[seemorenuts]

I think Sklansky certainly chose the wrong example when he alluded to Daniel.

I would hope some intelligent discussion would flow from DN's post about the usefulness of what he's doing (aside from the fun):

He's establishing golf course image (analogous to table image).

He's honing his betting skills.

He's creating interesting stimulation at the pinnacle of a small community where the players are astute; you have to admit this has some entertainment value for the community at large.

He's accidentally or otherwise creating a useful image for the relative fish who will join the big (poker) game.

He's getting to know his small community of big players better.

He's habituating himself knowledgeably to seemingly large bets to make similar sized bets at the poker table with ease (I think he doesn't need to learn this, lol).

If he's creating misconceptions for the lower skilled masses, this is massively positive EV for him.

If he's not (i.e. if you don't go nuts at lower levels) than there's no harm done--as I said, there's a lot to be learned that Sklansky doesn't teach because he's not comfortable up there.

He's creating a cleaner and more presentable role model than many others (MM for instance) would have in the same position if they had the roll.

He's reminding Sklansky of the principle I outlined in the "Rate this Edge" thread, it should be obvious that EV should incorporate future 'hands.' We could someday learn more about how to set up future bets.

So I think we are in better position to learn than to judge, at least when it comes to Daniel.

Lastly, David forgot to compute that God is on Daniel's side, and I'm not joking here. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

All I want to know is if Barry Greenstein deserves to get into the Kingdom of Heaven, because the New Testament would nix any application--though neither he nor David will be applying.