Pokernews Strategy - Page 8

link on this ?

SfydjkLm --> Well, this definition of talent combines genetic differences with everything else. I'm just saying everything else is much more important. I can't argue with your definition of a talent, as it basically include every reason for sucess.

"But the fact remains that every average person is generally able to do what every other person is capable of and especially if given more time than him."

by your logic, if we just had enough practice and time:

- we'd all play golf as good as tiger woods
- we'd all run a mile in 3:43
- we'd all bench press 476 kilograms
- we'd all be able to memorize over 67890 digits of Pi
- we'd all be independently discover the theory or relativity
- we'd all create quant models like James Simons
- we'd all be able to paint the Mona Lisa and the Sistine Chapel
- we'd all be able to write as many hit songs as the Beatles

the entire world, hell even people with an IQ of 70 could it all, but they don't because they just don't apply themselves enough.

Doomer is successful at poker, /end discussion :D

On July 17 2008 19:39 TenBagger wrote: "But the fact remains that every average person is generally able to do what every other person is capable of and especially if given more time than him." by your logic, if we just had enough practice and time: - we'd all play golf as good as tiger woods - we'd all run a mile in 3:43 - we'd all bench press 476 kilograms - we'd all be able to memorize over 67890 digits of Pi - we'd all be independently discover the theory or relativity - we'd all create quant models like James Simons - we'd all be able to paint the Mona Lisa and the Sistine Chapel - we'd all be able to write as many hit songs as the Beatles the entire world, hell even people with an IQ of 70 could all do it, but they don't because they just don't apply themselves.

I was gonna argue that youre twisting my words - How does generally able to do equal world records? - but actually some of those achievements will be possible for the average person given enough time and preparation.

Lol, consider this line of thinking. Sooner or later, the whole human body will be known to scientists. This seems to me as almost inevitable. An engineering approach will quite possibly allow people to reverse aging and improve their genetics in incredible ways. (if you dont believe me there was a good lecture at ted.com about this, check it out) So this further proves that from all the different factors, innate ability is really not absolute.

On July 17 2008 19:45 Rhaegar wrote: Lol, consider this line of thinking. Sooner or later, the whole human body will be known to scientists. This seems to me as almost inevitable. An engineering approach will quite possibly allow people to reverse aging and improve their genetics in incredible ways. (if you dont believe me there was a good lecture at ted.com about this, check it out) So this further proves that from all the different factors, innate ability is really not absolute.

You are being naive and totally minimizing the genetic factor there are things where its so obvious u cannot deny it, like drawing, its so random i mean most kids draw the same ammount yet some draw like shit and others are just draw 100 times better.

So in your theory (which i disagree) says that in 300 years of practice that guy will be equally as good... but how is that meaningful i mean, if 300years from the non-talented equals 1 year of the talented one he is gentically beaten 300:1 which means the un-talented painter wont ever be equally as good as long as the talented one desires it.

Some how I've agreed 100% with Rhaegar and like 0% with Baal/Tenbagger.

Not sure why that is, I usually have mixed feelings about things.

Re: CTS is a monkey.

Obviously this is a bit of hyperbole, but there are certainly a large amount of poker players whose reputations far exceed there skills/results. Even on LP!

If you actually datamined everyone and put a poll up on who people thought the biggest PTBB winners were at various stakes, I'm fairly confident few people would predict correctly.

Just a thought.

On July 17 2008 19:59 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On July 17 2008 19:45 Rhaegar wrote: Lol, consider this line of thinking. Sooner or later, the whole human body will be known to scientists. This seems to me as almost inevitable. An engineering approach will quite possibly allow people to reverse aging and improve their genetics in incredible ways. (if you dont believe me there was a good lecture at ted.com about this, check it out) So this further proves that from all the different factors, innate ability is really not absolute. You are being naive and totally minimizing the genetic factor there are things where its so obvious u cannot deny it, like drawing, its so random i mean most kids draw the same ammount yet some draw like shit and others are just draw 100 times better. So in your theory (which i disagree) says that in 300 years of practice that guy will be equally as good... but how is that meaningful i mean, if 300years from the non-talented equals 1 year of the talented one he is gentically beaten 300:1 which means the un-talented painter wont ever be equally as good as long as the talented one desires it.

I don't like your examples. Think of better ones, cause I dont see how those relate to what I said in any meaningful way.

tenbagger makes a good point when saying "we'd all play golf like tiger", etc. reminds me of the school days where they tell all the little kids you can be whatever you want when you grow up. "someone in this class just very well may be president of the US"...blah blah blah. there are limitations to each person and most of it is genetic.

On July 17 2008 20:17 LandisReed wrote: tenbagger makes a good point when saying "we'd all play golf like tiger", etc. reminds me of the school days where they tell all the little kids you can be whatever you want when you grow up. "someone in this class just very well may be president of the US"...blah blah blah. there are limitations to each person and most of it is genetic.

I actually think most limitations in life are in fact environment and circumstances. However, I am not talking about general life. I'm talking about the limitations not in being average or good but at being the very best, especially in those very challenging tasks.

