Monday 2.57pm
I am listening to Tom Waits, Swordfishtrombones. I'm a latecomer to Tom Waits. At least, I've always sort of liked him but didn't own any of the albums.I'm playing a five-dollar sitngo. I'm a winning player at this level, based on my thin record. I'll need to play thousands before I can be sure. Maybe I've just been lucky. I never seem to get any better. It feels like there is something I'm fundamentally just not getting in poker.
Well, how does that make it any different from any other area of life?
So I'm editing this book on information systems, and it's not how I would have written on that subject. It's so dull and information-free. But it's a third edition, and I don't play any part in developing this rubbish. I just fix up the gross errors and silently weep at what a waste of my time this is. The problem is, I suppose, that you don't get to be a professor of information systems by being a smart or insightful guy. If you were that, you'd probably be coining it in business. If your public service ethic didn't allow that, you'd be doing exciting research. Not retreading the turgid bullshit that you teach undergrads.
The sitngo isn't going well. No hands in three levels. I pick up JJ and raise large UTG. I'd settle for just picking up the blinds. I hate the hooks. All fold. I play the big blind (folding a gutshot on the turn getting 3 to 1) and return to folding my hands.
I have put on Arcade Fire's new album. It's not as good as Funeral. But not much is. That's not to say it's not a very good album. It has some rather weak tracks but a couple of the standouts (Intervention and My body is a cage, to name two) really do stand out.
We've gone another orbit and I haven't played a hand. Blinds at t100 and we still have eight runners. This is going to be tough if I can't double up in the next orbit, particularly with a very big stack on the button when I pay the big blind. K3, I miss the flop again and fold to a minbet. The guy only had a draw but I'm not going to play with no pair, no draw. He rivered the straight card anyway. Bugger. Picked up ATs in the CO and would have pushed, but some guy bet before me, making my hand trash. He had A7 and should have pushed if he was playing that shit.
Intervention shows what's possible if you think big. The song itself is nothing all that special. If you heard it acoustic, you probably wouldn't think much of it. But the instrumentation is everything. I'm a sucker for a well-placed organ.
33 in the BB. I check. The flop is 665. I stopngo and push. All fold. I make a small pot. We are now on the bubble. Unbelievably, I've voluntarily played one hand and have made the bubble. KT in the BB. The SB completes and I push. He folds. A3s on the button. I push. Both blinds fold. I like the bubble much more than the middle game, although I'd like not to be so card dead. You can't keep pushing at this level. You'll be called out of spite.
Okay. Card dead. Pushing with any two. The other guys are just trading chips, none getting it in, so I'm fucked basically. The SB has learned to push at me with ATC. I can't call so he's taking my blind every time.
I am not enjoying this afternoon. I can't find a comfortable way to sit and I have a headache. I have made the money. I folded AQ to an all in and it was a good move although I would have won the pot.
I suck out with J7 against A9 and I'm going to be at least second. I'm so short that it's push/fold heads up though.
This guy is so negative. He doesn't really want to win.
Eventually, he overbets K9 and I push with 77. Of course he hits a 9. Never mind. Second place pays $15.
posted by Dr Zen @ 2:58 pm
21 Comments:
Zen wrote, "Maybe I've just been lucky. I never seem to get any better. It feels like there is something I'm fundamentally just not getting in poker."
boots sez: Consider that it could be something you're fundamentally just not getting and that poker is the only place to date where it has shown itself.
The more complex a game of chance is, the more opportunities it presents for us to misplace our attention.
Games and sports, I think we enjoy them for what they teach us.
Have you tried simpler games of chance? It may be that if you simplify things the aspect that you mention will be easier to find.
Good luck.
Poker is not entirely a game of chance. I've tried games of chance and don't really like them. Perhaps I should post my analysis of Monopoly? It's a truly boring game because skill is almost nonexistent. I don't care for gambling games that involve chance alone either. I wouldn't play roulette or craps. They are sure losers. I play the horses sometimes but I wouldn't if I felt that I couldn't win.
Some poker players have a desire to lose. I don't. Quite the opposite.
boots sez:
Thing of it is, if chance is involved at all, the outcome can be determined by chance alone and skill be damned.
