The Theory of Poker

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
Tpir you're the one that never posts an argument...I think maybe everyone can see that

[/ QUOTE ]
Now you are just making stuff up. I have been trying to have an honest discussion with you for a while now, but you keep ducking out with unfounded statements like this one.

Would you like to make a prop bet on who the forum thinks provides better arguments? I am willing to bet almost everything I own on myself.


[ QUOTE ]
My argument is that poker parallels a spiritual journey much more closely than an atheistic one.

[/ QUOTE ]
An argument requires some kind of logic and reasoning backing it up so that other people will be convinced. You offer none. Your statement implicitly puts spirituality and atheism at odds with each other. Since this could not be further from the truth, it renders the rest of your faux-argument moot. Do you understand why this is so? Do you realize that I just made a few arguments in this very post and you still have done nothing other than preach your opinions?

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
Bunny I raise you Roy Cooke

http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/16820

[/ QUOTE ]

Cooke used the wrong term. You need to be honest and objective, not humble. When a play has consistently cost you money, you must consider the possibility you have misplayed the hand. That isn't being humble. That's just being honest and objective and constantly working on your game.

[Splendour]

Well thought out post jogsxyz, but I think humble is correct and here's why: 1) it could prevent you from making the first misplay 2) it could assist you if you do make a misplay by avoiding tilt...the higher you are on the emotional ladder the farther you fall when you make a mistake...sort of like the bigger you are the harder you fall...

[CORed]

The difference is that "the right thing" in poker is based on math and logic whereas "the right thing" in religious belief is based on smoke and mirrors.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Roy Cooke is a winning player and a columnist on Cardplayer...He does a wonderful job of explaining how humility keeps a winning player a winning player...

[/ QUOTE ]
And he also thinks money isnt important? Furthermore, that not caring about money is required to be good at poker? What's that argument?

To repeat my counterargument: if you dont care about money, you will have no incentive to make +EV decisions - the whole point of that is to maximise your money in the long term.

It seems to me being humble has nothing to do with the trait he's talking about. What's important is to be able to critically evaluate your own game and honestly observe your weaknesses so that you can get even better. It's hardly humble of him to say "Well, I'm obviously good, but what makes me really good is that I'm also humble!"

[Splendour]

Well if he didn't mean the word "humble" bunny he could easily have used the word objective...If you read Cooke enough you will see he is a very deliberate man...I think he knew exactly what word he was choosing...Humble has emotional connotations that objective doesn't and poker is a very psychological game...Cooke plays a lot live where the psychological game is even more prevalent than online where the game is more mathematical...When you play live your ego is much more vulnerable than online because you are sitting in the physical presence of people and they witness you win or lose...

Besides disregard for money is not the same as bankroll management...It means being able to make the right decision under pressure regardless of the sum of money being bet in the pot...

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
Tpir you're the one that never posts an argument...I think maybe everyone can see that

I said at the top of this thread the following:
My argument is that poker parallels a spiritual journey much more closely than an atheistic one.

See tame_deuces on how to present an argument...He answer point by point...I don't always agree with his answers but he does answer point by point...

[/ QUOTE ]

The premises in your post are opinions. ZeeJustin was pointing out that those premises are likely wrong, so he is implicitly arguing that your conclusion is wrong.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Well if he didn't mean the word "humble" bunny he could easily have used the word objective...If you read Cooke enough you will see he is a very deliberate man...I think he knew exactly what word he was choosing...Humble has emotional connotations that objective doesn't and poker is a very psychological game...Cooke plays a lot live where the psychological game is even more prevalent than online where the game is more mathematical...When you play live your ego is much more vulnerable than online because you are sitting in the physical presence of people and they witness you win or lose...

[/ QUOTE ]
*shrug* I dont think he's made any case for it as a general strategy, merely said what works for him. I know more about bridge than poker, but there are similar situations. Both games involve occasionally making a bad call and having your smug opponents gloat over your idiocy. Humility is one way to deal with it. Security in being ten times better than them is another. I find humility works for me, as it happens, but I wouldnt suggest that it is a general thing.

[ QUOTE ]
Besides disregard for money is not the same as bankroll management...It means being able to make the right decision under pressure regardless of the sum of money being bet in the pot...

[/ QUOTE ]
I honestly dont know what you are saying here. I think disregard for money means not caring about money. If you dont care about money and you are weighing up two options then you will be making the choice on criteria other than which has the highest EV.

Perhaps he means not getting emotionally attached to winning the battle, or not succumbing to making bad plays because you feel lucky, or whatever. The way to combat those is to increase your regard for money. The more you value money over other things, the more important the EV calculation will be.

[Splendour]

Justin A:

From Academic Commons a quote:
Students taking their first philosophy course often express surprise when encouraged to use “I” in their papers. Unlike academic writing in most other disciplines, philosophical writing frequently and strongly states the “I” because philosophers have to develop and defend their own positions. They cannot weasel out of taking responsibility for their views, and thus the assertion of the “I” means that they are willing to stand or fall with their expressed position.

I am not writing a scientific factual paper...I am asserting an opinion and defending my own opinion...Do you see that the "I" is fundamentally right in philosophical arguments now? ZeeJustin still made no argument he just ventured an opinion...I at least try to develop an idea whether you agree with it or not...and why do you think you can speak for ZeeJustin? Are you his "I"?

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not writing a scientific factual paper...I am asserting an opinion and defending my own opinion...Do you see that the "I" is fundamentally right in philosophical arguments now? ZeeJustin still made no argument he just ventured an opinion...

[/ QUOTE ]
You are trying to put forward things as fact, you can't back off and try to call it a philisophical argument at the last second. If you want us to believe that what you are saying is fact, give good reasons plz.

I also like that we are back to the state where everyone else needs to have an argument *except* you. You just have your trusty opinions. If you want your opinions taken seriously--I would be more than happy to personally--all I need is a logical explanation. That doesn't seem like too much to ask.