 years, who told MediaPost she had been bringing her husband meals on plastic trays for weeks, but that he never took the time to eat them.

"He was glued to his computer 24/7," she said tearfully. "He was so afraid he was going to miss an opportunity to contribute a comment or start a discussion, that he just stopped eating." She added that Wanamaker's last words were "OK Picard, stick that in your pipe and smoke it..."

Computer forensic specialists from SUNY at Cortland discovered that Wanamaker was subscribed to 48 different forums and networking communities including one apparently having to do with the elderly called "oldtimers" and another apparently limited to just 100 people. They also found that he posted a comment into one forum or another on an average of two per minute every hour of the day for the past seven weeks.

"He felt under terrible pressure to be part of the online community," said his son, Lucian, who says he tried several times to get his father's attention and lure him away from the computer. "The only time he even looked up was when I told him I had seen Dane Madsen trying to steal his car out of the driveway."

Police found what appeared to be an organization chart taped to the wall of Wanamaker's den with lines linking small photos of people unknown to the police including a Tom Hespos and an Adam Boettiger. Neither is considered a suspect in Wanamaker's death.

"Once, I thought I had him," said Lucian Wanamaker, "when I said that mom had made cookies, but half out of his chair, he just sat back down mumbling something about two Roman gods; I believe it was Jupiter and Atlas having some sort of titanic battle. 'Let them eat PIE,' he bellowed banging on his keyboard."

Computer forensic specialists reported that there was no order or continuity to Wanamaker's forum postings. "It looks like he just sort of randomly commented on whatever was in the discussion string at the time," said Stephen Hall, CUNY-Cortland adjunct professor of intemperate and impulsive behavior. "He let nothing go by unchallenged by his own point of view, nor failed to respond to any other community member asking for advice or a new job. This consumed not only 24 hours a day, but also, apparently, his physical health."

In what must be a record, Wanamaker was linked into to over 15,250 other community members, many of whom he exchanged notes with daily. He also contributed to 375 blogs and was expected to start an online column about the impact of interactive communications on health, when he died.

A virtual memorial service will be held online at a date to be determined.

[/ QUOTE ]

Onion?

[Bjorn]

I actually have read "Poker, Gaming & Life" and found it a good read even though the final essay was very scary. (David you owe me a good nights sleep. Hint, don't finish this book at 1 in the morning.)

I do however also find your conclusions in this particular essay to be less than satisfactory. The big problem as I see it is that your argument seems to be based on your life having a fixed value which to my mind simply is not a very good description of things.

I think a much better model is to value your life as a product of your estimated lifespan times your estimated quality of life. (Or if we wanna get more mathematical an integral of your estimated quality of from now to your assumed time of death.)

If we take this aproach we might see that many liferisking endevors are actually quite rational and mathematicaly sound. (As an aside it also explains some suicides, assuming Quality of life is negative and likely to remain so.)

/Bjorn

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]

IMO, to be a great poker player it takes a steady diet of BOTH types of thinking. I think you'd agree with that broad generalization.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a good analogy would be analog to digital conversion. Like when George Lucas produces a new DVD. He needs to (1) Be really good at knowing what it is he wants to film (2) Be really good at converting it to his "digital" DVD format. (3) Be really good at working with his video even after its in digital.

The poker equivalent would be (1) Reading the hand situation, sensing the scene, mood, players, etc. (2) Converting that to a range of hands (3) Deciding what to do given that range of hands.

Inevitably we will make errors in all 3 measurements, but great players like yourselves make smaller errors. I think the second point might be the most important.

[andyfox]

"It would be nice to have Daniel's participation on these boards. I wonder if David would allow it."

David said:

"I'm also glad to see you come here. (It makes Mason more money.)"

So it appears not only would he allow it, he is "glad." Of course, he couldn't leave well enough along ("It makes Mason more money.") And just when I thought I was making some progress with him . . .

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
jeez, did no one see this in my OP?

[ QUOTE ]
maybe I have missinterpreted what he was trying to say

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw it but decided to gamble and assume you had interpreted it correctly.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
"It would be nice to have Daniel's participation on these boards. I wonder if David would allow it."

David said:

"I'm also glad to see you come here. (It makes Mason more money.)"