Sure, over time the maths will out because after all they're only averages anyway. They're for "average" people I suppose, but I never met anyone with 2.4 children. Descriptive statistics are quite useful, if I survive chance accidents they tell me I'll probably live to be in my 70s. Goodness, perhaps I'm confusing their descriptive and predictive aspsects.
You said Some poker players have a desire to lose. I don't. Quite the opposite. A desire to win is not a bad thing I suppose, if you're doing something unimportant.
There are two components involved in winning a poker game, skill and luck. You can improve the skill aspect to its maximum and luck can still fuck you in the arse, likewise you can have little or no skill and luck can give you the pot. I'm sure you've seen both happen.
Seeing it happen doesn't explain it though does it. I wonder how fundamental that is.
Oh well, I'm sure you'll work it out, you're much brighter than myself. Thanks to all the gods for that, I'm too bright already and sometimes wish that I'd been retarded and wouldn't have the capacity to worry about things that're beyond my power to change.
I play more than one pot, boots, so whether I'm lucky in this or that one isn't an issue. I believe that in the long term, "luck" will even out. My world would probably be richer if I didn't believe that, but temperamentally I cannot believe in ghosts, fairies or telekinesis either.
Poker has a good balance of skill and luck. Enough luck to allow the fish to feel that they can win, and enough skill to ensure that over time they can't.
boots sez:
Zen, regarding that book you're editing on information systems. You describe it as "dull and information-free".
A dull book on that subject is understandable, but information-free is unforgivable.
Success and what you end up doing in that industry depend not on your skills and abilities so much as whether you can be an arrogant loudmouth with a straight face. Research positions are held more often through shouting others down than through innovation and discovery. Professors tend to be those who are only able to shout down their students.
Sad fucking world.
Yeah, but the only one we have, innit.
boots sez:
Regarding the statement "I play more than one pot, boots, so whether I'm lucky in this or that one isn't an issue", I'd need to say that sounds fairly fundamental.
You said, "temperamentally I cannot believe in ghosts, fairies or telekinesis either". It seems you mistake me Zen, I am far more rigorous than I may appear. Assumptions are killer.
boots sez:
"Yeah, but the only one we have, innit."
That is what we commonly assume, yes. The concept of time seems to be only vaguely undestood by almost all, but that vague understanding does seem to serve within its limits.
Well, it's 0245 here and I've been up for almost two hours and have not yet begun my day's work, it's time to move to that for now. Stay well.
Any time you want to set me straight on my assumptions, I'm willing to listen. I am trying to learn and I take everything in, good and bad. I'm not so closed-minded that I don't think I can't learn from the most unlikely of sources.
I strongly believe that for all useful purposes, this is the only world we have. I do not pretend to understand time. I'd be happy to believe that it doesn't exist and that we inhabit a block universe. That makes a certain sense to me. I'd also happily believe that we live in a multiverse, but I don't see how it practically makes any difference if we do.
Oh, and I'm not too organised. It rarely makes any difference since most of the shit I have, I can live without.
boots sez:
If you learn from a particular source it makes fuckall difference how likely that source seemed beforehand, eh? A few of the most important things I've ever learned were learned from a retarded fellow I knew many years ago. He was making his way through life admirably without a clue what he was doing, how did he do that? His algorithms were vastly different from my own, yet in the essential aspects of life their results were quite acceptable.
I have no desire to "set you straight" on anything, it is not my desire to put myself above you that way. I will share what I have learned with you (as best I can), and you will make of it what you will. Fair enough?
This is the only world we have, now, at this moment. Time is our perception of change. Our assumption is that the universe flows forward smoothly, without fits and starts, without gaps. That need not be the case. The world now can be entirely different from the previous world even though it seems changed in only a few ways.
When you watch action on a crt screen, it appears that things are moving smoothly. In fact a new image is being scanned to the screen, in its entirety, often enough to cause your perceptions to see the objects within as moving.
Theories have it that "God created the world" or that a "big bang" occurred, in any case there is presumed to be some unknowable source of everything that exists, and further that the things that exist remain constant aside from explainable changes -- decay, interaction, etc.
Whether "the world" came into existance as a result of a, b, or c, it is assumed that it was born in a primordial state and has since become more refined.
