|
|
#94
07-15-2005, 01:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: more 411
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] the Columbia Law School graduate [/ QUOTE ] OK, I'll be un-PC, but I'll say it: affirmative action admit. [/ QUOTE ] Possibly, but I'd wager most of the idiots ragging her couldn't get in Columbia Law even with affirmative action. 
|
|
#95
07-15-2005, 02:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: more 411
The question "am I a better poker player than Einstein" is silly on two fronts.
1) Einstein believed in a deterministic universe, thus his famous "God does not play dice.." statement. By extension, we could assume he would equally assert "God does not play NL hold'em". It follows that Einstein would lean more towards a game of pure skill ala chess than the roulette of huge tourney poker. 2) He's dead. However, if one's poker skill is judged by their Net.. and Warlock has lost money playing whereas Einstein broke even.. then in one sense Einstein actually did measure up better as a poker player. Einstein pioneered new horizons in physics, yet you seem befuddled by a forum post. In fairness to Warlock, his point of 'just cuz someone is smarter does that necessarily make them a better poker player?' is well-taken and would have been left alone had he/she not used a dead guy as a comparison. The thread seemed to demonize Tiffany (someone even likening her to a dyke for playing slow) and the link was meant to humanize a bit. In fairness to you, Congress passed "No child left behind". Never too late to go back and get that GED, champ
|
|
#96
07-15-2005, 02:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: more 411
[ QUOTE ]
OK, I'll be un-PC, but I'll say it: affirmative action admit. [/ QUOTE ] Why do you just make things up? You have no idea whether H-DOG is an affirmative action admit or not. None whatsoever. I'll also point out that getting a job at Davis, Polk isn't easy -- nor is keeping it.
|
|
#97
07-15-2005, 10:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: more 411
[ QUOTE ]
The question "am I a better poker player than Einstein" is silly on two fronts. [/ QUOTE ] It is if you ignore the simple, obvious point Sponger was making about the fact that intelligence is not the be-all and end-all of poker ability and insist on treating it like an inquiry into the poker abilities of a dead physicist. [ QUOTE ] 1) Einstein believed in a deterministic universe, thus his famous "God does not play dice.." statement. By extension, we could assume he would equally assert "God does not play NL hold'em". It follows that Einstein would lean more towards a game of pure skill ala chess than the roulette of huge tourney poker. 2) He's dead. However, if one's poker skill is judged by their Net.. and Warlock has lost money playing whereas Einstein broke even.. then in one sense Einstein actually did measure up better as a poker player. [/ QUOTE ] 1. You called Einstein a better player than Sponger, not Warlock. And you don't know either's lifetime net gain or loss at cards. So if Sponger's a winning player, your "argument" is refuted. 2. Your "argument" is wrong, and you should know it. Having lost less money at cards makes you a better poker player in the same way that losing fewer races makes you a better runner or that not taking a physics test makes you better at physics than someone who took the test and got at least one question wrong. Your logic is obviously incorrect and you KNOW it and you're just being stubborn. [ QUOTE ] Einstein pioneered new horizons in physics, yet you seem befuddled by a forum post. [/ QUOTE ] I seem befuddled?? You can't even keep track of who you're REPLYING to, for Chrissakes. Also, continual academic reference doesn't impress anybody here. 2+2ers (well, outside the WPT forum, anyway) are generally a very sharp group, and that kind of pompous, effete self-congratulation will only irritate any serious mind, including mine. [ QUOTE ] In fairness to Warlock, his point of 'just cuz someone is smarter does that necessarily make them a better poker player?' is well-taken and would have been left alone had he/she not used a dead guy as a comparison. [/ QUOTE ] Again, it wasn't Warlock's point. But maybe I'm just befuddled. So, to recap: 1. Don't take stupid, obviously logically-flawed jabs at posters without expecting to be jabbed back. 2. Don't cling to points you know to be incorrect out of stubbornness. 3. Don't try to impress or "overtalk" someone, because it's only annoying, never effective. 4. Have a nice day.
|
|
#98
07-15-2005, 11:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: more 411
You're right about Warlock/Sponger -- apologies. It was late, excuses, blah blah etc. Lazy & lame on my part
What I take issue with you is on this: "Don't take stupid, obviously logically-flawed jabs at posters ". Obvious to whom? Anyone with a background in math/science would understand that the results of a system you are trying to measure have validity only within the system itself, as they are dependent on what you are using to measure them (read Godel). So, if you "measured" someone's poker ability on an absolute scale, with that person's NET as the unit of measurement and you had Warlock ranked #2000 with a NET of $10k, Einstein at #100,000 with a net of zero, and Sponger/jmack tied at #275,000 with a $-10K... you have all ranked lower than Einstein and by this method of measurement you are worse than Einstein. If u cannot grasp this, then read up on Godel or give it up. This is NOT analogous to running a race against a dead guy -- if you took your best race time and measure that against Green's best race time, now we have a comparison. Does this register with you yet? If Sponger had used Nash or a lively renowned game theorist as an example, his response would've driven the point home better. Would Stephen Hawking fold the best hand to Phil Ivey? Yea, probably. Would Edward Witten call an allin after the river with 10-high against a board riddled with face cards? Probably not. As to my intent, I explained this in the last post. The thread pegged Tiffany as a cartoonish supervillian and I was hoping to bring that down to Earth a bit. I suspect many of those who called her a dyke, etc, are sexist and/or racist and probably wont admit it. Not trying to talk down to anyone, as many of you are better educated and well-read than I. Most are better poker players as well. "Your logic is obviously incorrect and you KNOW it and you're just being stubborn." No. Clearly I do not believe my logic is incorrect as explained above. Though your use of caps is so compelling it almost made me change my mind try reading "Godel, Escher, Bach" -- its a great book if you know or appreciate any of the three. Couldn't tell ya if any of them played poker, though
|
|
#99
07-15-2005, 12:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: more 411
[ QUOTE ]
So, if you "measured" someone's poker ability on an absolute scale, with that person's NET as the unit of measurement... [/ QUOTE ] This is the flaw in your system. You're drawing parallels between relative success and ability in an arena where people can drop below even. The system is flawed because it implies that someone who doesn't know the rules of poker is a superior player to someone who is knowledgeable of the game but currently down, which isn't correct. If I take a shot at 100/200 and lose more than I've ever made at poker, I'm still a better poker player than someone who has never learned the game, even though the person who has never played the game has, in some sense, had more success . This has to be true if we believe poker to involve any skill at all. Also, when you claimed Einstein was a better player than Sponger, your explanation only works if Sponger is a net loser over his poker career. If he's up even a nickel, then according to your system, he IS a better player than Einstein. Quantifying skill in poker is probably something that can never be done satisfactorily, but we do know that it's not necessarily the same as success in poker. Your system measures "success", not skill, which is what I took issue with. The race example was meant to illustrate that you cannot claim superiority in a field in which you have not participated simply because you have encountered less failure, which is what your example does and which is why it is wrong. P.S. I might go check that book out. seems like a good read.
|
|
#100
07-15-2005, 01:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: more 411
Points well taken, jmack, and I agree with you
If you do happen to read the book..and manage to read it within a two-month period.. you will have me bested as it took me nearly a summer to soak it it up thoroughly. A main point of the book is that ANY system is inherently flawed, but the book fleshes this out in unnervingly vertigoic detail. Here's a link for it. You do seem to have a serious mind and as such you will undoubtedly enjoy it. http://www.forum2.org/tal/books/geb.html
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
