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.

[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.

[slickpoppa]

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

[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?

[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

[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".