GiftofGab, Spirit Rock, Hassan Slask etc.

[Dr. StrangeloveX]

You're dead to me.

[jtr]

How do you say banana daiquiri in Spanish?

[Matt Flynn]

No.

[1800GAMBLER]

I think this highlights something important:

[ QUOTE ]
Here is an analogy. On one end of the spectrum, we have tic-tac-toe. It probably doesn't take much longer to figure out an optimal strategy for tic-tac-toe on one's own than it would take to read an essay on the subject. On the other end of the spectrum, we have stuff like geometry, physics, etc. Certainly, it is possible for someone to come up with something such as the Pythagorian Theorem on one's own (Pythagorus clearly did so at some point), but it saves years of study to read it in a book.

....

So, if the question is that, if you have two equally intelligent people and one gets to read ToP while the other doesn't, who will end up better off, the answer is CLEARLY the guy who gets to read ToP

[/ QUOTE ]

I slightly disagree here because using 'equally intelligent people' is cheating in this arguement. Running with the math analogy, someone who teaches himself pythagorus is clearly more intelligent than someone who just learns it, sure the person who learns it themself will be years behind time wise but after that investment of 2 years he will be at a much higher level of understanding of math and soon take over. The same goes for poker. When cero_z refers to the old timers who have learnt what the books can't teach you, i think that is because of the above.

[ML4L]

[ QUOTE ]
I slightly disagree here because using 'equally intelligent people' is cheating in this arguement. Running with the math analogy, someone who teaches himself pythagorus is clearly more intelligent than someone who just learns it,

[/ QUOTE ]

By equal intelligence, I meant equal aptitude to learn. That is, if the two people switched roles, the other guy would be able to teach himself Pythagorus as quickly as the first guy. Or, you can think of it as the same person taking two different "paths." Just because Person A is the one that we choose to be the one who doesn't get to read ToP does not mean that he is necessarily more intelligent than Person B.

[ QUOTE ]
sure the person who learns it themself will be years behind time wise but after that investment of 2 years he will be at a much higher level of understanding of math and soon take over. The same goes for poker. When cero_z refers to the old timers who have learnt what the books can't teach you, i think that is because of the above.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that you can necessarily infer this. Reading ToP does not preclude someone from having as deep of an understanding of poker as David does. If that person spends as much time thinking about the game as David has and is as intrinsically intelligent as David is, I see no reason why that person shouldn't reach the same level that David has. And, I further assert (this is just my opinion) that someone who gets to read ToP is capable of reaching David's level of understanding quicker than David has, because David already did a lot of the work for that person.

Again, we are assuming that, after reading ToP, that person puts a tremendous amount of thought into understanding: Why? And, that additional thought is what will make that player an expert; not the information that he has spoon-fed to him. Any expert player, whether self-taught or book-learned, is going to know things that have never been put in print and/or that few others know. Any player whose knowledge is just a collection of what other people have told him probably doesn't truly understand the game.

That having been said, I agree with your point to the extent that learning the game on one's own might foster intellectual curiosity and a stronger drive to find that deep understanding. Whereas, someone who reads ToP might say, "OK, cool," and put minimal effort into studying the game further.

Mike

[1800GAMBLER]

[ QUOTE ]
By equal intelligence, I meant equal aptitude to learn. That is, if the two people switched roles, the other guy would be able to teach himself Pythagorus as quickly as the first guy. Or, you can think of it as the same person taking two different "paths." Just because Person A is the one that we choose to be the one who doesn't get to read ToP does not mean that he is necessarily more intelligent than Person B.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. This is like a random simple of 100 people in both cases, each group is as likely to contain a player who can learn pythagorus. Yet we are looking at the end result, the 5 years down the line.

Only 1/100000x people can learn pythagorus by themselves and 1/x can learn it from reading it, we are looking at the bayes theorm, the end result, _we don't see the failures_; so if we take the successful players, the end result, the pythagorus kid is more little to succeed than the normal kid and thus his percentages from 1/100000x have dramaticly upped, the end smaple will contain more pyth. kids.

This is pointless, as barely applies to poker.

[GimmeDaWatch]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi,

[ QUOTE ]
I agree the rap was kind of silly, but honestly, when they set up the clip, I was expecting <i>much</i> worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I don't know if you and Yeti and whoever else shares this sentiment are just hoping SR will loan you some money or something [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img], but riddle me this: How could it have possibly been any worse?

I realize that they undoubtedly sprung it on him, making him instantly regret mentioning freestyling, but seriously, he seemed to have no problem keeping silent at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

How could it have possibly been any worse?


See Commodore kid Adam's freestyle rap philosophical musings on Real World Paris. Wait, then again, that was the sweetest thing ever.

[nolimitpro2005]

[ QUOTE ]
you are over estimating the complicity of poker. its not rocket science for fucks sake.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'll assume you mean complexity.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no, i meant complicity dickhead.

[/ QUOTE ]


just so you know, complicity makes no sense in your statement. dunno why you were stupid enough to actually defend it.

complexity: the quality of being intricate and compounded

complicity: guilt as an accomplice in a crime or offense

[2ndGoat]

[ QUOTE ]
no, i meant complicity dickhead.

[/ QUOTE ]

n : guilt as an accomplice in a crime or offense

[kagame]

its [censored] sarcasm you worthless railbird motherfuckers

get the hell out of here