Replying To Daniel Negreanu

[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).