No, I did not read the studies. I never said you were wrong about MSG or any of the other things you were talking about - I have no idea. I only said that I give anecdotal evidence of something like that very little weight. My impression is that MSG got a bad rap and is coming back, and that the belief that aspartame causes brain cancer is an urban legend. However I'm not sure where I heard anything about MSG, and maybe there are other harmful effects of aspartame, so I recommend giving my opinion very little weight.:-)
Though I suspect that poker players themselves haven't thought too deeply about the gains that could be made by subtly cooperating with some opponents against others. Oh, they've thought of it, it just doesn't come up that often. I remember a unique tournament with a playoff structure, where tables of four played two games against each other, with the top two point earners from the two games put together moving on. One player in the second game in order to move on had to not only win, but have the other three players finish in a specific order. So he had to be sure to protect the short-stacked guy that needed to finish third until after he eliminated the guy who had to finish fourth. As it happened, he was successful - the other three players finished in the order he needed, and he won heads-up to move on to the next round. Some of the most amazing poker I've ever seen, played by Todd Brunson.
So the post isn't just off-topic, consider the disadvantage the human player is put to when faced with a computer, especially one well-versed in reading physical indicators of psychological factors. Polaris had no access to any such indicators, since it had no sensors. It was like playing poker online.
3. [Analyzing opponents' style] is important when playing as a human, but not so important when we reduce it to a game of numbers. It's important no matter what. If I don't know anything about how you play, that limits how well I can interpret your moves. If I know you're likely to make a move with a weak hand (because of what I've seen you do in the past) I can suppose that my AT is probably a better hand than what you have, while a tight player making the same move probably has me beaten.
Humans might manage to get a good expected value out of 7-2 off suit. But try that against this computer program and you're very likely to get burned. Not necessarily. If your bell curve is fairly flat then a human opponent would need to play fairly conservatively, because it would be very difficult to put the computer on a hand. But in that case the human could win big when they win. On the other hand, if the bell curve is steep, you know it's very likely the program is betting exactly like what it's actually holding. Give it bad pot odds, and it will almost certainly fold, so moving with 7-2 can be very effective.
You have A2, your opponent raises, you call, the flop is AAK, he goes all in. You risk everything because you don't credit your opponent with an ace? I'm not sure I would. I wouldn't say either decision is a bad one though.
Generally, yes. In heads-up (which we haven't even mentioned yet!) it gets even more complicated, because your opponent is much more likely to limp in with a strong hand in order to trap you. I love poker.:-)
And I think your point is dead false, especially when it comes to televised poker, in which the blinds are always very large, and the stacks quite short, meaning that the correct move is almost always mathematically provable, if one had the inclination. First, that's not true, and second you may be extrapolating "the NL poker I've seen on TV" to "all NL poker" which would be a big mistake. In tournament play, the blinds start very small compared to the stacks. Going all in preflop rarely happens at that point because it doesn't make sense. Hands often go all the way to the river with a showdown, because the action is small enough that there's more than one person who can afford to play it. Also, there are often more than two people on a flop, at least this is much more common than it is later in the tournament.
Second, in non-tournament (cash) play, the blinds are fixed and never go up. There's a minimum and maximum buy-in designed so that nobody can come in either short stacked or with a big chip advantage.
Watch something other than WSOP (terrible, terrible TV coverage) for an idea of what NL tournament poker is actually like. They all cherry-pick hands (other than the one live event I saw) but they're all better than ESPN.
Until you get blinds so big that the whole stack is threatened every hand, IMO NL is much more complex than limit, because on each play you have a wide range of options, compared to limit where you have, what? Three, at most (call/raise/fold or check/bet)? Before you respond angrily, I saw what you wrote about check-raises and future action and so on, but all that still applies to NL, with the added variable that the next bet can be much larger or smaller than the current one (usually larger of course).
Why are tournaments (I'm talking ones not on TV) so often no limit? Why are low-stakes cash games usually limit? I have my ideas, but I'm wondering what you think. Please note I'm not saying limit poker is easier to win than no limit, just simpler. I'm actually not very good at all at limit, because I'm used to NL and limit is a totally different game.
That's exactly the problem. You have to assume your opponent knows all this too. What if the flop is Ah As Kh, and your opponent has, say 9h Qh, and is going all in in hopes of stealing the pot, but with a chance at outdrawing if they get called? You would be about an 80% favorite with A2. Your decision gets much harder if you have something like A9, because there are fewer hands that beat you, and it seems unlikely something better than A9 would not try to trap. You're either drawing (almost) dead, or your opponent is semi-bluffing and you're a huge favorite - but which is it?? That's the beauty of poker, because if you always play the odds, you'll get owned (sorry, pwned) by a good player. They'll figure out you're playing the odds and take advantage of you even when they have no hand. You must be able to get a sense of what your opponent is doing when in order to win, at least at no limit.
