The Chevalier de M´er´e (1650s) won alot of money gambling on throwing at
least one 6 after four throws of a single fair six-sided die. Is the probability of this event occuring
greater than or less than 1/2
i will comment on my experience in poker over these 4 months, since i played 44k hands of HU during that time.
In march i adopted a strategy of never playing more than 4 tables and game selecting a little harder, ONCE AND FOR ALL!!! I had been switching between mass tabling and 4 tabling but just decided to stick with 4 tables forever. (Anyway, it's not a new strategy, i've tried it ever since being inspired by longple's success a few years back.)
This strategy was so i could(hopefully) improve faster than the other regs. I also stopped playing zoom, and only played the slow 6max tables to give me time to observe everything. I've never improved as much in such a short time span as that 4 month period playing poker.
Playing only on pokerstars i'd be surprised if you can get more than 3k hands vs fish in a month from bumhunting hu. (1fish a day, average of 100 hands).
So i'd say about 75%+ of my hands were against regs. Since the worser regs dodge every reg, it was mostly vs the top 10% skilled regs of each limit. (there were some tilted regs willing to play sometimes)
Are people still improving?
Of course they are. To put it in perspective, in 2012 when i started getting into midstakes i knew a reg that would play everyone they could HU, and would grind a lot of 6max, making 400k a year. They refused to improve and relied on their innate gift of mass tabling to win $, and in 2013 they are breakeven over 1mill+ hands, and free money for me to play HU. They recently started dodging me. When i first played them in 2012 they crushed me. I'd say there are a lot of regs like this.
The rate of improvement in poker is still big, but the game is 90% table selection nowdays, which kinda sucks.
And i am suspicious of some of the players these days that make terrible mistakes like opening way too loose from utg(24%)and still have a giant winrate. A lot of the Russians seem pretty bad to me and have average table selection but seem to make a ton of money. Im not the only one that has this suspicion.
So an interesting coincidence came across me today
i was reading a noam chomsky excerpt which basically says the chicago school of economics ignored a huge part of adam smiths philosphy when nobel prize winner, geroge stigler wrote: selections from the wealth of nations.
'It's likely he never opened The Wealth of Nations. Just about everything he said about the book was completely false.'
'Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be.'
so i take another attempt at reading the wealth of nations. One of the most difficult books i've tried to read to be honest. I look up division of labor on wikipedia.
so i find that quote in the wealth of nations at page 410.
'The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life... But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it''
adam smith goes on to talk alot about more about this, but i don't want to quote a whole chapter. You can read this yourself.
Karl marx also has a very similar view, you can find this on page 4 of his economic and philisophical manuscript.
'The accumulation of capital increases the division of labor, and the division of labor increases the number of workers. Conversely, the number of workers increases the division of labor, just as the division of labor increases the accumulation of capital. With this division of labor on the one hand and the accumulation of capital on the other, the worker becomes ever more exclusively dependent on labor, and on a particular, very one-sided, machine-like labor at that. Just as he is thus depressed spiritually and physically to the condition of a machine''
The 2nd interesting part is that straight after i this i watch a good ted talk about motivation in work.
The last two minutes of the ted talk is the interesting thing, he doesn't really bring up that Adam Smith was as much into meaning as Karl Marx was. So this is just another very subtle example, imo at how even the most intelligent, scientific people are indoctrinated.
Im just going to delve into my own speculation now.
Our indoctrination is partly from a massive surplass of information. If we are to even try to decipher history and indoctrinated public opinion and attitudes it takes a lot of reading. Something that almost no one can do as they have too many distractions in their life already. There is also an increasing amount of concision in todays media, people have degrading concentration spans. Twitter only allows you to post 140 characters for example. it seems to me that indoctrination is just going to become more and more easy as information increases and the dehumanization of the human concentration span increases too. There is an interesting opinion written about the distintegration of humans aljazeera, which covers this a little bit. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/201332882423542636.html
Up until last year i was extremely ignorant about how the world works, i still am pretty ignorant. To actually be well informed about the world you need to learn a huge amount of information about history, economics, science. Ect. This usually involves reading a ton of books. This is extremely hard for 99.9% of people to do when we are distracted by 8 hour work days, school, ect. Fortunately for me i play poker and have no job to distract and exhaust me for 8 hours a day, and with this huge amount of privilege i allow a big amount of time towards learning about how the world functions.