So it appears not only would he allow it, he is "glad." Of course, he couldn't leave well enough along ("It makes Mason more money.") And just when I thought I was making some progress with him . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Was the "Mason make more money" phrase in David's reply to Daneil's apology or in his reply to my Post? I can't remember. I thought David's reply to Daniel's apology was pretty gracious.

I hit submit on my post right around the same time David was hitting submit on his reply to Daniel's appology. Just like David submitted his original post right around the same time Daniel submitted his apology on the other thread. Daniel then resubmitted his apology on this thread and I made my original post here right around the same time David made his reply to Daniel's resubmitted apology on this thread. Simultaneous Posting can get very confusing.

Anyway, nice to see that David considers Daniel +EV.

PairTheBoard

[Darryl_P]

Good point about the finite length and therefore the finite value of life. I think this is the key to the whole issue and something DS failed to recognize in the original piece in the book (which I have purchased and read btw).

[IQ89]

[ QUOTE ]
I spend much less time worrying about the mathematical side of the game and much more time thinking about things like, "With John Doe being recently divorced, how is that going to change the way he plays the river?"

[/ QUOTE ]


I can't even remember my 'times tables,' but in regards to the example of how you say you think during a poker hand ("With John Doe being recently divorced, how is that going to change the way he plays the river?"), doesn't that ultimately end up being a math question? ie..."I know Mr. Doe just lost his shirt in a divorce, so I'm guessing there's a __% chance he won't be getting tricky on the river."

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
news story....A WEST NYACK, N.Y. MAN was found dead at his computer apparently the victim of trying to keep up with too many professional forums...

[/ QUOTE ]

Onion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Originally a satire on mediapost.com.

Link: http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/starved.asp

[David Sklansky]

"The reply shown by Daniel on this thread is NOT a reply to David's post on this thread. It was his response to David's finally revealing the truth on the other thread. It included an apology and a friendly opinion. David's response to Daniel's apology is his OP on this thread."

"I posted my comment after I'd read your OP but before I realized Daniel's reply on the other thread and Daniel's reply on this thread were made after my response on the original thread but before my reply to my response on that thread here on this thread."

"Was the "Mason make more money" phrase in David's reply to Daneil's apology or in his reply to my Post? I can't remember. I hit submit on my post right around the same time David was hitting submit on his reply to Daniel's appology. Just like David submitted his original post right around the same time Daniel submitted his apology on the other thread. Daniel then resubmitted his apology on this thread and I made my original post here right around the same time David made his reply to Daniel's resubmitted apology on this thread."

Pair The Board

Thank you for clearing the air.

[andyfox]

Maybe 2+2 can use him as an editor . . .

[David Sklansky]

"Good point about the finite length and therefore the finite value of life. I think this is the key to the whole issue and something DS failed to recognize in the original piece in the book (which I have purchased and read btw)."

I was not trying to be totally rigorous about risking your life. In spite of the title, the real subject matter was which if any wars are justified (given lots of people die). Would someone please reprint page 179.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
Good point about the finite length and therefore the finite value of life. I think this is the key to the whole issue and something DS failed to recognize in the original piece in the book (which I have purchased and read btw).

[/ QUOTE ]

I have not read the book. But saying that life has a finite length and thus a finite value seems a bit iffy. Perhaps the value of individual lives is finite in the grand scheme, whatever it may be, but in and of itself, a life is of infinite worth because it is all one has to perceive, which is our basic means of existence.

[BluffTHIS!]

Since I can type fast OK: (p. 179 Poker, Gaming & Life)

[ QUOTE ]
It would seem that at least one, if not all, of these criteria was met as far as World War II was concerned. The risk of death, even our own, should not have deterred us in that case. The Civil War, on the other hand, can be justified only if it was about slavery, not if it was simply to prevent the South from seceding. (Can you imagine risking dying, now, to prevent the people of Montana from starting their own peaceful country if they desire. You wouldn't like it, but is it worth killing and dying to prevent it?) I have my doubts about World War I, the Korean War, and others, but I don't know enough about them. As far as Vietnam is concerned, an odd fact makes this war easier to judge. The fact of which I'm speaking is that we lost; and were, thus, not able to prevent whatever we would have prevented had we won. We can see the consequences of our loss by looking at Vietnam today, and can judge whether the soldiers, who were taking maybe a 1 percent chance of dying, were getting a fair risk vs. reward ratio. If we had won, Vietnam certainly would have been a little different than it is today, but would that difference have been worth more than 50,000 American lives?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have 2 of my own comments on this:

1) Regarding whether Montana should be prevented from seceding by force, wouldn't we need more information, like the likelihood of Ray Zee becoming the dictator of Montana?

