Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

I love the 2+2 magazine, every article has been good except this one ...

Either I totally missed the joke or this article is a waste of bits.

Is it a joke article for people who enjoy pedantic blubbering?

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

...or useless rhetoric?

Impress me with coherent, well-constructed articles - not
a paragraph containing all the grown-up words you Googled.

-ZEN

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I totally missed the joke.


[/ QUOTE ]

So I see.

To be fair, it wasn't a very well-executed joke.

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

[ QUOTE ]
...or useless rhetoric?

Impress me with coherent, well-constructed articles - not
a paragraph containing all the grown-up words you Googled.

-ZEN

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I love the 2+2 magazine, every article has been good except this one ...

Either I totally missed the joke or this article is a waste of bits.

Is it a joke article for people who enjoy pedantic blubbering?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's only fair play that I answer this.

I have a rather dry sense of humor as my long-suffering wife observes. Sometimes I provide the most outrageous "logical" explanations with a completely straight face. Occasionally the audience doesn't get it and that's when the long-suffering wife has to explain that I'm up to my nonsense once again and it's a joke.

Anyway, back to your answer. This article looks like something I might have written except that it's more elegant than I usually am. Plus I know that humor like this doesn't work on the internet.

No, I don't think he's serious. Nice of you to take the bait though.

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

Hi derick:

I think the key to this article is the idea, impled but not stated, that we should be teaching our children probability theory at an early age. I think it should start in about the third grade and continue right through high school.

If this was done there's no question that our whole society would function much better and our accomplishments would appear to be virtually unlimited relative to what is being done today. Of courst the poker games wouldn't be as good.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi derick:

I think the key to this article is the idea, impled but not stated, that we should be teaching our children probability theory at an early age. I think it should start in about the third grade and continue right through high school.

If this was done there's no question that our whole society would function much better and our accomplishments would appear to be virtually unlimited relative to what is being done today. Of course the poker games wouldn't be as good.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. I've always wondered why our math education progresses so slowly (I've always figured 'algebra' as taught in highschool could start at least in the 5th grade for most students, and then so on), but I never considered probability and statistics for some reason. I believe you're right, though.

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

[ QUOTE ]
we should be teaching our children probability theory at an early age. I think it should start in about the third grade

[/ QUOTE ]


This is 100% correct - we should.

However, another percentage ... what percentage of 3rd grade teachers could correctly teach it?

4th grade?

7th?

12th?

Therein lies the problem any time you radically improve a system, or try to.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Plus I know that humor like this doesn't work on the internet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends whether you are referring to effect or appearance.

The problem with internet ‘jokes’ is that the typically only people who bite publicly are the ones who did not get it, or do not have a suitable sense of humour. This gives the appearance that such humour does not work.

However the people who appreciated the humour will typically just smile and more on. Since that is generally the main objective of humour I would say that irrespective or whether the humour works or not, it usually appears not to.

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

This article was not written as joke.

I enjoy reading the 2+2 magazine because the articles are simple, well written and improve my understanding of poker. That is with the exception of this one.

I am stunned the editors would publish this garbage. I read this thing twice and I haven't the foggiest idea what point the author is trying to make. This board is frequented by the general public, not mathematics PhD’s.

Also, the article sounds like a high school student wrote something, then ran every word through a thesaurus with complete disregard for conveying a cognitive thought.

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I read this thing twice and I haven't the foggiest idea what point the author is trying to make.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
This article was not written as joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't know what point the author was trying to make, then how can you be so sure it wasn't written as a joke?

I rather like the article. I'm sorry you don't.

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't know what point the author was trying to make, then how can you be so sure it wasn't written as a joke?

I rather like the article. I'm sorry you don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t know what point the author was trying to make because the article has what I’ll call “Fancy Wording Syndrome”, or “FWS”, combined with “Excessive Use of Microsoft Thesaurus” or “EUoMT”.

Examples of FWS are:
1. “…I will focus only on the mechanism by which random sequences in particular are safeguarded upon observation”
2. “…despite being obvious to the gambler (especially in retrospect), appear to be inaccessible to the secular eye of statistical analysis.”