Whats the big problem with the world?
The problem is that people who care more about gaining power, and don't care about anyone else are more likely to gain power over someone of the opposite personality.
In the tv show the wire we see that the use of fear in the chain of command system is used to marginalize the people that are trying to change the system: cedric daniels in the police force for example. Cedric daniels refuses to falsify the crime stats for the mayor and is forced to retire. On the other hand you have valcheck who does juke the stats, empowering himself and the mayor becomes a governer because of this.
If we analyze cedric daniels moral choice we can see it has no impact on the power system at all. An infinite number of unscrupulous people could take his place, and valchek is merely the first in line to do it. So in fact, daniels has no effect and valchek makes society worse off. The command system used here is designed to dehumanize the population.
We see lester freemon and mcnulty use the power system against itself to try and catch the drug dealer and murderer marlo. But we can see this also has very little effect long term, as another drug dealer just takes his place. These are isolated struggles.
The wire only shows a small part of the problem of todays power system. it does not show the self-indoctrination of the power system which i might expand on later.
Now, let me talk about something a little different. I want to criticize some poltical/social science beliefs which i think are heavily resulted from the power system( i will possibly expand on this later)
i'll start with an interesting quote from noam chomsky that i found reading his latest book power systems.
'There was a recent study done at Harvard University’s Institute of Politics on attitudes of young people from ages eighteen to twenty-nine. It was pretty striking. There’s a lot of commitment to what in the United States are called libertarian ideas. Libertarian in the United States is pretty close to totalitarian. If you really think through what are called libertarian concepts, they basically say that we’re going to hand over decision making to concentrations of private power and then everybody will be free. I’m not saying the people who advocate it intend that, but if you think it through, that’s the consequence, plus the breaking down of social bonds. A lot of young people are attracted to that. For example, less than half of the people in the Harvard survey felt that the government should provide health insurance or “basic necessities, such as food and shelter” to those in need who cannot afford them'
i'd also like to add that in the survey just 13% of people trust wall street to do the right thing. Yet libertarian ideas of minimal regulation on authoratarian power systems like businesses in wall street would allow wall street complete freedom to do anything they want.
I mean this is so contradictory you could almost compare it with religion.
A lot of economics to me also seems to have extremely faithful tendencies.
Here's a quote from ha joon chang. An economist from south korea and critic on the neo liberal policy.
'Daniel Defoe’s fictional hero, Robinson Crusoe, is often used by economics teachers as the pure example of ‘rational economic man’, the hero of neo-liberal free-market economics. They claim that, even though he lives alone, Crusoe has to make ‘economic’ decisions all the time. He has to decide how much to work in order to satisfy his desire for material consumption and leisure. Being a rational man, he puts in precisely the minimum amount of work to achieve the goal. Suppose Crusoe then discovers another man living alone on a nearby island.How should they trade with each other? The free-market theory says that introducing a market (exchange) does not fundamentally alter the nature of Crusoe’s situation. Life goes on much as before, with the additional consideration that he now needs to establish the rate of exchange between his product and his neighbour’s. Being a rational man, he will continue to make the right decisions. According to free-market economics, it is precisely because we are like Crusoe that free markets work. We know exactly what we want and how best to achieve it. Consequently, leaving people to do what they desire and know to be good for themselves is the best way to run the economy. Government just gets in the way.''
I haven't taken an economics course since high school, but this is completely absurd if it's taught anywhere.
There is a ridiculous assumption here for a free market to work. It requires that humans behave like emotionless pre-programmed beings. No such humans exist.
If you stuck stalin on an island next to Robinson Crusoe would there be a free market? Unlikely, you would have Robinson Crusoe wake up to find all his food stolen.