2) Regarding Vietnam, aren't you making what Mason criticizes as a results dependent analysis?

[David Sklansky]

"I have 2 of my own comments on this:

1) Regarding whether Montana should be prevented from seceding by force, wouldn't we need more information, like the likelihood of Ray Zee becoming the dictator of Montana?

2) Regarding Vietnam, aren't you making what Mason criticizes as a results dependent analysis?"

1. You are right.

2. Right again. I didn't mean to imply that going to war was unquestionably the wrong play from the standpoint of the decision makers back then. I only meant that we now know unquestionably that the war wasn't worth it.

Thanks for the typing.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Since I can type fast OK: (p. 179 Poker, Gaming & Life)

[ QUOTE ]
It would seem that at least one, if not all, of these criteria was met as far as World War II was concerned. The risk of death, even our own, should not have deterred us in that case. The Civil War, on the other hand, can be justified only if it was about slavery, not if it was simply to prevent the South from seceding. (Can you imagine risking dying, now, to prevent the people of Montana from starting their own peaceful country if they desire. You wouldn't like it, but is it worth killing and dying to prevent it?) I have my doubts about World War I, the Korean War, and others, but I don't know enough about them. As far as Vietnam is concerned, an odd fact makes this war easier to judge. The fact of which I'm speaking is that we lost; and were, thus, not able to prevent whatever we would have prevented had we won. We can see the consequences of our loss by looking at Vietnam today, and can judge whether the soldiers, who were taking maybe a 1 percent chance of dying, were getting a fair risk vs. reward ratio. If we had won, Vietnam certainly would have been a little different than it is today, but would that difference have been worth more than 50,000 American lives?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have 2 of my own comments on this:

1) Regarding whether Montana should be prevented from seceding by force, wouldn't we need more information, like the likelihood of Ray Zee becoming the dictator of Montana?

2) Regarding Vietnam, aren't you making what Mason criticizes as a results dependent analysis?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Vietnam argument is logical nonsense.

I believe it was argued that the soviets were intent on expanding slice by slice (the salami approach), the Vietnam war was required to make them understand they weren't going to be allowed to easily get away with it and that this objective was achieved.

As DS will no doubt agree, it matters not if this argument is correct. It is entirely possible that the fact of fighting the war had a massive effect on the future, whoever won. I suppose he can try to rescue his argument by saying that if the USA achieved its objective of halting Soviet expansion then they in fact won the war and so his error was factual not logical.

chez

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
The Vietnam argument is logical nonsense.

I believe it was argued that the soviets were intent on expanding slice by slice (the salami approach), the Vietnam war was required to make them understand they weren't going to be allowed to easily get away with it and that this objective was achieved.

As DS will no doubt agree, it matters not if this argument is correct. It is entirely possible that the fact of fighting the war had a massive effect on the future, whoever won. I suppose he can try to rescue his argument by saying that if the USA achieved its objective of halting Soviet expansion then they in fact won the war and so his error was factual not logical.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Well said. Also, contrary to popular belief, I do not believe that it was clear that we lost that war. Perhaps we didn't clearly win the guns and territory physical war on the ground, but it could be argued that in the end, we won that war by winning certain other objectives. What were we going to do if we 'won' Vietnam anyway? Occupy Vietnam? That's hardly a victory if you ask me.

[Daniel Negreanu]

[ QUOTE ]
Daniel, you should join our debates on religion. I'd love to see you and DS trade jabs on that subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Yeah, right after I go beat my head against the wall for a couple hours! Since believing in God DOES require a leap of faith, I believe it is impossible to both prove or disprove his existence.

I take exception to anyone who claims they have PROOF that God doesn't exist. I'd say the same thing to anyone who claims to prove that they have undebateable evidence that there is a God.

As for me. Based on both my faith and the literature I've read, I'd say the odds favor God's existence. That's of course my humble opinion and everyone is entitled to that.

I don't claim atheists to be "stupid" "ridiculous" or "illogical" people. I have been called all of those things, though, for my personal beliefs that not only did Jesus Christ exist, but that he was exactly who he said he was.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Daniel, you should join our debates on religion. I'd love to see you and DS trade jabs on that subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Yeah, right after I go beat my head against the wall for a couple hours! Since believing in God DOES require a leap of faith, I believe it is impossible to both prove or disprove his existence.