Example of EUoMT are:
1. “In the light of the distressing psychological dissonance”
2. “fuzzy pluralistic state”
3. “… couch them properly in ontological, rather than observational, terms.”

In algebra I should have trained from grade 3 through post elementary as Mason suggested, instead of scarcely 8th grade through 4 years of engineering education to comprehend the crux of this missive (FWS).

I know this article isn’t a joke because it is seriously written. But if there was a joke with this epistle (EUoMT), it was that 2+2 paid a guy 200 bucks for it.

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

derick, You missed the point...

Online poker is rigged... by Angels [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

I agree completely. Mason does a fair job of distilling, into one sentence, what the author was only barely able to do in 500. Not to mention that this idea - the importance of understanding probability - is hardly one that needs to be reiterated to 2+2ers.

Whether the tone was meant to be whimsical or sincere, earnestly technical or tongue-in-cheek, there is no excuse for the author's contempt for style. If this is a parody, it is only a parody of bad writing.

Ed and Mason's defense of this article strike me as suspect.

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

I believe going back to the 1st issue of this magazine and the column by GrannyMae, it was confirmed by Mason that there would be room for humour. Different people appreciate different types of humour.

There will be people who are amused by Jago's style.

I prefer Dostoevsky to Dickens, but that doesn't mean Dickens sucked. I don't have to read Dickens if I don't want. (except that time in high school where I was failed on a test becuase I read the classic comic of a Tale of Two Cities instead of the actual book)

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

Suggesting that Jago's style is simply not my cup of tea is being charitable: there is such a thing as bad writing. Some even enjoy bad writing, and I suppose that I can't begrudge them. It's tougher to pin down bad writing than it is bad poker play, because we don't have objective measures like EV. Having said that, phrases like "in the current postmodern political environment" (three adjectives per noun is two-and-a-half too many), and "appear to be inaccessible to the secular eye of statistical analysis" are pretty solid indicators.

Again, I'm open to the theory that Jago is offering us a witty parody of pedants (to borrow the OP's term) and academics, but a writer's forum might be a more appropriate venue. That, and I am staunchly of the opinion that a poker article ought to contain at least a modicum of poker theory, which this article doesn't. Lorinda provides fine examples every week of how to mix humour and poker content.

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Having said that, phrases like "in the current postmodern political environment" (three adjectives per noun is two-and-a-half too many), and "appear to be inaccessible to the secular eye of statistical analysis" are pretty solid indicators.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you call it a plot hole when Elmer Fudd manages to talk after having shot himself in the face?

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

If you're suggesting that bad writing is part of Jago's "genre", I wouldn't argue. I would just question why an exercise comparable to a cartoon has been offered as a poker article.

Otherwise, I don't see the relevance.

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we should be teaching our children probability theory at an early age. I think it should start in about the third grade

[/ QUOTE ]


This is 100% correct - we should.

However, another percentage ... what percentage of 3rd grade teachers could correctly teach it?



[/ QUOTE ]

I used to teach fourth grade. The probability section was at the end of the textbook. I enjoyed teaching it, but didn't get to it every year.

So in order to teach probability the teacher would have to make it a priority by teaching it out of order.

If they are lucky most kids will get a few weeks in middle school and maybe a few weeks in high school.

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

I absolutely loved the article, I found it hilarious, well-written, and well thought out, as well as making a valid point. And if there was any place to publish it, 2 +2 is that place. But it probably isn't for everyone, and I can understand the frustration of those who (for whatever reason) didn't get the joke. The humor is dry as the Sahara and intended to poke fun at not only academic, but also theological writing, two types of writing that some readers of this forum may not be familiar with. In addition, if one lacks the necessary familiarity with the vocabulary employed the humor is lost in the struggle for comprehension. I disagree with Mason's take on the article's central point (although I agree that probability should be taught earlier). Basically I think the article's saying that when a 'gambler' observes a pattern in events, that pattern is real, but when a statistician analyzes the data, then an angel rearranges it so that it will appear random in retrospect. I think the article's main implied point is that all the Probability classes in the world won't help certain people, that 'gamblers' are going to believe what they want to believe, logic, facts, and statistical analysis be damned. That is why the article both begins and ends with a (tongue-in-cheek) call for statisticians to desist. To eliminate the emotional distress that 'gamblers' suffer and ( I think) to maintain the profitabilty of the poker games. Who among us hasn't played with someone who said something like "Wow, there has been a seven on four out of the last five flops, those sevens are really hot. I'm playing any seven from here on out."

