Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Anyone Seen This Book?

  1. #11
    RyckyRych's Avatar
    RyckyRych is offline Retired Micro Grinder
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Queso View Post
    Why don't you put some insignificant amount of money onto Bovada and get back to playing?
    Because I do not consider any amount of money insignificant. Plus, I honestly don't have the time or the desire right now.
    I do a new thing now. Hidden Content

  2. #12
    Queso's Avatar
    Queso is offline Check To The Possible
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RyckyRych View Post
    Because I do not consider any amount of money insignificant. Plus, I honestly don't have the time or the desire right now.
    Fair enough.

  3. #13
    Queso's Avatar
    Queso is offline Check To The Possible
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J_Verschueren View Post
    Well, really hard for me to label that response with anything less than childish, but anyway.
    "Childish" is exactly what I was going for.

  4. #14
    Queso's Avatar
    Queso is offline Check To The Possible
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J_Verschueren View Post
    And the "autosave" feature didn't save your ass? -strange, as it has done so for me a number of times.
    Nope. It kicked me to the next page, no autosave button available. Tried to go back one screen, and even the reply box was gone. Oh well.

    I found this book fascinating. Mostly because of the deeply human, compassionate and insightful points the author strove to make, about the mind and the life of a poker player, certainly (and no doubt intentionally) at the expense of math and other such "game" considerations. One of the first things he states is that the book is not about "how to play", but rather, how to "be a poker player". I've never seen a book make that exact distinction before. So it's really not intended to be "game changing". One of the other early points he makes is that the book isn't intended to be "life-changing", either. Because no one book or source of information is ever going to be able to do that. Of the many things we may ever be able to glean in life, from books, videos, friendships, forums, etc, insofar as they apply to poker, the point is that in their totality, we may be able to construct for ourselves a thing of eventual beauty.

    I liked his approach, his thought processes, the points he made when perhaps the obvious would have sufficed. I found it very thoughtful and also thought-provoking. It was literally different from every other poker book I've ever read. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it, as (indeed the book itself points out in its title) a philosophical discourse that a dedicated poker player may find of some peculiar and particular insight and comfort on his journey. I know I have.

    It surprised me to learn of the controversy surrounding the author. It was intriguing to see how, in his own mind, the 'chip dumping' episode was an innocent way to transfer funds to a protege. When it blew up in his face, he owned up, explained everything that happened from his own perspective, and stepped away completely from the game to exonerate himself if at all possible. I found it fascinating to learn he had given away every dime he ever made from poker to charity. It would be easy to think that this book was a charlatan's attempt to grab some extra cash from unsuspecting poker rubes who could be led around by the nose. As far as I'm concerned, nothing could be further from the truth. I would hate to think some players who could have greatly benefited from this book would turn away from it based on such facile assumptions.

    And of course, I never heard of him before last week, so I certainly have no stake in the outcome.

    As far as "needing extra steps to understand what everyone who've had the matter explained correctly to them in the first place takes for granted", in respect to mathematics and science, I'll be honest and admit that what you're saying makes no sense to me. If you mean math and science in the general sense, I can't speak to that because I have no other frame of reference than a Western education. You may be exactly right. My own personal proclivities were always towards words as opposed to numbers, so math, chemistry, etc. was never my bag. I suppose even the greatest European teacher might have been exasperated with me. :)

    If you're talking specifically about the math of poker, I don't see how that applies, because it didn't take long for me to grasp. Odds and outs are fairly easy, expected value is a little more complicated, ICM probably the most. It's certainly not the reason I picked up Quereshi's book.

    So if your statement is true that I, as a Westerner, would need math and science explained to me correctly because it wasn't made clear the first time, I guess I'm all ears. If it's because I earn my living in a simple construction trade, well--- then I would feel a little "spoken-down-to".

  5. #15
    J_Verschueren's Avatar
    J_Verschueren is offline They call me "J"
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Antwerp, Belgium
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Queso View Post
    Nope. It kicked me to the next page, no autosave button available. Tried to go back one screen, and even the reply box was gone. Oh well.
    Strange, like I said, it has already saved me a couple times when I absentmindedly surfed away from the forum while composing a reply.

