Poker-related academic study (cliffs@end)

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm not sure x causes a problem stop x is always the best line of reasoning.

Sure. I believe in a bit of healthy sacrifice for the greater good.

In that situation, the "greater good" was mediocre for me.

That said... in general, I think it applies more often than not.

[Savy]

Sure. I believe in a bit of healthy sacrifice for the greater good.

In that situation, the "greater good" was mediocre for me.

That said... in general, I think it applies more often than not.

The actual general answer is there is no reason not to be dealing with something that negatively effects you. Avoidance is very specific, in terms of poker then it may work but if you were earning a lot more playing poker than was reasonable to expect from anything else is avoidance the acceptable thing?

This may sound like general nonsense crap advice but I really don't think it is. Maybe if you assume you can optimally deal with everything it comes across that way but if you realise this to be completely false it works. Or maybe it's just some step one bullshit that people use to sell shit to people (i.e. step one admit you have a problem).

I haven't worked out the solution to this yet, other than booze helps a lot.

On a related note, one area I'd be really interested in looking into is the role of confidence in sport and games. In English football, it's weird how teams can go from losing every week to winning every week after just one trigger, like sneaking a late equaliser in a dire match.

First bit booze doesn't help at all bar covering up the symptoms of the problem.

Second bit, I'm pretty sure this has been looked into and it's actually mostly made up shit. The narratives spun in the media about certain topics, especially sports, really do try their best to frame things in stories which invoke the public.

I imagine you're talking about something like Leicester but that comes down to players wanting to get rid of a manager, note that the media spun this as Kante being GOAT hence Chelsea now winning & Leicester losing. This coupled with some run good (even better for the media) and we have false narratives that are easy to write.

Also think of the bias, a team changes manager and they do better for a bit -> story new manager saves the day etc

A team changes manager and results are similar -> there is no story.

The third option about changing and them doing worse tends to not come up that much because the team has to be doing badly for them to change manager & when it does it gets blamed on the players not the manager.