It's been shown many times that common sense and relying on how obvious something seems are not always consistent with a *well-designed* scientific study. You can choose to believe in common sense over science, but I choose science.
Perhaps you should read it again. "Keep my desktop plugged in" and "plug in my desktop" do not mean the same thing. In the first one, the verb is "keep". In the second one, the verb is "plug in". Very different actions. I keep my desktop plugged in every day, all day. I think I have plugged it in one time in the last year.
If by "statistical knowledge" you mean taking into account the likely hands your opponent may have based on their behavior, then yes I agree. But that seems to be a pretty broad definition of the term.
Somebody's probably asked already, but I'm interested in what would happen if they played no limit. IMO the complexity goes through the roof compared to limit poker. It seems to me it would give a substantial edge back to the humans because of their ability to change gears and bluff. In limit, reading your opponent (yes, you can read an opponent playing online, via their betting) is not as important as it is in limit. I think a computer would have a hard time evaluating a big check-raise after a preflop limp in, for example. Any thoughts?
Any time a professional player makes a "call" it is because of statistical knowledge and not psychological, even if it is to set up a play later on. That's just not true. There are plenty of times a pro player makes a call believing they have the worst hand, in order to bluff the hand later. They know they have no hand, they know they have no reasonable draw, and they have every reason to believe the other player has a hand. A call in that situation could not be because of statistical knowledge. Now more often the player will bet or raise in such a situation rather than call (I don't know how specific you were being with the term "call") but it's the same principle.
But the RIAA, as far as I can tell, isn't really doing that, but rather, trying to get at the people who are infringing its members' copyrights.
If that's what they're doing. It is possible that they are going after anybody they can find and are not too worried about whether those people have actually infringed any of their members' copyrights. This campaign could be designed to convince people to stop getting music from the internet because of the fear of getting sued. I don't know if that is the case because I don't have all the information, but if I understand correctly it would be legal. That is, I don't know of a law that prevents them from sending a threatening letter to someone even if they have no evidence of wrongdoing. But IANAL; maybe you know more than I do.
I would disagree, as long as the law is legitimate. You really think it's possible to have a set of laws that ban everything unethical and nothing ethical? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you are not claiming that about current US law. Is it unethical to emotionally torment someone for no reason? Should it be illegal? Is it unethical to lie to and betray your friends? Should that be illegal? Law and ethics will never perfectly overlap, and there will always be things that the law permits but we should not do.
Maybe if RIAA lawyers' bodies starting turning up in large numbers, having been gruesomely mutilated, they would become unable to find any lawyers willing to continue this practice. Of course I would never advocate such a course of action, but it could make a profitable movie. Wait, that benefits the MPAA! ARGH!
I personally like my desktop because if I spill water on the keyboard it is a $15.00 repair, on a laptop that could easily run to a full replacement. Actually on the desktop it may be a matter of just letting it dry completely - depending on what bells and whistles your keyboard has. I've read of people actually washing their keyboards in the dishwasher, but I wouldn't try it unless I didn't mind losing it.
Many of the things people are wanting to use computers at home for require more than can be loaded on a laptop, even with adding peripheral harddrives for added storage. I'm not doing the things you mentioned, but is it really more than something like this can handle? Talking about common users, here. Personally I'm going to stick with desktops until I need something I can carry with me, because I already have a monitor I like and a desktop is cheaper. But it seems to me that if you're not doing anything unusually demanding, there's a laptop for you.
Really? I think he should be calling 911. And what gives you the idea teaching and protecting are mutually exclusive? Sometimes teaching is the best way to protect. For example, teaching your children to watch for traffic before they cross the street, in order to protect them. I now let my 6-year-old cross residential streets by himself because he's been taught (though I still remind him). My 2-year-old I must protect by crossing with him, since he has no clue how to judge whether it is safe to cross. So I TEACH him that he must hold my hand in the street. When he is ready, I will then teach him how to cross safely by himself. A similar approach can be taken in other areas as well. I can (mostly) protect my children from profane speech until they are able to understand what it is, and then I can teach them about it. The most important teaching of course is by example, so speak the way you want your kids to speak. "Teach always. When necessary, speak."
"Daddy, why did that man just buzz? Is buzzing a bad thing?" Pretty much. My son asked me what that beeping was, and I explained that he used a bad word. My 6-year-old may have heard these words a few times, but I doubt he could figure out what motherfbleep is. And I'm fine with that.:-) Anymore though I don't put on the Daily Show when he's around. Between the adult topics and jokes, and coverage of violence such Iraq, it's just not something he needs to see.
Does "can't" mean you haven't called AT&T and insisted that they fix it, or does it mean they refuse to fix it? Many people seem to hate the company with a burning passion, but I've had very good customer service from them so far.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I did not read the studies. I never said you were wrong about MSG or any of the other things you were talking about - I have no idea. I only said that I give anecdotal evidence of something like that very little weight. My impression is that MSG got a bad rap and is coming back, and that the belief that aspartame causes brain cancer is an urban legend. However I'm not sure where I heard anything about MSG, and maybe there are other harmful effects of aspartame, so I recommend giving my opinion very little weight. :-)
Well, if you want to call pointing out a significant change of meaning pedantic, then OK. Wait, was that pedantic?
