|
Demiparadigm
|
11-10-2005, 04:01 AM
Post subject: Lee Jones vs. Ed Miller
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Party 6 max
Posts: 1,602
|
|
Just found this year-old thread on 2+2.
http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...0&fpart=1&vc=1
|
|
To win in poker you only need to be one step ahead of your opponents. Two steps may be detrimental.
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
DoGGz
|
|
11-10-2005, 05:50 AM
Post subject: Re: Lee Jones vs. Ed Miller
|
#2 (permalink)
|
|
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Demiparadigm
|
Uggg a crappy debate over limt :P
|
|
|
|
Demiparadigm
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Party 6 max
Posts: 1,602
|
|
{Moved to Limit Hold'em}
|
|
To win in poker you only need to be one step ahead of your opponents. Two steps may be detrimental.
|
|
vqc
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,427
|
|
thread moved at OPs request
vqc
|
|
|
|
elipsesjeff
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,900
|
|
That thread went to the shitter quickly. I'm tired of reading it. David Sklansky is a dick....
|
Check out my videos at Grinderschool.com
More Full Ring NLHE Cash videos than ANY other poker training site. Training starts at $10/month.
|
|
euphoricism
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Your place or my place
Posts: 3,610
|
|
Quote:
|
Those who think that an MIT graduate would not be much more likely to correctly analyze the profitabiliy of poker plays, (if they put their mind to such a task), than members of the general population, are engaging in wishfull thinking. I am not talking simply math here either.
|
Sklansky is a dick.
|
|
|
|
thenonsequitur
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Location: Location
Posts: 637
|
|
I only got halfway through reading it, but as one of the posters in the thread said, reading David Slansky's posts killed any respect I had for him. He's got such a skewed [read: fucked up] world-view.
|
|
|
|
koolmoe
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Drowning in prosperity
Posts: 1,279
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by euphoricism
Quote:
|
Those who think that an MIT graduate would not be much more likely to correctly analyze the profitabiliy of poker plays, (if they put their mind to such a task), than members of the general population, are engaging in wishfull thinking. I am not talking simply math here either.
|
Sklansky is a dick. |
Yes, but he's right.
His delivery is fine-tuned for shock value, IMO. He is very good at drawing attention to his comments and generating conversation in that way.
|
|
Poker is freedom
|
|
ihategnomes
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 1,225
|
|
Anyone read any of the Paul Phillips vs 2+2 thread. That guy crackes me up. They asked him for an appology to the forum and the moderators. Good stuff.
|
|
Field mice are fast, but owls can see in the dark.
<Bbickes> i still wanna know if the thing in your avatar is a real chick or not
<Bbickes> or am i e-crushing a dude
|
|
thenonsequitur
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Location: Location
Posts: 637
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by koolmoe
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by euphoricism
Quote:
|
Those who think that an MIT graduate would not be much more likely to correctly analyze the profitabiliy of poker plays, (if they put their mind to such a task), than members of the general population, are engaging in wishfull thinking. I am not talking simply math here either.
|
Sklansky is a dick. |
Yes, but he's right. |
Did you read this thread or are you just making this statement based on the comment that euphoricism posted? Some of the statements Slansky made (though not all of them) are correct in isolation. In context, however, they show that he is asserting extremely false and/or prejudicial assumptions about the nature of people, logic, and intelligence.
For example, nobody in the thread asserted or believes a statement such as the one in the quote above (i.e. that generally speaking, a member of the general population would be able to analyze a poker play as well as an MIT graduate). However, some people were asserting that if a disagreement arose between Lee Jones and Ed Miller about a poker problem, it should not be assumed a priori that Ed Miller is correct because of his academic qualifications.
The implication was that because Lee Jones did not have a degree from MIT and Ed Miller did, Ed Miller would be "be much more likely to correctly analyze the profitabiliy of poker plays" than Lee Jones. Even if it is true that Ed Miller would be much more likely to correctly analyze the profitabilility of poker plays (and it may be true), the MIT graduation distinction is certainly not the reason. Slanksy is ignoring every other possible qualification of these two people (e.g. he is not taking into account in his statements that Lee Jones, while not having a degree from MIT, has written a book on the subject of poker that many people, including Ed Miller, hail as one of the best poker books written).
I find the implications and assumptions of David Slansky not only personally insulting, as someone that was accepted to an MIT engineering program but had to turn it down because I didn't have enough money to go there, but also a clear indication that his rationality is clouded in an air of arrogance and/or inexperience.
Also, he is a Dick.
|
|
|
|
koolmoe
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Drowning in prosperity
Posts: 1,279
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by thenonsequitur
Did you read this thread or are you just making this statement based on the comment that euphoricism posted?
|
Yeah, I read it a while ago, so I don't have a perfect knowledge of the thread content.
Mostly I was commenting on the comment. But I think in general Sklansky likes to throw out true statements (like the one above) and let people jump to conclusions.
Of course, Jones's and Miller's advice should be weighed on its own merit rather than the educational backgrounds of the advisors. I don't think Sklansky has ever shied away from doing so.
However, in the lack of any other information besides educational background (e.g., imagine that you are a newbie standing in a bookstore trying to make a buying decision) I think Sklansky's point of view regarding an MIT education is relevant. I also think that is his primary motivation (book hawking) in making the argument. It is really irrelevant to a discussion on 2+2 about SS advice.
He's still a dick.
|
|
Poker is freedom
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by koolmoe
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by thenonsequitur
Did you read this thread or are you just making this statement based on the comment that euphoricism posted?
|
Yeah, I read it a while ago, so I don't have a perfect knowledge of the thread content.
Mostly I was commenting on the comment. But I think in general Sklansky likes to throw out true statements (like the one above) and let people jump to conclusions.
Of course, Jones's and Miller's advice should be weighed on its own merit rather than the educational backgrounds of the advisors. I don't think Sklansky has ever shied away from doing so.
However, in the lack of any other information besides educational background (e.g., imagine that you are a newbie standing in a bookstore trying to make a buying decision) I think Sklansky's point of view regarding an MIT education is relevant. I also think that is his primary motivation (book hawking) in making the argument. It is really irrelevant to a discussion on 2+2 about SS advice.
He's still a dick. |
I'll just assume you all like dick from the immense amounts of mentioning of the word "dick". BTW, reading thread.
|
|
|
|
LeFou
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,361
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by thenonsequitur
I find the implications and assumptions of David Slansky not only personally insulting, as someone that was accepted to an MIT engineering program but had to turn it down because I didn't have enough money to go there, but also a clear indication that his rationality is clouded in an air of arrogance and/or inexperience.
|
As a phil major, I love your analysys and your name, nonseq. DS's argument as presented was a blatant case of filtered/insufficient evidence. For one thing, Lee Jones != general public. Later he changed it to "MIT grad versus a guy who once wrote such-and-such". Talk about selecting facts to distort the decision...
If he had just said "Miller is right more often than Jones, and is therefore probably right here" he might have got a few nods. Of course, then the prejudicial nature of the statement would be obvious.
So disappointing.
|
|
|
|
Kessler
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 117
|
|
I got to page 28 of the idiocy and gave up. I kept looking for some good content, but it looks like Lee Jones just gave up on the whole thing.
-Kes
|
|
If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague.
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
