Ed Miller's book "versus" WLLH

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
I have never talked to Lee Jones nor have I read more than a few sentences in his book. That is not the point. The point is that until today, the thread that had the most views on this website was "Pictures of Shana Hiatt". And I was willing to say or do anything to change that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the "Shana Hiatt Playboy Pictures" thread was bumped again.

[Straussman]

Sorry, I just had to add another useless post. This thread is really great in a kinda sick way.

So I think the following: (i) the guy with a math degree from MIT is gonna be pretty bright (although not as bright as, say, someone with the same degree from CalTech), and I wouldn't argue with him about probability, but he's not always gonna be right; (ii) the guy who scored 800 on the math SATs at age 12 is gonna be very bright, and very bright often but not always means large ego in my experience (but very bright is very bright, give credit where credit is due); and (iii) the guy who scored in the top 20 on the Putnam is easily gonna be the brightest guy here even if there are lots of geniuses lurking (think of a very large casino full of people as described in (i) and (ii), and then think of one of the 20 smartest people in that large, full casino), hands down, no contest.

So my question is, when is the guy who did so well on the Putnams gonna write a poker book? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Drunk Bob]

Give it up Lee this is an away field and the crowd is hostile.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
Give it up Lee this is an away field and the crowd is hostile.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, I don't think Lee has ever responded to the criticisms of his book. He made the first post, a second post and.... that was it. He started a debate, then ran away from it.

Plus the Shana Hiatt thread got bumped again, so we gotta keep this one going.

[Roybert]

Girls, girls ... you're BOTH pretty.

[dogmeat]

My headline above may not be what you were expecting. This is one of the most significant threads ever on 2+2, but what seems to have gotten lost in the translation is that there is a direct correlary between Ed, Mason and {mostly} David and their correct assumption that an MIT grad (or higher sat math scorer) will be correct more often than a non-math gratuate; and the ability of some people to make good money at poker while others can't.

This, simply put, is the reason there will continue to be great poker games throughout my lifetime.

If you still miss my point, read David's posts and understand that he speaks in percentages and absolutes. Also understand that winning poker is about percentages and absolutes. The player with even a tiny percentage ability edge will win absolutely all the money in the long run.

Also, people with less ability will still continue to take-on tougher opponents because they have the misguided belief that they are almost as good as their opponents (which may be true) and if they play, they have a good chance of winning (which is ultimately false in the long run).

If you didn't get this from David's posts, did you get it from his books? If not, why?

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[emp1346]

what round are we in? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

what's the scorecard look like? anybody?

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, this thread has turned out to be a great help to me. Moreso than any thread since I've been here.

I am in my first year at a college below my intelligence level because i have yet to try in school ever. It doesn't bother me being there. I don't think much of education and wouldn't be in college if people would hire you for well paying jobs without that piece of paper.

I've considered just quitting and making money somehow.. poker seems like a decent method.

After reading this thread, I realized that I should attempt to contribute to society and fulfill my potential (while playing poker for fun). (something that I have been told for years (not the poker part))

Let me say that I think that Mr. Sklansky is a genius. He is among an extremely elite group of people when it comes to brain power. He is an accomplished poker player and writer... he succeeded in what he wanted to do, just like everyone always told him he could since he was 7. But he seems to me, to be a genuinely unhappy person.

I always assumed that I would make a living however I wanted.. on my terms.. and that this would make me happy. I personally didn't care much what I earned or what job title I held as long as I was happy.

I don't bother listening in class when I don't want to.. I figure I can pick up something whenever I want. Plus, I'm there to pass the classes and get the degree.. I can learn on my own.

Now, I realize that I may not be happy when I look back on a life 'wasted'. I may want a career that helps others as well as one that is viewed as demending of high intelligence.

I can succeed at whatever I want to do if I put my mind to it too, and what I want now is to be someone who never has to mention again that he got an 800 on the math SAT.

I still have to because, probably like David, I can't stand when an average person doesn't realize that I am intillectually superior to them. Of course I have to slip it into conversation casually, and act modest about admitting it.