I take exception to anyone who claims they have PROOF that God doesn't exist. I'd say the same thing to anyone who claims to prove that they have undebateable evidence that there is a God.

As for me. Based on both my faith and the literature I've read, I'd say the odds favor God's existence. That's of course my humble opinion and everyone is entitled to that.

I don't claim atheists to be "stupid" "ridiculous" or "illogical" people. I have been called all of those things, though, for my personal beliefs that not only did Jesus Christ exist, but that he was exactly who he said he was.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmmm. And yet you solved all David's Puzzles. Curious.

PairTheBoard

[Saddlepoint]

[ QUOTE ]
Since believing in God DOES require a leap of faith, I believe it is impossible to both prove or disprove his existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Based on both my faith and the literature I've read, I'd say the odds favor God's existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are these two statements contradictory?

If the odds are in favor of God's existence, why would believing in him require a "leap of faith"? Not trying to antagonize anyone, and I apologize if this subject has been covered before.

I'm also curious about the nature of the second statement; is there a difference between believing that God exists and believing that the odds favor God's existence?

[Jazza]

DS, if you don't have a problem with it, can I type out the rest of it?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since believing in God DOES require a leap of faith, I believe it is impossible to both prove or disprove his existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Based on both my faith and the literature I've read, I'd say the odds favor God's existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are these two statements contradictory?

If the odds are in favor of God's existence, why would believing in him require a "leap of faith"? Not trying to antagonize anyone, and I apologize if this subject has been covered before.

I'm also curious about the nature of the second statement; is there a difference between believing that God exists and believing that the odds favor God's existence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Contradictory? Not at all. While the existence of God cannot be proven beyond "a shadow of a doubt", one can look at the evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion that God exists. That's the difference in Daniel's two statements. Perhaps the term "leap" of faith was misleading, but belief in God and Christianity specifically does indeed require faith.

Faith is a very important part of Christianity. We were created for the purpose of having a relationship with God. If His existence were easily proven, how would He know that our love was genuine? That being said, He's given us enough clues to form reasonable odds of His existence.

If you are interested, the book A CASE FOR CHRIST by Lee Strobel is an excellent look into the subject of God's existence. Also, anything by Dr. Frank Harber is good, too. Both Mr. Strobel and Dr. Harber are one-time athiests who went about trying to disprove God's existence. Both became Christians as a result of their search.

Also, another one time athiest, C.S. Lewis, has a great book that discusses God's existence with a more logical approach (rather than physical evidence). It's called MERE CHRISTIANITY.

[PairTheBoard]

DN --
"Based on both my faith and the literature I've read, I'd say the odds favor God's existence. "

Saddlepoint --
"Are these two statements contradictory?"

I think DN's comment is a neat twist on the kind of nonmathematical "odds" statements David comes out with. Daniel's estimate of the "odds" is partly based on his Faith. And why not?

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

Actually Daniel is the first person on this forum who seems to admit that in his opinion, the chances for God's existence is above 50% but below, say 95%.

That's OK if the God he is thinking of doesn't require absolute belief in him (or lets say above 99% cetainty) for entrance into heaven. But some religions believe that God is this "strict". We will call that god, GODX.

Imagine the plight of someone like Daniel who is honest enough to realize that he pegs his certainty that GODX exists at 92%.

[spaminator101]

i dont understand
God exists period

[David Sklansky]

"i dont understand
God exists period "

OK buddy. Watch yourself. Only one entity on this forum is allowed to end a post with the word "period" spelled out. And it ain't God either.

[chomsky53]

you are honestly such an insufferable faggot

[Jim T]

"If the odds are in favor of God's existence, why would believing in him require a "leap of faith"? Not trying to antagonize anyone, and I apologize if this subject has been covered before."

Maybe in DN's case, it's more like a "'hop' of faith".

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
"If the odds are in favor of God's existence, why would believing in him require a "leap of faith"? Not trying to antagonize anyone, and I apologize if this subject has been covered before."

Maybe in DN's case, it's more like a "'hop' of faith".

[/ QUOTE ]

What Daniel said was this:
DN --
"Based on both my faith and the literature I've read, I'd say the odds favor God's existence. "

He makes the odds after he makes the leap of faith. He does not base his faith on the odds.