In computer science that is what we call iterative development.
It is time for me to go to my workshop for a smoke, I do not smoke in the trailer and my workshop is a hazardous environment for my computer. If you choose to reply with the expected response (boots, you're a nutter) that's fine, perhaps it will enable me to get more work done.
The question that comes to mind is "what makes you think that?"
Rather than consider you a nutter, I look at it like this. If you are right, the rest of the world is nuts, but who's to say who's right?
boots sez:
I'd almost rather you'd called me a nutter, I'm getting dickall done this morning.
What makes me think that? That's pretty easy to answer with a broad brush. It matches up with my experiences, and I have been unable to disprove it through experiment.
I believe in what is commonly called "scientific method" which consists of observation, development of hypotheses, rigorous testing, conclusion, and further observation. I'm a very pragmatic guy Zen, what works works, and what doesn't work is bullshit.
Do I have any chance of even explaining my view of things, and beyond that presenting it in a way you might find convincing enough to put to some testing?
The odds are definitely against it.
I believe in the scientific method too, of course. So lay it on me. I will listen to any story once.
boots sez:
I'm not sure what to lay on you, Zen. Condensing the conclusions of a lifetime's observation into a couple sentences is beyond me.
What I suggest is that you smoke some weed and see what occurs to you... as for me, I've run out of coffee and will be trying to catch a few zzzz's before the sun comes up.
Email if desired, wait and see what turns up, whatever.
"I am full of shit" would have saved you some keystrokes, man.
"Swordfishtrombones"
Good stuff, and you've got a few more excellent albums to listen to as well. "Heart of a Saturday Night" would be my suggestion for the next in line.
I've been listening to some Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds recently, thinking that there's at least a nodding tribute to TW, if not major influence there.
boots sez: regarding ["I am full of shit" would have saved you some keystrokes, man.] yes, brevity over truth innit.
You wrote "I believe in the scientific method too, of course."
"of course"? Yes, that is politically correct isn't it.
I believe what I can prove for myself. Excepts from my life would not constitute proof to anyone else without the context. So the question really is, how can Zen prove or disprove for himself. It's not something one can set out after and accomplish in an afternoon.
Assuming one grasps fully what "it" is. Is "it" that reality is constantly recreated, or is "it" how to interact with reality in a way that works regardless?
Choosing an area to observe closely is probably a first step. Something devoid of "luck" might be best. Is there anything devoid of "luck"? Getting lucky, perhaps.
The "of course" refers to my having described my belief in it so many times, not to any notion of what is politically correct.
The heart of the scientific method is replicability, boots. Forgotten that bit?
boots sez:
No, I've not forgotten replicability, it's essential. It's also essential to retain perspective... in a paradigm shift of this scope, replicability from individual to individual is not implied (if we are actually in a multiverse it would mean cross-universe replicability which is not a given) it is only assumed if one does not yet grasp the paradigm; replicability for a particular individual is what is necessary and, possibly, sufficient.
What we are talking about, really, is a case of trying to "prove" one paradigm from within an entirely different paradigm. How to go about that is not obvious. One needs to go about it backwards so to speak.
Reaching a level that one considers "proof" depends upon the individual, some will believe in fairies and crystal-power because it's the in thing to do, others require more rigor. I am trying to come up with a method you might be able to use to "prove" something to yourself, or at least gain some insight; my telling you that I've proven something to myself is useless.
Here is what I suggest trying. Take the paradigm as an assumption, state some of its implications, then examine those to see if they are verifiable or disprovable. Once you get going with some results either positive or negative, some course toward either acceptance or denial should become more clear.
Can you come up with a small set of implied properties? I will think about it and see what I can come up with, but if we both consider implications that can be stated it may speed the process.
boots sez: Zen, it appears that I'm swamped here for the nonce, and it's doubtful that once I'm past that I'll have the patience to hunt down this thread or remember it exists. Email if you wish, consider me "full of shit" if you choose (less work for me that way frankly). Stay well.
boots, I don't think I have your email and anyway, it's you who needs to email me. You won't lose this thread anyway, because I can't post at the moment -- blogger has decided my username no longer exists so I can't log in. Maybe I will blog in my own comments from now on.
Post a Comment
<< Home