Is this considered offensive?

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
Meh, stop hijacking this thread. Daniel isn't going to start posting strategy here, and I like it fine that he shows up to discuss his "latest inadvertently offensive blog statement."

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, that's fine, and in no way contradicts anything I said. I like it fine, too, and I would like it more if I got the chance to discuss strategy with him-- and no, I have no expectation he will start.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
It's safer to talk to them then discuss poker in a forum where you will get chastised if you don't use terms like "Standard Deviation" and "EV." Probably my two least favorite phrases in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

DN -

You have one of the most impressive poker resumes around, so I have no idea why you would feel threatened, but your disparaging attitude about technical poker analysis is absurd.

It is not a matter of opinion or style...poker is just math; simply a profoundly complicated mathematical exercise in maximizing expectation (EV [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img].) For this reason, eventually a computer will be the best poker player in the world.

But this doesn't diminish the magnitude of your accomplishments in adjusting, adapting, exploiting, and flat-out dominating your human opponents. Nobody is less in awe of the top-flight chess Grandmasters just because the art and beauty of intuitive human play has been permanently trumped by raw computational power.

IMO you owe Bill Chen and poker theorists in general an apology for your petty attitude about the shortcomings of poker theory today; it's a nascent field, but will eventually fully expose the mystery and complexity of the game we all enjoy.

That said, stay strong and F the haters!

[SuperUberBob]

Most did not find your piece offensive, Daniel. We were just astounded that somebody in your position would post that in the first place.

It's not hatred. At least not from me.

[ICallHimGamblor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, there are too many hateful posters in this newsgroup that aren't out to either listen or learn, but instead to look for fault in anything that I were to say or do. It's just not worth it to me. I have a forum that I post in regularly that's comfortable for me.

[/ QUOTE ]
daniel ur posting in a forum about railbirding and poker celebrity gossip. of course people are going to goof off and be asses here

i dont expect u to, but if u were to post in the strategy forums im sure people would be respectful

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you are right, but I disagree with so much of what's written in those forums that I doubt it would go over well. The approach to poker in general, is often so different from the way I see it.

Besides, it gets annoying after a while, having to argue with random people as to the best strategy to win million dollar tournaments. I welcome discussion about the game, but I have a circle of friends that I discuss poker with: Ivey, Harman, Lindgren, Juanda, Cunningham, and others. It's safer to talk to them then discuss poker in a forum where you will get chastised if you don't use terms like "Standard Deviation" and "EV." Probably my two least favorite phrases in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

So let me get this straight: you don't want to post actual relevant posts where you actually might be helpful or people might disagree with you because you already talk strategy with your close circle of friends, but you feel completely comfortable making an ass out of yourself calling out other players and making fun of other races?

So you "welcome discussion about the game" as long as the discussion only involves people you name-drop?

Would you post here in strategy forums if no one used your bad code words?

[Gonso]

So +EV is -DN?

We have a large number of fairly serious students here, it's a shame we can't get more contributions from those of different schools. We're doing the best with the tools we have.

At least get that book out.

[restrikt]

I think it is obvious that a lot of the situations presented in the High Stakes No Limit forum are fairly complex, and due to his lack of experience playing NLHE with very good players, Daniel will often come to bad conclusions / propose poor decisions for some hands.

Negreanu has a fan base, and is afraid to EVER look wrong on a public forum.

Danny, let's be real. You know you aren't on the same level of some of the HSNLers who post here, and you could learn a TON from discussing ideas with people here.

But you're scared to look out of your league on a public forum. So you stick to posting solely on FCP whose membership consists of players of generally lower calibre than found here.

If you really want to improve your game, make an effort and seriously discuss - i think you'll find some of the members on this forum definitely better than some in your cicle of friends (e.g. lindgren, cunningham, etc.).

[cbloom]

I don't find the video blog offensive, I just find it retarded!

Also, prediction for DN strat post :

DN : so I limped in UTG with 57o ...

All : pretty sure that's -EV ...

DN : I don't believe in all that poker math, I can outplay them on the flop and I needs to gamble to build a big stack!

[big dummy]

[ QUOTE ]
Aside from that, is there anything different about the face paint he used and the face paint that I used?

[/ QUOTE ]

Daniel,

This statement shows your continued misunderstanding of the problem. The term "blackface" is not a reference to a particular style or color of makeup. Whether you were brown or black is irrelevant. Blackface is simply the term for someone who colors their face in order to caricature African-Americans.

So the problem is not the color of the makeup, but the context in which your caricature exists. The motivations of Dan Akroyd's character are well understood. The plot of the movie gives his character a clearly understood reason to do this. Your motivations in your video are not well understood. So the viewer is left thinking "What is Daniel doing here?" Those who believe they know you think the best. But those of us who do not know you are inclined to believe the worst.

The other problem that you appear to be missing is an understanding of the ongoing difficulty that many African-Americans encounter in dealing with their caricatures. The well-spoken black athlete is described as being "so articulate". Those words are never used to describe the well-spoken white athlete. Everything a black man does is measured against the caricature of a black man.

Finally, I'd reframe the question. Whether or not it is offensive is a matter of personal taste. The better question is whether it is appropriate.

[Alfil]

I didn't find Dexter any more offensive than Jar Jar Binks.

[nation]

I think it's really silly to compare this to negative "blackface" connotations. pretty obvious that it was just an impression.