You have A2, your opponent raises, you call, the flop is AAK, he goes all in. You risk everything because you don't credit your opponent with an ace? I'm not sure I would. I wouldn't say either decision is a bad one though.
Generally, yes. In heads-up (which we haven't even mentioned yet!) it gets even more complicated, because your opponent is much more likely to limp in with a strong hand in order to trap you. I love poker. :-)
Second, in non-tournament (cash) play, the blinds are fixed and never go up. There's a minimum and maximum buy-in designed so that nobody can come in either short stacked or with a big chip advantage.
Watch something other than WSOP (terrible, terrible TV coverage) for an idea of what NL tournament poker is actually like. They all cherry-pick hands (other than the one live event I saw) but they're all better than ESPN.
Until you get blinds so big that the whole stack is threatened every hand, IMO NL is much more complex than limit, because on each play you have a wide range of options, compared to limit where you have, what? Three, at most (call/raise/fold or check/bet)? Before you respond angrily, I saw what you wrote about check-raises and future action and so on, but all that still applies to NL, with the added variable that the next bet can be much larger or smaller than the current one (usually larger of course).
Why are tournaments (I'm talking ones not on TV) so often no limit? Why are low-stakes cash games usually limit? I have my ideas, but I'm wondering what you think. Please note I'm not saying limit poker is easier to win than no limit, just simpler. I'm actually not very good at all at limit, because I'm used to NL and limit is a totally different game.
That's exactly the problem. You have to assume your opponent knows all this too. What if the flop is Ah As Kh, and your opponent has, say 9h Qh, and is going all in in hopes of stealing the pot, but with a chance at outdrawing if they get called? You would be about an 80% favorite with A2. Your decision gets much harder if you have something like A9, because there are fewer hands that beat you, and it seems unlikely something better than A9 would not try to trap. You're either drawing (almost) dead, or your opponent is semi-bluffing and you're a huge favorite - but which is it?? That's the beauty of poker, because if you always play the odds, you'll get owned (sorry, pwned) by a good player. They'll figure out you're playing the odds and take advantage of you even when they have no hand. You must be able to get a sense of what your opponent is doing when in order to win, at least at no limit.
It's been shown many times that common sense and relying on how obvious something seems are not always consistent with a *well-designed* scientific study. You can choose to believe in common sense over science, but I choose science.
Perhaps you should read it again. "Keep my desktop plugged in" and "plug in my desktop" do not mean the same thing. In the first one, the verb is "keep". In the second one, the verb is "plug in". Very different actions. I keep my desktop plugged in every day, all day. I think I have plugged it in one time in the last year.
If by "statistical knowledge" you mean taking into account the likely hands your opponent may have based on their behavior, then yes I agree. But that seems to be a pretty broad definition of the term.
Somebody's probably asked already, but I'm interested in what would happen if they played no limit. IMO the complexity goes through the roof compared to limit poker. It seems to me it would give a substantial edge back to the humans because of their ability to change gears and bluff. In limit, reading your opponent (yes, you can read an opponent playing online, via their betting) is not as important as it is in limit. I think a computer would have a hard time evaluating a big check-raise after a preflop limp in, for example. Any thoughts?
Show me a double-blind randomized controlled study with the same findings and I'll be interested.
Maybe if RIAA lawyers' bodies starting turning up in large numbers, having been gruesomely mutilated, they would become unable to find any lawyers willing to continue this practice. Of course I would never advocate such a course of action, but it could make a profitable movie. Wait, that benefits the MPAA! ARGH!
I think you mean you need to keep your desktop plugged in more than your laptop. Otherwise, you're doing something wrong.
Really? I think he should be calling 911. And what gives you the idea teaching and protecting are mutually exclusive? Sometimes teaching is the best way to protect. For example, teaching your children to watch for traffic before they cross the street, in order to protect them. I now let my 6-year-old cross residential streets by himself because he's been taught (though I still remind him). My 2-year-old I must protect by crossing with him, since he has no clue how to judge whether it is safe to cross. So I TEACH him that he must hold my hand in the street. When he is ready, I will then teach him how to cross safely by himself. A similar approach can be taken in other areas as well. I can (mostly) protect my children from profane speech until they are able to understand what it is, and then I can teach them about it. The most important teaching of course is by example, so speak the way you want your kids to speak. "Teach always. When necessary, speak."
Does "can't" mean you haven't called AT&T and insisted that they fix it, or does it mean they refuse to fix it? Many people seem to hate the company with a burning passion, but I've had very good customer service from them so far.
What is your definition of "alternative"?