But why should people know that I'm smarter than them? I'm a B student at a slightly above average college with a probably less than average vocabulary. I don't talk much in public. I slouch in class, wear baggy pants, and play football. I don't ever answer a professors questions because I'm either not paying attention or never read the material on which they were reviewing.

And yet it upsets me that they don't know they are dumber than me. Honestly, if someone thinks they are smarter than I am, it is tough to be their friend.

But it's all my own doing. And I imagine that David has the same problem. He needs people to know that he is smart, but has done little, outside of testing, that would convince the public. They don't think poker is a game of intelligence... a game of math. They think it's a low class mans game. And yes David, you know otherwise, but that's not enough for you.

David, how can you explain to an average person who doesn't understand the game of poker that you are a genius without mentioning your scores? Without mentioning where you were accepted into college?

I suppose intelligent conversation may work, but what about those who you don't get a chance to talk enough to?

If you actually don't care what they think, I will be very suprised. If you are happy, I won't be shocked, but I'd need an explanation as to what makes you happy.

I'm not saying you wasted your life, but it seems to me that you would've liked better to have been in a situation now where nobody would question you.. Where succesful bussinessmen wouldn't laugh when told that a man of your profession dwarfs them in brain power.

I don't want to have to tell people how smart I am.

Thank you. You have motivated me to work harder at life, at least for the moment. I might be lazy again in a week.

[/ QUOTE ]

i was planning on writing a similar reply to this thread, until i found this post. with the exception of a few minor details, it's almost as if i could have written it myself. (only got 790 on SAT math... misread that one damn question)

i've been out of school for a year now, and returning in january, but i've been deathly afraid that i'll lack the motivation to succeed simply because i've been doing too well playing poker.

it's obvious to me now that in 20 years, i don't want to look back on 20 years of poker with no other significant accomplishments. i've read/heard in countless places that poker as a hobby is great, and as a job sucks. i haven't understood that so clearly until now.

i think i'm gonna bookmark this thread and refer to it whenever i need to motivate myself for school.

btw, thanks to whoever posted a link to this in the shana thread.

[torgeauxSA]

[ QUOTE ]

It is important that I go on record as saying that I believe that it is almost impossible that Lee could be right about anything that Ed (or me or Mason) strongly disagrees with regarding poker. If I didn't think so it would have been wrong for us to collaborate with Ed on our book. It is also important that I explain that the reason I am so sure that Ed will turn out right on every point is because he is both a great player and a great thinker. And it bothers me that many people somehow believe that it is still quite possible that someone who both plays worse and thinks less brilliantly could still be right when disagreeing about a poker play even when the first guy is SURE.

I do agree that Lee Jones debating points with Ed Miller would be instructive. In fact it would be very instructive because the fallacious or misguided argements that Lee would be forced to use might resemble similar thoughts of some of the readers of this forum. And of course I realize that most of you didn't seiously consider the possibility that Lee would win these debates. Actually I am the nice one here. You guys are probably descended from those who watched the contests between the Christians and the lions.



[/ QUOTE ]

ha ha ha ha ha ha... that is the funniest thing I've ever seen.

You know, it is poker theory. And while there are truisms (folding the nuts is bad), much of this has to do with theories of maximizing profit. I tend toward playing the Ed way, and have moved on from Lee's, which I also identify as beginner. However, I don't think Lee's advice is necessarily wrong, for a couple of reasons. One, this isn't a situation where you can plug in a formula and get answer X. Yes, it seems to me that aggressive will equal long term profit, but it may not be the best answer short term.

And, yes, Sklansky and Malmuth have prevented this from being a useful thread by trolling. Being correct while being obnoxious can still be trolling, and that is the best case scenario for them.

So, you believe Ed to be infallible. Why publish a second edition of his book? Wouldn't the first one be the be all and end all of instruction? Perhaps Lee could educate Ed on some things (possible, even for an MIT graduate to actually learn from others), even if he were wrong overall?

Sklansky strongly implies that he is incapable of being instructed. Good for him. Me, I want to hear from Lee who is in fact an authority on poker, even if he disagrees with Miller/is wrong on some points.

This has been disappointing. After cruising thru this thread, I expected to get some insight, instead Lee was driven off, Ed was derailed and Mason and David just showed their buttocks to the rest of us.