    I found this book fascinating. Mostly because of the deeply human, compassionate and insightful points the author strove to make, about the mind and the life of a poker player, certainly (and no doubt intentionally) at the expense of math and other such "game" considerations. One of the first things he states is that the book is not about "how to play", but rather, how to "be a poker player". I've never seen a book make that exact distinction before. So it's really not intended to be "game changing". One of the other early points he makes is that the book isn't intended to be "life-changing", either. Because no one book or source of information is ever going to be able to do that. Of the many things we may ever be able to glean in life, from books, videos, friendships, forums, etc, insofar as they apply to poker, the point is that in their totality, we may be able to construct for ourselves a thing of eventual beauty.
    I understand where you're coming from, though, for me, he's not the first author who's tried to share a perspective on how to integrate gambling in life and remaining an ethical human being. "Poker, gaming and life" by Sklansky, articles and writings (bundled in book form or not) by Mason Malmuth and "Elements of Poker" by Tommy Angelo (and some Pokerology articles!!) are just a few inspirations I drew from in coming to terms with poker in my life.

    I liked his approach, his thought processes, the points he made when perhaps the obvious would have sufficed. I found it very thoughtful and also thought-provoking. It was literally different from every other poker book I've ever read. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it, as (indeed the book itself points out in its title) a philosophical discourse that a dedicated poker player may find of some peculiar and particular insight and comfort on his journey. I know I have.
    And I'm glad you did. I also hope I didn't make it seem as if was not interested in reading further and have my thoughts provoked by his perspective. It's just, in the material I read, he treated some insights as revelations, whereas I knew of the implications of a statistical approach to a set of occurrances incorporating a strong randomizing agent long before I started playing poker. I was also a bit peaked that he, as someone with no formal education in my field of expertise, made some very broad, outsider generalisations to make his point, which just don't hold water at all.

    It surprised me to learn of the controversy surrounding the author. <snip>
    Sort of ditto. Like I said, I didn't pay much attention at the time... was there a lot of money involved? High stakes pokerplayers can lose perspective and get a bit high and mighty at times. I certainly wouldn't disregard what he has to say about being a poker player just because he once did something which might be interpreted as "unethical".

    Intersection: I'm going to mess with the order of your post a little to make my point more clear/easier to construct. Apologies.

    So if your statement is true that I, as a Westerner, would need math and science explained to me correctly because it wasn't made clear the first time, I guess I'm all ears. If it's because I earn my living in a simple construction trade, well--- then I would feel a little "spoken-down-to".
    Well, you've misunderstood my terminology. It's not because you live to the West of me, I consider you a Westerner.

    With a "western education" I mean the sort of education you get from, say, White Russia through mainland and nothern/southern Europe, the British Isles, Ireland, the US, Canada and heavily influenced overseas territories, like Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, etc... A common theme throughout is that education is very much geared to what you want to do when compulsory school ends. So, no, it's not because you apply a trade, you have to work at coming to the same conclusions as math/science/engineering academics. It's because your school curriculum was a (lazy, imo) compromise, teaching you a "good enough" understanding for what you were projected to be doing in adult life.
    So: it's not just you, or anyone else who applies a trade (let it be known I have the utmost respect for craftsmen). It's also doctors, lawyers, politicians (and anything in between), basically anyone who didn't follow a high school curriculum which was geared towards going to university and majoring in math, the exact sciences or engineering.
    Unless you, as a teen, aspired to become a particle physicist, aced highschool, did the first couple years of higher education and then decided, nah, f**k it, I'm going to install some kitchens/plumbing, I hold you were not thaught the tools and insights needed to grasp the underlying mathematics of poker, right out of the gate.
    Thus there's a reason why people from a math/science/engineering background tend to do ok in poker, regardless of their card sense or how well they read people. It's because they have an intuitive grasp of the implications of the mathematics involved *AND* they've learned to distrust their pattern seeking minds. In math/science/engineering you learn to take a new insight and crash test it. Making sure it doesn't voilate earlier, accepted principles, making sure there is no confirmation bias on your behalf and inviting others to replicate your results.

    As far as "needing extra steps to understand what everyone who've had the matter explained correctly to them in the first place takes for granted", in respect to mathematics and science, I'll be honest and admit that what you're saying makes no sense to me. If you mean math and science in the general sense, I can't speak to that because I have no other frame of reference than a Western education. You may be exactly right. My own personal proclivities were always towards words as opposed to numbers, so math, chemistry, etc. was never my bag. I suppose even the greatest European teacher might have been exasperated with me. :)
    Again, there is nothing wrong with following one's interest as far as education goes. However, you should at the same time acknowledge, by shifting the accent of your education, you receive a much less thorough grounding in what has been the driving force behind our rapid ascention to being the dominant species on Earth, namely putting numbers on things and, thus, being able to predict what is going to happen in the short and long term, disregarding freak occurances (random element, which, BTW, we can account for).