And nolan, you say you agree with me 0%, but I'm not quite sure if that is the case. I'm just curious, not only for you but for everyone where they stand so please answer the following questions:

If the average person were given an entire lifetime to practice and train exclusively for this task, do you think they would be able to:

- play golf as good as tiger woods
- run a mile in 3:43
- bench press 476 kilograms
- memorize over 67890 digits of Pi
- discover the theory or relativity
- create quant models like James Simons
- paint the Mona Lisa and the Sistine Chapel
- write as many hit songs as the Beatles

On July 17 2008 20:09 Rhaegar wrote: Show nested quote + On July 17 2008 19:59 Baal wrote:   On July 17 2008 19:45 Rhaegar wrote: Lol, consider this line of thinking. Sooner or later, the whole human body will be known to scientists. This seems to me as almost inevitable. An engineering approach will quite possibly allow people to reverse aging and improve their genetics in incredible ways. (if you dont believe me there was a good lecture at ted.com about this, check it out) So this further proves that from all the different factors, innate ability is really not absolute. You are being naive and totally minimizing the genetic factor there are things where its so obvious u cannot deny it, like drawing, its so random i mean most kids draw the same ammount yet some draw like shit and others are just draw 100 times better. So in your theory (which i disagree) says that in 300 years of practice that guy will be equally as good... but how is that meaningful i mean, if 300years from the non-talented equals 1 year of the talented one he is gentically beaten 300:1 which means the un-talented painter wont ever be equally as good as long as the talented one desires it. I don't like your examples. Think of better ones, cause I dont see how those relate to what I said in any meaningful way.

how can they not relate, you say that if your mom studied physics for 300 years she would master it and have all the theory's, but to someone with talent like Einstein it took him what? 50? 60?

So yeah with extreme practice and time we could all be the best, the thing is to people with the talent it takes them less practice and less time. Thats why they are the best at the moment

On July 17 2008 20:24 TenBagger wrote: And nolan, you say you agree with me 0%, but I'm not quite sure if that is the case. I'm just curious, not only for you but for everyone where they stand so please answer the following questions: If the average person were given an entire lifetime to practice and train exclusively for this task, do you think they would be able to:

Yeah, sorry about being so vague Bagger, I was multi-tabling/browsing/donking.

- play golf as good as tiger woods
definitely not. i think a lot of this is a result of genetics and his superb coaching

- run a mile in 3:43
this depends on your description of "Average." However, if someone went through a lifetime of training, I'd assume this is reasonable for the human body to be conditioned into
- bench press 476 kilograms
can anyone do this?

- memorize over 67890 digits of Pi

i think you gotta be a svant to do this one.
- discover the theory or relativity

i'm not sure anyone could accurately answer this. the weak answer is obv "it depends" on your circumstances regarding your surroundings.
- create quant models like James Simons

[b] definitely, imo
- paint the Mona Lisa and the Sistine Chapel

not even a great painting, only great because society labeled it thus
- write as many hit songs as the Beatles

again, society determines a hit song, not the beatles, so this is not quite possible to answer. the basic answer is yes.

TenBagger -- > "I actually think most limitations in life are in fact environment and circumstances. However, I am not talking about general life. I'm talking about the limitations not in being average or good but at being the very best, especially in those very challenging tasks."

I think we need to define what were arguing about better, because in one paragraph you managed to agree and disagree with me.

Basically you can't talk about meaningful genetic limitations until you set in stone all the other factors contributing to the success in any given task.

Actually in your example, if a person of average abilities trains exclusively (and properly) for this task for his entire lifetime, I suspect he'd be able to do some of the things you mentioned. And those were extreme examples of tasks requiring unnatural genetic predisposition, with the exception of the theory of relativity. That theory doesn't require a very high IQ imo, just curiousity and devotion. There's nothing so special about this model of reality, it's just contradictory to the old model of thinking and that's why people found it difficult to grasp it. Now obviously, this presents a problem, but If I were to convince someone that the newtonian model is wrong and he needs to invent a better model of reality, he'd be able to do it.

So, my argument is that Einstein's accomplishment is mainly in seeing that the general model was wrong and devoting himself to creating a new one, when most people did not see it. Is this due to genetics? Is his enormous curiousity that wouldn't let him sleep for nights thinking about the problem, due to genetics? I don't know...

WTF why does my post look like this? Ignore the first paragraph.

long

You say my examples dont apply well yet you beat to death one meaningless example about the relativity theory which doesnt apply properly here.

I mean going back to basics you aknowledge there is genetical advantage over others and its % depends on the activity right?

The thing is you believe anything is archivable by hard work + time while TenBagger and i say some things can never be archieved no matter how hard you try.

This might sound silly but i think works perfectly, a mentally genetically inferior being like a kid with down syndrome will NEVER be able to solve a complex equation, not in thousand of years, so genetics does define your capabilities, and i only use this extreme case to prove a point, even when the genetic difference its not that huge theres still a difference.

Well, you see, I'm getting angry at people not really reading what I'm saying and just writing stupid stuff. I never said anything is achievable by hard work + time, you do not understand what I'm trying to say and im done with this topic.

Well, I for one enjoyed this conversation.

god stfu this thread became some drama thread or someshit
pa pics ftw