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

[Ed Miller]

[ 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]

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.

[LittleOldLady]

[ 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.....

[SNOWBALL138]

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.

[mackthefork]

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

Mack

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.