    There is no better way I can illustrate this with than the story of a friend and classmate of mine. In 10th grade she could no longer keep up with the math/science heavy curriculum I was in. She was ok on the regular subjects (languages, history, geography, social science, etc...) and borderline in biology, but she really struggled with math, physics, programming and chemistry. So she flunked this curriculum and transferred to a trade oriented curriculum (because the way our system works she then would not have to "redo" 10th grade): she studied to be a cook (and now loves it and wouldn't want to do anything else in life and I respect that very much. I try to learn as much of her as I can). In 11th and senior grade she suddenly aced all the subjects she struggled with before (there was no programming course in that particular curriculum). Why? -because they were simplified. Instead of being required to explain chemical reactions from a standpoint of how they really happen (bonds formed because the combined energy level and inhabited shell of the electrons shared is lower than the exitation state they were in before), the teacher told her the sub-indices (to indicate the number of possible bonds in the reaction mixture) in the reaction equation had to add up to the same number on both sides (like, duh, but that doesn't explain what happens!!!)

    If you're talking specifically about the math of poker, I don't see how that applies, because it didn't take long for me to grasp. Odds and outs are fairly easy, expected value is a little more complicated, ICM probably the most. <snip>
    Well, yes, the actual math is quite simple to understand, because it's an abstraction of reality we've created to better predict what will happen over "time". But it's only simple if one leaves it at that. If you go into why it works out like that or how to correctly evaluate one's short term results, it gets quite complicated quite quickly.
    It's all good and well to understand expected value, your "average" win over time, but if I were to ask you to explain how "average" differs from "mean" or what "standard deviation" really is, or what "confidence intervals" are... could you answer (and that's without taking into account people are actually trying to outwit eachother in a game... )? -probably not, but that's not your fault, as our education system decided you didn't need to know.

    Which, again, I think is a major flaw. If most people were truly educated in the mathematics of randomness, chance, trends and statistics, we'd make much better decisions as to who we elect in to power and might actually survive as a species
    Last edited by J_Verschueren; Jul 31st, 2014 at 03:59 AM.

  6. #16
    Queso's Avatar
    Queso is offline Check To The Possible
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,672

    Default

    (Charlie Brown and Linus are looking at the clouds.)

    Linus: "That one looks like Napoleon gathering his troops at Waterloo. And this one looks like the triumphal entry of Christ into Jerusalem. What do you see, Charlie Brown?"

    Charlie Brown: "I was gonna say I saw a duckie and a horsie, but I changed my mind."


    I guess you're right, J. Mankind never needed languages or the arts to evolve. Just a decent slide-rule!

  7. #17
    J_Verschueren's Avatar
    J_Verschueren is offline They call me "J"
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Antwerp, Belgium
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Queso View Post
    [I](I guess you're right, J. Mankind never needed languages or the arts to evolve. Just a decent slide-rule!
    I'm not saying the arts and languages need to be neglected in favour of, but just they're less crucial to dealing with the complexities of our daily lives and the challenges we face in the modern world.

    I was thinking more along the lines of shifting accents in the math curriculum itself, because a lot of what is taught now was developed to simplify calculations in the days before we had computers (and could brute force these problems*). Not saying this should disappear (as in we might still need it in case of, say, a zombie apocalypse ), just to free up course time for a more thorough understanding of big numbers or what random implies, etc...

    A lot of the debates which now dominate the political landscape exist because the general population doesn't have the tools to deconstruct one (or both) side's arguments and this leads to procrastination on some very important issues.

    Sorry for derailing the topic, but this is something I feel strongly about. As you might have noticed.

    (*) Rem.: we have to when using computers, because we can't teach them to think the way we do.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    77

    Default

    I read it. It sucks.

  9. #19
    Breezy's Avatar
    Breezy is offline Feel the Breeze
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Eaton Rapids, Michigan
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Nope but thanks for letting me know I can get a new book. lol
    ​Breezy

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •