Replying To Daniel Negreanu

[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.