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I absolutely loved the article, I found it hilarious, well-written, and well thought out, as well as making a valid point. And if there was any place to publish it, 2 +2 is that place. But it probably isn't for everyone, and I can understand the frustration of those who (for whatever reason) didn't get the joke. The humor is dry as the Sahara and intended to poke fun at not only academic, but also theological writing, two types of writing that some readers of this forum may not be familiar with. In addition, if one lacks the necessary familiarity with the vocabulary employed the humor is lost in the struggle for comprehension.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, I rather liked it too. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

And this is fair. Again, I obviously can't begrudge people for enjoying the article. I'd only disagree in that I think the point about a gambler's perception of random events is so obvious to a 2+2er, so ingrained in his/her perspective of the game, that the point is not even worth exploring.

Parodies of overly academic writing - or just plain bad writing - are fun and all, but we already have The Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest for that. I suppose that if I think it relevant to poker at all, I suspect it's from the far boundaries of poker literature, to borrow a phrase. 2+2 can do better.

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I absolutely loved the article, I found it hilarious, well-written, and well thought out, as well as making a valid point. And if there was any place to publish it, 2 +2 is that place. But it probably isn't for everyone, and I can understand the frustration of those who (for whatever reason) didn't get the joke. The humor is dry as the Sahara and intended to poke fun at not only academic, but also theological writing, two types of writing that some readers of this forum may not be familiar with. In addition, if one lacks the necessary familiarity with the vocabulary employed the humor is lost in the struggle for comprehension. I disagree with Mason's take on the article's central point (although I agree that probability should be taught earlier). Basically I think the article's saying that when a 'gambler' observes a pattern in events, that pattern is real, but when a statistician analyzes the data, then an angel rearranges it so that it will appear random in retrospect. I think the article's main implied point is that all the Probability classes in the world won't help certain people, that 'gamblers' are going to believe what they want to believe, logic, facts, and statistical analysis be damned. That is why the article both begins and ends with a (tongue-in-cheek) call for statisticians to desist. To eliminate the emotional distress that 'gamblers' suffer and ( I think) to maintain the profitabilty of the poker games. Who among us hasn't played with someone who said something like "Wow, there has been a seven on four out of the last five flops, those sevens are really hot. I'm playing any seven from here on out."

[/ QUOTE ]

What he said. I have read way more than my share of academic and theological writing in my day, and I got the joke immediately. This is really an audience question. This article appeals to a sub-set (and possibly a small subset) of the 2+2 audience, while, say, Lorinda's articles may have a wider appeal. While, in general, a publication should contain articles that appeal to the broad range of its readers, there is certainly always room for the occasional off-beat piece that will only appeal to a percentage of the audience. If you don't like Jago's article, move on to Ray Zee. I am looking forward to winter in Montana.....

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

I liked the article. If you didn't like it, thats fine. I thought it was well written.

I don't see why you are calling the article "pedantic blubbering." This article is the opposite, because it found a creative and unusual way to discuss the amount of ignorance and superstition than is typical amongst gamblers.

I found the article much more interesting than the standard "if you flip tails on a fair coin ten times in a row it is still 50/50 to come up tails" article.

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

Just read it, I thought it was fine, why are you getting your panties in a twist?

Mack

Re: Senseless Utterance == On the Doctrine of Angels ... (No Content)
 

Well, my panties are fine (strictly a comfort issue) - though I can't speak for derick - but Mason has written that he's looking for "good articles that will create discussion". I don't think that this article is particularly good, being a drab parody that's light on content, and the discussion it has generated is likely not what Mason had in mind. The Magazine Forum is for feedback on the Magazine. That's why.