Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > General Poker Discussion > News, Views, and Gossip
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

View Poll Results: Which is better?
(12) Dr. No 60 58.25%
(13) The Man with the Golden Gun 43 41.75%
Voters: 103. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old 10-17-2007, 11:04 PM
disjunction disjunction is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,352
Default Re: Being told \"professional poker doesn\'t contribute to society.\"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am able to think about these issues particularly clearly, more so than lots of other people in my field, because I am a gambler. So if poker players don't contribute anything, neither do academic theorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm pretty sure they teach courses in logic at cornell. you might want to look into that.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't understand the meaning of this sentence or are you deliberately dense?

Be careful stinkypete, it might require a little thing called INFERENCE. I don't know if your deductive logic capabilities can handle it.

[/ QUOTE ]

nobody's suggesting that it's impossible for a poker player to contribute to society. they're just pointing out the simple fact that the act of earning money by playing poker does nothing to contribute to society.

you wrote a paper. you are a poker player. poker players are thus in the same category as academics, because academics also write papers.

to me, that's a pretty retarded argument. but maybe you used some special ivy league logic that the rest of us mere mortals can't comprehend.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pete,

Where in this post do I say that I was in the ivy league, or that I would take any pride in it if I were? What is this chip on your shoulder? In life you have a choice: You can instantly attack any statement you hear, or you can try to understand and learn from your fellow human beings.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I've made this argument a lot and so maybe I skipped over a part. I thought it was clear that my paper is essentially a glorified poker concept. I actually wrote that line and deleted it in my last post. Therefore, (oops I have to be careful with you when I use the word "therefore") I think getting some of the poker concepts such as sample size, selection bias, the value of information, etc), out there is a good thing for academia as well as the mainstream. Therefore poker is helpful to academia and others.

Sorry if I was unclear. Also sorry that I am admittedly a little proud of my work right now and I shouldn't let my enthusiasm carry me away.
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.