|
|
#31
05-19-2005, 09:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Goofy Games
Qualities of top players:
stamina, concentration, ability to read opponents, discipline, drive to win, memory, bankroll None of these depend on the game. There are examples of this in other games. For example, groups have invented chess variants (an example is fischer random), analyzed them extensively and challenged grandmasters at these games. Invariably the grandmaster has won although much less experienced in this form of chess. Another example is the exhibitions that boxing champs used to have with other fighting techniques (skilled practitioners, but not other champs). The boxer would always dominate the kickboxer (or wrestler, or whatever). Not because boxing is better, but because it was a champ vs. a skilled (but lower tier) player. There might not be as much turnover in the top games as the original post suggests. 
|
|
#32
05-19-2005, 09:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Goofy Games
[ QUOTE ]
For example, groups have invented chess variants (an example is fischer random), analyzed them extensively and challenged grandmasters at these games. Invariably the grandmaster has won although much less experienced in this form of chess. [/ QUOTE ] Who has beaten Fischer at FRC???
|
|
#33
05-19-2005, 10:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Goofy Games
I don't think DS was suggesting that it would be wild turn-over.
Just that some of the best would be 2nd tier...and some of the 2nd tier would be in the top tier. I'm not sure though. I too immediately thought of the comparison with Fischer-random chess. It takes out the opening-memorization and turns the game into more 'general chess ability' (for lack of a better term). FWIW - I do not consider myself very mathematically sound. I am a decent player to the extent that I'm good enough to 'get by'. I also don't know most of the weird poker-variants being mentioned here nor have I played them. I don't even know how to play triple-draw lowball or razz (which I think is 2-7 stud-low or something like that). I am also a VERY mediocre chess player but very much enjoy the game. Overall I think I have decent but not spectacular analytical skills. I think in a universe where a bunch of different goofy gamers were spread I believe that my general abilities would allow me to be successful in those games to roughly the same degree (or perhaps to even a slightly greater degree) than I am in hold-em. I would be a somewhat interesting test-case for this perhaps....because I am a decently successful, although not great, hold-em player who has virtually zero background in any variant games. I had a discussion with someone from my blog regarding my success in some of the King of the Zoo events. I've done well in our O/8 and stud-high and stud/8 events even though I don't have too much background in those games. It's a small sample-size....but one could still theorize that it might say something about my 'overall' poker skill. Strangely, I thought that perhaps my general poker 'instincts' could be the cause for some of my success (although luck certainly played a big part too) whereas David believes that just the opposite would be the reason...and I think now that my thoughts on this were probably incorrect. Also I wanted to mention that I don't have a problem with David posting some of the general ideas that might occur to him while he's drifting off to sleep or something (at least that's when I get some of my wackier ideas like "What if you reversed the position of the BB and SB?" or "What if the betting reversed direction on each round of betting?"). The fact that David acknowledges his abilities in such a universe chock-full 'o' wild-games isn't a big deal to me. We all pretty much know that this would be the case and I don't see why David should pretend that it isn't. I think David sees some players in the big-game that he just doesn't think are as sharp as some others he knows who are NOT in the big-game....and he is asking himself things like, "Why is this the case? Why are players whom I don't think are as good as others having such success at the biggest game?" They are interesting questions and he is merely tossing out some theories about it.
|
|
#34
05-19-2005, 10:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Goofy Games
another discussion has developed here regarding other sports and subtle differences.
Hockey is a decent example comparing the american/canadian game to the european game. Widen the ice a bit and let them skate a bit more and it changes the game significantly. I know a few players who would not be that great in the more physical and congested north american hockey game who are having great success in Europe. Conversely...some europeans come over here and either do great or struggle depending on their particular abilities. Tennis is another example. Change the surface a little bit from clay to grass to concrete (French open to wimbledon to US Open respectively) and it dramatically favors some players moreso than others. Golf is another where fairway width and legnth and green size and speed (and hole-placement) can have a significant impact on results. If tennis was ALWAYS played on clay or if golf was ALWAYS played at St. Andrews in really terrible weather it is not too extreme to think that some current relative unknowns would instead be world-championship hall-of-fame caliber. And that some of the greats in the top 10 in their sport would no longer be top 10 caliber. This seems to be directly parallel to what David is saying imo.
|
|
#35
05-19-2005, 11:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Goofy Games
"-Why do you think it's so important for you to know and (forgive my presumptuousness) for others to know that you are more capable than most people of analyzing almost any subject?"
1. So that more people will appreciate and study math as my father would want them to. 2. Because I was specifically answering a poster who wondered how I could have a big ego and still turn Daniel down. 3. So that more women will want to have sex with me.
|
|
#40
05-20-2005, 08:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Goofy Games
[ QUOTE ]
"-Why do you think it's so important for you to know and (forgive my presumptuousness) for others to know that you are more capable than most people of analyzing almost any subject?" 1. So that more people will appreciate and study math as my father would want them to. 2. Because I was specifically answering a poster who wondered how I could have a big ego and still turn Daniel down. 3. So that more women will want to have sex with me. [/ QUOTE ] Very nice! Has Mason been coaching you?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