The whole "odds" thing is a joke anyway. Which is better than Sklansky's probabilty percents which are just plain Crap.

PairTheBoard

[bodie]

Daniel wrote,
"That's not really a knock on you at all. Not everyone excels at the same things. For example, I spend much less time worrying about the mathematical side of the game and much more time thinking about things like, "With John Doe being recently divorced, how is that going to change the way he plays the river?"


I'm curious about this idea, because it seems that no matter how analytical I try to be regarding the math of the game, things seem to go better when I'm mentally in the "flow" of the table as far as the various players' styles and tendences and "personalities". I don't consciously think these things through, it just seems to affect decisions the same way those characteristics would affect what you would say in a conversation with a person.
The size of the pot and the possibilities of the cards in my hand are always in my mind as well, but not in a mathematical sense.

I'm wondering if it's possible to be successful this way, because I'm so weak at actual math that it's worried me all along that I'm really missing a large part of the game.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The Vietnam argument is logical nonsense.

I believe it was argued that the soviets were intent on expanding slice by slice (the salami approach), the Vietnam war was required to make them understand they weren't going to be allowed to easily get away with it and that this objective was achieved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it's your Vietnam argument that's nonsense - both logically and historically.

WE NOW KNOW not only, as David Sklansky put it, that killing 50,000 Americans was not worth it, but also that American fears were unfounded : This was not a "revolution of the communist proletariat" trying to strom no Winter Palace! It was a honest-to-God national liberation struggle, one that started against the colonial French and then continued against their inheritors, the Yanks.

Suffice to say, that Washington at the time feared Red China engulfing the whole peninsula - and the planners and straegists and advisors all ignored the huge, deep, historical hostility between the two nations, China and Vietnam. WE NOW KNOW those fears were bunk! (The subsequent Chinese invasion of Vietnam pretty much sends this to the trashcan.)


..Did I say "American fears"?? How careless of me. The American side knew full well the extent of the (non-existent really ) "domino threat" and whether the drug-dealing kleptocrats of Saigon could ever hope to be "the bastions of democracy" in the South.

The US was simply trying to be a good imperialist.

[warlockjd]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually Daniel is the first person on this forum who seems to admit that in his opinion, the chances for God's existence is above 50% but below, say 95%.

That's OK if the God he is thinking of doesn't require absolute belief in him (or lets say above 99% cetainty) for entrance into heaven. But some religions believe that God is this "strict". We will call that god, GODX.

Imagine the plight of someone like Daniel who is honest enough to realize that he pegs his certainty that GODX exists at 92%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't Daniel the believer believe in God 100% but Daniel the bookie estimate that there is at least a 15% chance his belief is wrong?

I think both (edit) can coexist simultaneously.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Vietnam argument is logical nonsense.

I believe it was argued that the soviets were intent on expanding slice by slice (the salami approach), the Vietnam war was required to make them understand they weren't going to be allowed to easily get away with it and that this objective was achieved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it's your Vietnam argument that's nonsense - both logically and historically.

WE NOW KNOW not only, as David Sklansky put it, that killing 50,000 Americans was not worth it, but also that American fears were unfounded : This was not a "revolution of the communist proletariat" trying to strom no Winter Palace! It was a honest-to-God national liberation struggle, one that started against the colonial French and then continued against their inheritors, the Yanks.

Suffice to say, that Washington at the time feared Red China engulfing the whole peninsula - and the planners and straegists and advisors all ignored the huge, deep, historical hostility between the two nations, China and Vietnam. WE NOW KNOW those fears were bunk! (The subsequent Chinese invasion of Vietnam pretty much sends this to the trashcan.)


..Did I say "American fears"?? How careless of me. The American side knew full well the extent of the (non-existent really ) "domino threat" and whether the drug-dealing kleptocrats of Saigon could ever hope to be "the bastions of democracy" in the South.

The US was simply trying to be a good imperialist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you missed the point, logically it doesn't matter what the historical facts are. DS is arguing: look at Vietnam now, because the USA lost the war it wouldn't have been any worse if the war hadn't been fought and it can't be enough different from how it is now to justify 50000 American deaths.

This isn't logically valid. Its possible that Vietnam (and/or the rest of the world) would have been a lot worse if the war hadn't happened. To deduce the war wasn't worth 50,000 lives we have to compare how it would have been without the war to how it is now. This is impossible.

chez

[David Sklansky]

Technically speaking it is true that an unfought war gives different results than a lost war. But there is no reason to believe they would have been monumentally different. And they would have had to be monumentally different for that war to have been worth it.

In any case the point is that lost wars would tend to give historians a better idea if they were worth fighting (not if they were the right "play") than won wars.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Technically speaking it is true that an unfought war gives different results than a lost war. But there is no reason to believe they would have been monumentally different. And they would have had to be monumentally different for that war to have been worth it.


[/ QUOTE ]

If there was a reason for the war then there must be a reasonable chance that a brutal 20 year war achieved its objective, whoever ended up as the winner.

So don't you, at least, need to take into account the objective and whether it was achieved before you can decide the war wasn't worth it?

BTW we don't get taught much about the vietnam war in England (somehow we missed out on that one) so I have almost no idea on the facts of the matter.


chez

[ QUOTE ]

If there was a reason for the war then there must be a reasonable chance that a brutal 20 year war achieved its objective, whoever ended up as the winner.


[/ QUOTE ]

so theres a resonable chance that the allies objectives will still be met even after their surrender to nazi germany in 1959.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If there was a reason for the war then there must be a reasonable chance that a brutal 20 year war achieved its objective, whoever ended up as the winner.


[/ QUOTE ]

so theres a resonable chance that the allies objectives will still be met even after their surrender to nazi germany in 1959.

[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose the allies surrendered in 1959 and the situation in the world afterwards was basically okay, which is the analogous situation. That would mean that the war would have been a waste (by DS's original argument) or that during the 20 year war the objective of stopping a monsterous future was achieved.

If the monsterous future had still happened then it would be fairly clear that the objective hadn't been met but that's not the point here.


chez

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If there was a reason for the war then there must be a reasonable chance that a brutal 20 year war achieved its objective, whoever ended up as the winner.


[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose the allies surrendered in 1959 and the situation in the world afterwards was basically okay, which is the analogous situation. That would mean that the war would have been a waste (by DS's original argument) or that during the 20 year war the objective of stopping a monsterous future was achieved.

If the monsterous future had still happened then it would be fairly clear that the objective hadn't been met but that's not the point here.


chez

[/ QUOTE ]

so a country decides it HAS to fight a war in order to achieve some objective. it loses the war but the consequences it was fighting to avoid(its objective), dont happen and the world is ok. do u really think its more reasonable that the losers achieved their objective just by fighting or rather to think that the initial assertion that war was necassary to achieve this was wrong?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
so a country decides it HAS to fight a war in order to achieve some objective. it loses the war but the consequences it was fighting to avoid(its objective), dont happen and the world is ok. do u really think its more reasonable that the losers achieved their objective just by fighting or rather to think that the initial assertion that war was necassary to achieve this was wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not a matter of which is more likely. All I am claiming is that to make a reasonable assesment you have take into account the objective of the war and whether it was met.

chez

[ QUOTE ]

All I am claiming is that to make a reasonable assesment you have take into account the objective of the war and whether it was met.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

if the objective of a war is met and yet u still lost the war i think it is more reasonable to think that the war was not necassary to achieve that objective.

i know u stated u dont know much about vietnam but here it is anyways. our objective in the vietnam war was to prevent communist takeover in vietnam thus stopping communist takeover of all of southeast asia. we didnt prevent communist control of vietnam(our only real specific objective) but the expansion of communism didnt spread further so it appears that our more general objective was met. i suppose u could make the argument that our willingness and determination in fighting is what prevented that from happening. far more reasonable i think is that the prewar analysis stating that war was necasary to achieve this objective was wrong. and if a war is not necasary to achieve an objective its hard to justify taking that road when u consider all the collareral damage and negative consequences that come with any war(no matter how right)

in other words we did achieve our main objective(no dominoes fell) in vietnam despite losing the war. is this because we fought the war. no, its because our reasons for going to war were invalid.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
in other words we did achieve our main objective(no dominoes fell) in vietnam despite losing the war. is this because we fought the war. no, its because our reasons for going to war were invalid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming this conclusion is based on an analysis of the specific evidence rather than some abstract theory then we are not disagreeing about anything.

If an outbreak of harmony causes you concern then post the analysis (maybe in the politics forum?) /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez