Pokernews Strategy

... holy fucking hell

wow

raszi is this open to american viewers?

..




..............

wow?

will there be videos of Antonius? preferably in boxers

and well... ya... mig... genius28... and raszi


OMFG

sick

omggg quite a line up

thank god I'm sitting down

Sweet. Sounds like something I'll sign up for.

holy snikes this is exciting.

i was debating which one of these sites i want to join, this is going to make my decision difficult

i demand horse btw

On May 22 2008 08:05 Zorglub wrote: will there be videos of Antonius? preferably in boxers

...why the boxers??

i would rather see him nked lol

sick line up.

omg omg insta sign up shippppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ittttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

guest pro: Maya Antonius teaches how to pick up deity-level men

sick sick sick!!!!!!!!

i just hope it's not a late april 1st

I've seen a couple of things already and it rocks. Easy game with those names I guess

I'll literally sign up for this the second it's released @@

omg this sounds so sick.

i already imagine 36hours long VOD from RaSZi NLHE HU

lololol

heh, as yug said.. the decision becomes more difficult T_T

On May 22 2008 09:36 TianYuan wrote: I'll literally sign up for this the second it's released @@

QFT

On May 22 2008 09:01 Yugless wrote: i was debating which one of these sites i want to join, this is going to make my decision difficult

huh? what other sites are in comparison to this?

On May 22 2008 09:54 ToT)MidiaN( wrote: Show nested quote + On May 22 2008 09:36 TianYuan wrote: I'll literally sign up for this the second it's released @@ QFT

QFT

antonius hu plo? im in

Umm, naked would just be gay guys.

Boxers, now that's art.

very nice antonius wtf

On May 22 2008 10:04 Logiabs~ wrote: Show nested quote + On May 22 2008 09:54 ToT)MidiaN( wrote:   On May 22 2008 09:36 TianYuan wrote: I'll literally sign up for this the second it's released @@ QFT QFT

This sounds awesome!
Bring it ASAP, RaSZi ;D

wow...

any details about sign up fees and name for the site ?

so awesome, I can't wait

WHATTT

On May 22 2008 07:44 RaSZi wrote: Hey, so yeah, as I posted in another thread, we're about to launch a site too. It's gonna be implementd in the various pokernews sites around the world, but will be marketed as our own site. The players will be Patrik Antonius

stopped reading OP at Patrik Antonius...where do i sign up?

sick please please please get Antonius or someone else really awesome to do HORSE or other mixed game vids.

Are you fucking kidding me? Cause I hope you are.

... Im gonna hire an assasin and kill you all I swear!

On May 22 2008 13:16 Rhaegar wrote: Are you fucking kidding me? Cause I hope you are. ... Im gonna hire an assasin and kill you all I swear!

seriously dude, don't do it

wow this is sick

i'm def adding this along with my leggo subscription

WOW insta sign up ship it

I wathced your first video raszi and I have to say that I learned that I have definitely been underplaying k4o so thx for that

Wow.. Where did this come from? How did you make this come true? Give som info!

god i think im gonna have to drop CR for this

this will educate alot of fish.. will be much easier for them to get into if its part of pokernews.

sick

Seriously, this is awful, I dont get what you're all happy about. Or do you consider to be among the lucky fish?

I don't get why good players would do this either, considering it won't really bring them too much profit and educating people how to win money off other people is in no way benefitial to anyone. It just ruins the fun, besides costing us money...

dont u want to listen to antonius' sexy voice for 1hr straight?

On May 23 2008 01:07 Rhaegar wrote: Seriously, this is awful, I dont get what you're all happy about. Or do you consider to be among the lucky fish? I don't get why good players would do this either, considering it won't really bring them too much profit and educating people how to win money off other people is in no way benefitial to anyone. It just ruins the fun, besides costing us money...

Soooo, you think this is significantly worse than CR, Deuces etc because of Antonius (mainly, no offense to the others) huge name value drawing in a lot of fishes? Or because pokernews is less of a "hardcore" poker site (I dunno, is it)?

I can see it's not great that there's more and more content available for people to learn about the game but it will still cost money right? I think most people who make up the fish population aren't exactly interested in paying money to learn how to play. Basically I don't see how it's different from the other sites already out there.

Aside from this, the reason I'm excited is I really like hearing good players talk about poker (or any subject I'm interested in).

Educating people to get bether is the key thing for High Stakes players to get money. Most of the money coming to high stakes players is from lower stakes players taking shots and bringing the money to the higher stakes and returning because their attempt failed. They must be a winner at those lower stakes to get the money to take the shots and therefor they must get better. There is a continues stream of new fishes who donate money and don't show any interest in getting better (getting a subscription to a video training site or whatever) and then you have the high stakes donkeys who just want to play high stakes because they can afford to loose it (Guy Liberte for example). Those two groups are enough to make money.

High Stakes players earn their money by having an edge on their opponent and very good instinct - a thing no site will teach you exactly. So I wouldn;t worry at all about "teaching the fish to play better leaving no fish in the ocean" - teaching some people who show interest is just a good thing for everyone.

it'll all go full circle

On May 23 2008 01:07 Rhaegar wrote: Seriously, this is awful, I dont get what you're all happy about. Or do you consider to be among the lucky fish? I don't get why good players would do this either, considering it won't really bring them too much profit and educating people how to win money off other people is in no way benefitial to anyone. It just ruins the fun, besides costing us money...

agreed.. it would be hard to shut down all the sites out there now though

sounds too good to be true

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? How much for subscription.

On May 23 2008 03:45 Webjoker wrote: Educating people to get bether is the key thing for High Stakes players to get money. Most of the money coming to high stakes players is from lower stakes players taking shots and bringing the money to the higher stakes and returning because their attempt failed. They must be a winner at those lower stakes to get the money to take the shots and therefor they must get better. There is a continues stream of new fishes who donate money and don't show any interest in getting better (getting a subscription to a video training site or whatever) and then you have the high stakes donkeys who just want to play high stakes because they can afford to loose it (Guy Liberte for example). Those two groups are enough to make money. High Stakes players earn their money by having an edge on their opponent and very good instinct - a thing no site will teach you exactly. So I wouldn;t worry at all about "teaching the fish to play better leaving no fish in the ocean" - teaching some people who show interest is just a good thing for everyone.

save your rhetoric, although it did give me a good laugh

I agree with Rhaegar I guess but since I find poker interesting and fun as a game I will always want to improve, so I'm happy anyways.

Good luck with this sick starter lineup Raszi ^^ How is Negreneau involved again btw?

Webjoker Im not sure if you're joking, your post doesnt make sense.

Lol, just defending in a creative way. Anyway - people crying about more poker trainingsites because fish get better still make me laugh.

i think myth said once that just because you provide knowledge to someone about what to do in poker, it doesnt mean they will accurately apply these concepts and change their game. it could happen that people will see these players make certain plays which they know will work and then misapply them to their game and make them worst off. half the people who play online are fucking morons, and i doubt tutelage is going to help these braindead donators all that much.

Sites right now are worthless, theyre are teaching ppl to play in a retarted way and are actually making the games easier for me in a way. Obv if Patrik or Genius decide to give out all that they have, online poker is quite DEAD.

Feel free to argue with me about the current sites. I say they're patetic, even the so called "pros" on that sites are mediocre monkeys that won their money with good table selection and running like gods. CTS fits the description too, though he is the king of monkeys. ;p

If CTS is a mediocre monkey who is actually good at poker? The top 5 players in the world only? -.-

On May 23 2008 11:14 Rhaegar wrote: Sites right now are worthless, theyre are teaching ppl to play in a retarted way and are actually making the games easier for me in a way. Obv if Patrik or Genius decide to give out all that they have, online poker is quite DEAD. Feel free to argue with me about the current sites. I say they're patetic, even the so called "pros" on that sites are mediocre monkeys that won their money with good table selection and running like gods. CTS fits the description too, though he is the king of monkeys. ;p

<333333333

Are you the ones running WSOP special tourneys etc at Ongame(Mansion) at the moment?

I disagree the sites are worthless although cardrunners is pretty worthless these days it seems bar cts/taylor/raptor & ket obv. Leggopoker is sick good for mid stakes which are the stakes i am trying to beat.. if you take a look at yourself though you're playing/beating the higher limits which aren't really focused on in the videos. With that in mind, ofc its going to seem pretty worthless to you & ofc its not gonna affect stuff much as u play these people because you (as a high stakes player) already know how to counter or w/e.

However, i think the sites are definitely making the regulars better even if they dont quite know it yet. Consider how effectively a reg can get value from a weaker player (fish or reg) and how that extraction takes money away potentially from what you can make.

I disagree about cts and stuff though, i think you're really exaggerating there..

Worth noting imo most of the 'games are getting tougher' talk is just due to lack of traffic these days, getting worse as u go up in stakes.

On May 23 2008 01:07 Rhaegar wrote: I don't get why good players would do this either, considering it won't really bring them too much profit

I'm pretty sure CR makes over a million a year, maybe way more nowadays.

Rhaegar would you like to join my new Poker training site -_-. Rhaegar-Rampage.net. I like it.

A lot of the material cardrunners , deucescracked etc gives out make a lot of people second guess theirself into calling with second pair vs top set. There are some videos here and there that are brilliant thou, like the HU 5000nl vid on leggopoker

I stopped watching videos, I found they did not provide me with the kind of videos i was intrested in and the was not that great. Most of the playeres in the videos have talent and at least give some insight to the target audience they provide.

Bordering on retarded, extreme exaggeration by Rhaegar imo.

i want in on this site. you wanna draft me? i'll make good videos yo.

Well ive only watched the old cardrunner vids and learned nothing
then i watched the Leggo vids and they absolutely blew me away !

I am 23 times the player i was 2 month ago and this is 95% due to their insane detailed low/midstakes videos in which they explain concepts so well that i actually feel afraid if more and more people knew about it ( Nl100-Nl400)

I like leggopoker and cardrunners' top videos, but I find deucescracked boring and worthless so far. Anyone have any recommendations for good series on deucescracked?

Pokernews Strategy line-up looks sick

obv
stringer is a monkey who makes 2 million month

Reminds me of ket coining the term midstakes nitsquad...

http://www.liquidpoker.net/forum/view...?topic_id=374980&currentpage=4#67

Any action on this raszi? When is the launch planned for?

On May 23 2008 15:04 PplusAD wrote: Well ive only watched the old cardrunner vids and learned nothing then i watched the Leggo vids and they absolutely blew me away ! I am 23 times the player i was 2 month ago and this is 95% due to their insane detailed low/midstakes videos in which they explain concepts so well that i actually feel afraid if more and more people knew about it ( Nl100-Nl400)

Leggopoker? No.


DC >>>>>>>>>>> CR >>>>> Leggo

On June 05 2008 15:34 ManaBlue wrote: Any action on this raszi? When is the launch planned for?

LAUNCH THAT FUCKIN SITE ALREADY
JESUS

On June 05 2008 16:50 malifous wrote: Show nested quote + On May 23 2008 15:04 PplusAD wrote: Well ive only watched the old cardrunner vids and learned nothing then i watched the Leggo vids and they absolutely blew me away ! I am 23 times the player i was 2 month ago and this is 95% due to their insane detailed low/midstakes videos in which they explain concepts so well that i actually feel afraid if more and more people knew about it ( Nl100-Nl400) Leggopoker? No. DC >>>>>>>>>>> CR >>>>> Leggo

many ppl have their own rankings
imo, cr is better

BUUUUUUUUUMP

any updates??

On May 22 2008 08:40 RaSZi wrote: Just to give an example, at our last meeting antonius said: 'I just want to teach the world everything i know about poker'.

Hes going to get right on with this right after hes played Gus Hansen at tennis for $100k a game, has played some Heads-Up on Martins Poker, and has bought an LP T-shirts off Nazgul.

the antonius is with full tilt now

so he wont be joining them or what?

i'm not sure what that would mean, but i don't think anyone affliated with a site does videos besides Team Cardrunners. Eric Lynch was part of pokerxfactor but now he's part of UB so he probably isn't part of PFX anymore. One exception is Mike Matusow, who does it for pokersavvy but I think he is the only one.

Isn't some CR pro's are in the ftp team and still making videos?

antonius is still making vids for us hopefully site will launch in like 2 weeks we are trageting before wsop main event for sure at the latest

On June 11 2008 11:02 Mig wrote: antonius is still making vids for us hopefully site will launch in like 2 weeks we are trageting before wsop main event for sure at the latest

On June 11 2008 10:59 ReDDcaFFe wrote: Isn't some CR pro's are in the ftp team and still making videos?

all of them?

looks like it should come out VERY soon
http://www.pokernews.com/strategy-videos/

lmao

i hope it wont actually look like that ;o

hm kimseong i cant view that video

On May 23 2008 11:14 Rhaegar wrote: Sites right now are worthless, theyre are teaching ppl to play in a retarted way and are actually making the games easier for me in a way. Obv if Patrik or Genius decide to give out all that they have, online poker is quite DEAD. Feel free to argue with me about the current sites. I say they're patetic, even the so called "pros" on that sites are mediocre monkeys that won their money with good table selection and running like gods. CTS fits the description too, though he is the king of monkeys. ;p

CTS a mediocre monkey? Well, this is coming from a guy that basically called Boxer a newb many years back and said the only reason he's good is because of practice and that he'd own all the koreans if he didn't have school and could practice as much as them...

Hey beast, there is a fine line between having a lot of self-confidence and being an arrogant jerk. That line is usually crossed when you constantly feel the need to put others down and belittle their accomplishments.

Boxer wins Starleague titles and revolutionizes an entire race and it's "only" cuz he practices 14 hours a day. CTS had made millions but it's "only" because he's a monkey with good table selection and runs like a god. C'mon, how about giving just a little bit of respect to their accomplishments.

Learn from the best. Beat the rest


great



im in love with mig! :D

You're the jerk for posting something that I never said. Ive never ever said Boxer is not great, im fairly certain I said non-koreans are only worse than koreans, because they are at a disadvantage. If I actually did say something insulting about Boxer, that would be hilarious, as I still watch his vids on youtube lol.

CTS is great by your standarts, hes not that great by my standarts. 95% of the big winners have made their money from great table selection, playing a ton and running good too. I don't think you need much skill to be able to do that.

You're the one insulting me, as If I don't have a right to voice my opinion. And twisting my words too. I obviously meant CTS is a good player in the post you quoted lol. And where did you come up with this about Boxer ?

As a matter of fact, I was one of the best sc players and I am one of the best poker players and even If I wasn't I'd still speak my mind.

Rhaegar,

My post was not meant to insult you and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I'm certain you're much better than me in both poker and BW and FWIW, I have great respect for your skills in both games.

Maybe I took your posts too literally, but my point was that you have consistently belittled the skills of others.

For some reason I can't find the thread on TL. I think it may be this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=979&currentpage=All , which is supposed to be 60+ pages long but for some reason only the first 4 show up.

It was many years ago but basically the argument then was that you stated that you would be easily be top 5 in the world in BW if you were able to practice the amount that the korean pros did but you couldn't because of school and that was the only reason why you weren't top 5. I fought you hard on that point saying how meaningless a claim like that was and how even if you practiced 14 hours a day just like boxer, that he'd still beat you. Of course there was no way to prove it but all your posts in that thread kept on belittling their achievements as purely a result of massive amounts of practice and not due to any extraordinary level of skill.

The parallels from that argument then and this CTS being a monkey one are quite clear. In both instances you gave them absolutely zero credit for their accomplishments. You called CTS "pathetic", the "king of monekys" and gave only two reasons for his success: good table selection and running like a god. In the boxer thread, which I hope we can pull up somehow, you gave boxer and other top korean BW pros of the day zero credit as well. You said the only reason for their success was the number of hours of practice and refused to acknowledge any natural talent that they may possess.

You say "I obviously meant CTS is a good player in the post you quoted lol". I've reread your post and I'd have to be a mind reader to make that determination from the words that you posted. Listen, you have every right to speak your mind and I totally agree that you are a top SC and poker player. I just don't understand why it is that whenever someone else gets credit or praise, you belittle them.

Ok, so I want to write something nice and friendly, but I just don't know what to say...

Truth is,in my eyes most of these players are really nothing special and I get annoyed when ppl idolize them. Success at both BW or Poker requires a lot of hard work and a lot of luck. And the general public generally sucks at evaluating who the best players are (which is perfeclty logical - only the other pros should have a good idea) and this has always annoyed me.

I remember I told some friend on msn a year ago that sbrugby would crash hard with his style of play and his unreal belief that he was the greatest (so he wouldnt quit the players better than him). He was up like 3.5mil at omaha and maybe 2 mil at NLH or something and he ended the year down. Now if I had written this in the forum, I'd get flamed really hard. And the most winning players are the best table selectors and thats the fact, theres generally nothing really special about them.


Edit: Btw, whatever arrogant things I have written, I generally still stand by them. I might have exaggerated a bit here and there for fun though.

but theres a point where u dont table select because u are the best o_o i dont see Patrick or Krants or Ivey dodging anybody.

Krantz really should be. And Patrik too if he continues to play as badly as hes been playing recently.

TenBagger, youve given me a wrong topic, but its fun to notice what this guy "construct" had written.

" Construct United States. December 14 2002 04:03. Posts 33 Profile
On December 13 2002 19:06 [pG]Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
practise is needed to develop the talent

noone on this forum could be better than Boxer not even if we played 20 hours a day


I disagree. I believe without a doubt that I can be as good as Lim Yo-whan. It's just that he's so many games of practice ahead of me. But if I were to suddenly get the privilidge of playing with gosu players non-stop, I believe I can get that good. I already have amazing keyboard skills. I can type almost 100 words per minute. My mouse skills are mediocre at best. What stops me from being good is that I don't have the experience it takes to beat someone as good as you Nazgul ^_^ ..."

" Construct United States. December 14 2002 04:17. Posts 33 Profile
Ha. No one will ever be as good as Boxer unless they believe they can be..."

I like this kind of thinking.

Btw, that old SC topic about talent is quite interesting. I've always argued that talent isn't really important and is pretty hard to measure anyway - I'd think most of the "talent" people speak of can be gained. Like, I think most of my own talent comes from finishing a math school. Obviously there are some limitations. Like girls will generally have poorer hand-eye coordination and reflexes (im not actually certain of that but thats not important), obviously men will differ some as well. But those can be altered too. I've spent a shitload of time playing missionred.com or specifically practicing my keyboard BW skills. But I guess someone else might spend the same time and not improve much. I also can't improve my color deficiency, which makes it pretty hard for me to follow the minimap at times.

I would assume the girl hand-eye coordination is largely so due to the result of societal needs. The society(ie siblings and peers) will generally encourage girls to pursue mild activities, while boys generally "be boys" and engage in violence and sports.
That being said you cant overlook the differences in male and female biology, mainly the production of hormones(ie epinephrine(adrenaline) and testosterone).

On one hand you cant really deny the existence of talent, its easily visible especially when you look at sports, even starcraft. You can say that for example Emelianenko or Armstrong, or Schuemacher or even Boxer are good because they practice a lot. But if you look at their opposition they do too spend hours upon hours in practice sessions. Yet there is something that brings those mentioned on a whole new level.

But my opinion is that this kind of, natural talent is what makes creme de la creme creme de la creme, and not just "one of the best".

What makes you one of the best, in my opinion, is another kind of talent, talent to practice the right way. And thats why there are coaches in sports, progaming and all over the place. I remember when i played starcraft, long time ago, there was a period when i wanted to become a pro. I played a lot, 8 hours a day or so perhaps, and yet there seemed to be little progress. My problem was that i never approached the goal from the right standpoint, i never had any plan, never analyzed my play, i just sorta waited for it to hit me. "Talent,"- i thought to myself,- "if i have it, i have it!"

I've started playing some WC3 recently- and approached the game from the right side- I was thinking. I watched other people play, watched my own replays, analyzed my mistakes, corrected them, had a thought-out strategy prepared for every game and every counter, timed my builds, etc etc. I've managed to become a top 20 of WC3 ladder- yes it is quiet weaker then what it used to be, but it still separates me from the regular folk, who, just like me a few years ago, never think about what they do, just wait for it to hit them.

I guess my point is that yes, to become the next phil hellmuth and win 11 WSOP bracelets you need a boatload of talent and a whole lotta luck. But to be a profitable poker player all you need is the talent for practicing.

Well to get good at abstract games, I'd say the ability to improve your game constantly is most important and its not really a talent. I remember I used to be somewhat smart at 16 and in school and in BW i did alright. But I was very dumb at learning. I didn't watch my losing replays and didnt try to understand the fundamentals or look at the big picture. So i was learning very slowly. Now that I've learned how to learn, getting good at abstract games or math or physics for that matter seems really easy for me.

So I guess my point is, I dont think talent plays that much of a role in BW or Poker. A great coach and a shitload of practice will suffice too.

Btw the word talent is horribly undefined, i hate it! Always makes me argue with ppl for hours at a time. Reality is driven by cause and effect, but all the things leading towards you winning Ongamenet for example are so many, its nearly impossible for a human being to perceive what part of them he can control. (i realize my english is starting to fail me)

Rhaegar,

I'm gonna have to disagree with you again. I think you opinion is based partly on the fact that you have succeeded at everything you put your mind to, giving you the illusion that anyone can do it as long as they try hard enough. Well, you're probably much smarter than most people in the world. There are a lot of people in this world that just flat out lack the mental capacity to excel at certain things.

Let me give a couple examples. I have a good friend that I've known for many years. OK, let me compound racial stereotypes and mention that he's black. We both went to the same high school, one of the top schools in the country, so you can't use the excuse that he's lacking the same education and opportunity. Well, he's a smart guy and very gifted in language. He's an excellent writer and his ability to freestyle rap is unbeliveable. But you know what, he is fucking horrible in math. He always failed it in school and when I tried to teach him basic concepts in poker, he just couldn't grasp it. I am certain that NO amount of practice or training will make him a top poker player. Same holds for BW, Backgammon, Chess, Go and other games that utilize that section of your brain. Maybe with enough effort, he may become average or slightly above average. But I am absolutely sure that no amount of practice could make him a long term winner at mid to high stakes. He just doesn't have the natural ability to do so.

Second example is regarding the game of Go. I've said it before and it really is an amazing game that requires such incredible analytical ability. I'm a 1-dan right now and there are many people that have played the game their entire lives and are much worse than that. And those people could take lessons from the top pros and still never reach that level. On a related point, let me mention that I've been a 1-dan since I was 13 years old. I learned the game at the age of 12, and advanced to 1 dan within a year. Maybe because the person who taught me was at that level, but I've plateaued there. I've played thousands of games since and I'm still a 1-dan. In fact, I may have dropped a level over the past few years since I rarely play anymore. At this stage, I'll pretty much be a 1-dan for life. Maybe if I really applied myself and got lessons from top players, I guess I could advance 1 or 2, maybe even 3 ranks. But that is it. That is the extent of my natural ability.

Remember Rhaegar, only one person can win a OGN Starleague. Only one person can win a Wimbledon and the Masters. If the entire world were completely fair and everybody had the same access to training and practice, well there still will only one winner. There still will be a last place. That is what I'm talking about when I mention the word talent. Sure there are a tremendous number of factors that lead to a champion, but talent will always remain the biggest factor. I think you are grossly underestimating the importance of talent.

Yawnwn, site out yet?

Also Beast runs good at bw and it's the only reason he ever achieved something zzz!

Practice is everything not only in poker and bw, but also in everything else. If you think why tennis, golf, football players start to train since kids and not 'wait' until they are 16-17 and 'see' who has talent and who has not? Because they must burn those moves in their heads and become machines and dont do errors when they play. Don't say Federer or Tiger woods are the best because of natural talent. If they stop to play just for a month they will become average and that's because the lack of practice. Talent means something on very a basic level. Talent meant something in the early years of poker, when poker wasn't so complicated. Talent is the ability to make the correct decision almost immediately. And when you are playing poker at the highest level like Beast, your mind can't handle those decisions that fast without matter how talented or smart you are. You need the decisions before you sit at the table. Planning and practice is everything. The rest is implementation. Well if you know you are talented before you start something that helps your confidence, but the use of the talent is very little overall and it can't be the difference between Boxer and Beast if they have equal hours of training.
And I am not saying it because I am a Beast fan. In fact, I too hate when people idealize someone. That's just stupid.I don't know Beast well and I have only met him twice I think, but when you talk with him you can very obvious see he's a genius, but his success is more because of the hard work and less the talent.

You might be correct but there are a lot of problems in this theory.

First the word "talent" means very little and until we define it better, no meaningful discussion is possible. Second, theres no good way to measure what part of your ability is totally talent - in other words unachievable for most other people.

I'm not sure about your math example, you might be correct, but it's very difficult for me to imagine that anyone will be totally unable to learn math, even if he had a good teacher. The reason is mathematics is basically a model of reality, studying the same laws of cause and effect that operate in the real world. I'd imagine that almost every human being, thats fit to survive, should be able to understand it. I know a lot of very smart people that know nothing about math and found it somewhat hard, but they excel at things that involve math, so im fairly certain that they had a bad start, missed some of the fundamentals, couldnt keep up and decided that they suck at math... I think this is a very common occurence, because math is impossible to learn if you miss some of the fundamentals and when people cant learn it from the first 2-3 tries they just decide they suck at it.

Now, I'm fairly certain people are not born the same, theres no argument about that. But the problem is, its very difficult to measure what the limitations really are and its quite probable that very few people get even close to their limitations anyway. Obviously in competative sports, this is much more pronounced.. Some guy might be as smart as I am, but might think a little slower and I obviously have an advantage.

And also, its impossible to tell if one excels in his field because he was born this way, or because of a huge array of other factors, also mostly outside of his control (or what we call luck).

But actually, while its hard to say if one has a genetic advantage, its incredibly obvious any winning player is incredibly lucky, however you look at it.

And I still think I can teach math to a monkey.

Edit: Tsl is correct that there are just way too many variables, leading to success and genetic talent accounts for a relatively small percentage in my opinion. And he's also correct that success in most games, especially abstract games like poker and BW is achieved out of the game, which lowers the importance of "talent" even more.
I'd argue that quality information is the most precious resourse and possession of it is definitely more important than any other factor.

For example, if someone told me what strategy Boxer would play against me and the perfect counterstrategy, I'm going to win.

I am not trying to underestimate the importance of practice and environment. The ability of humans is quite remarkable and there are many awe inspiring stories of people overcoming great challenges through incredible determination, effort and practice. And your point is correct in that it is very difficult if not impossible to quantify the exact percentages of a person's accomplishment due to natural talent and practice.

But there are serious limitations. You say that you can teach math to a monkey. Sure you may be able to teach a retard how to count, but can you teach him calculus? The point here is that as you get to more advanced levels, a lot of practice is virtually a prerequisite. Everyone tries hard and practices and if you didn't no amount of natural talent can carry you through. However, the very nature of the highest levels is that it is unattainable for the masses and only a select portion of the population can achieve it, even with massive amounts of practice.

TSLto says : "Practice is everything not only in poker and bw, but also in everything else."

If that were the case, everyone in the world would have the mental capacity to discover the theory of relativity if they just applied themselves. Everyone could crush high stakes games and everyone could win an OGN Starleague. Everyone could be a professional 9-dan in Go and crush Lee Sedol if only they practiced enough. Everyone could win gold medals. Everyone could make billions of dollars as a quant trader. If only they practiced enough because obviously, natural born talent means very little and practice is everything.

Take a hundred people and have the train and put them in the same environment. They all train since birth at BW or Go or math or whatever. When they reach adulthood, there will still be a first and last and 98 places in between. This is what I mean by talent. Everyone's brain and body is wired differently and has a different capacity. I could have trained since birth with the top coaches and I still would have never won a gold medal in the 100 yard dash or in weightlifting. In just the same way, I'm sure that I also don't have the talent to win an OSL or an International Go tournament. I have a strong level of self-esteem but I'm also a realist. I was tested as a child for an IQ of 140 and I consider myself a pretty smart guy but I just don't have the brainpower to be a 9-dan in Go, it is an impossible feat for me because I lack the talent and no amount of practice can change that.

And to your final point about quality information being more important than talent. This is not because the game is "abstract" as you put it but because poker and BW are games of incomplete information. Of course if you could see someone's hole cards or if you knew boxer's strategy while he didn't know yours, then you would win. But that is totally meaningless point because that is not the game. My point is better illustrated in a game of complete information such as Go. You could know exactly how a player such as Lee Sedol will play and what his strategy will be and he will still crush you. You could practice for all eternity and he will still crush you. Anyone that understands the game of go will know exactly what I'm talking about here. Of course many huors of practice is a requirement, he didn't fall out of bed one morning and become who he is. But on the other hand, 99.99999% of all people that have ever lived on this earth could have practiced 10x as much as he did and he will still crush them. This is because he was born with an incredible talent that no amount of practice could replicate.

wall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of text

wall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of text

On July 16 2008 09:25 TenBagger wrote: ...

That is really reductive. People are NEVER in the same situation. During your life you meet people, you have to deal with your parents and so on. Genetics arent the only factor. There are many skilled people who could have been better at poker or Bw if they had no studies or girlfriend for example.

You cant put people in the same environment period.

Prove that talent exist?

How many Maradonas you see? How many Peles? natural talent.

to add to this, Maradona himself was a "fuck up" meaning he would show up late for practice, get drunk after the games etc and still was the best of the best. While some players practiced everyday for 8 hours, and couldn't be half as good as maradona.

Dont matter if I practice 24/7 all my life, I will never be as good as maradona, yes I could turn out to be a good decent player but that is all

haha that is so narrow-minded. Like if there is a football gene .

Btw Pele would suck badly today.

I wonder how the name of Pele appeared on a poker discussion in a poker forum? That must be a donkey's fault to bring that up.

I think all people that are not mentally retarded are capable of doing anything. Some can do it working hard, others not so hard.

You can't put Football players into consideration. Every sick football player play football ever since they can stand up. Usually their parents love football and they start at the age of 4. They grow playing football at every opportunity.

Its easy to say "I cannot be a Maradona" when you played football 2 times a week for 1h in school during your life, while he was born in Argentina and probably played everyday many hours a day with young kids that played well around him.

[edit1] I forgot to say. Besides all the hardwork, there is obviously the genetic part. You can't be a Maradona if you are 1.85m tall.

[edit] To obiblion: of course. You wan't to compare someone who played in a era where players run 3km during a game with a player that plays in an era where players run 10km during the game? Its a different sport and you should not compare it. He was the greatest ***athlete*** of his time, that should be enough.

practice makes perfect, but you do need some form of talent to rise to the top

On July 16 2008 11:52 Raidern wrote: [edit] To obiblion: of course. You wan't to compare someone who played in a era where players run 3km during a game with a player that plays in an era where players run 10km during the game? Its a different sport and you should not compare it. He was the greatest ***athlete*** of his time, that should be enough.

Ofc i highly respect him .
It is like comparing Boxer during his prime days to Flash.

TenBagger,
'' ...If that were the case, everyone in the world would have the mental capacity to discover the theory of relativity if they just applied themselves. Everyone could crush high stakes games and everyone could win an OGN Starleague. ... ,,

Yes, everyone can do this if they dedicate themselves to it at 100% like the professionals, but the factor that stops them to do it is how hardworking they are. We are mostly talking for theory and abstract things now, and you have forgotten how hard actually is to achieve something in reality. It really sounds that simple and because of that you doubt it but this is the perfect formula for sucess - practice 24/7 for a given amount of time and you will be if not the best, then one of the bests. But not everyone can practice 24/7, not everyone can handle when it starts to be 'borring' in some way, not everyone can be so high motivated to keep trying and keep trying and keep trying... until it finally happens. Plus most people are just too fucking lazy just to 'think'.
I remember some bw player - ToT)SEn( and honestly when I watched his replays he wasn't creative at all. He looked like a dumb but perfect machine that just keeps pwning and pwning units and macroing all the map no matter who the opponent, which the race and what the map is. I highly doubt his tallent but he was one of the best foreigners back then when he was active. And that just because of sick amount of practice. He just played insanely huge amount of games and became perfect at his macro strategy. Well I don't think he's actually is dumb in person and we may never know but I know something for sure - he became gosu for one reason - sick, sick practice and nothing else.
And I agree with Beast that he can actually teach a monkey to math, even there are research universities where scientists are teaching monkeys to math, and very sucessfully. I've watched the series on Discovery Channel. lol.

On July 15 2008 20:23 Rhaegar wrote: Krantz really should be. And Patrik too if he continues to play as badly as hes been playing recently. .

yawn about those walls of text but... wat Krantz??? Krantz is the biggest winner in NLHE online from the past 3 years, nobody has ever won as much as him, he is imo the best NLHE player in the world.

Like always i agree with Beast. i think he shares similar perspective to me.

In regards to talent, many people are considered talented but in reality they just understand basic fundamentals and apply practice in a effective way to become good and appear talented.

lol wat. i can count 4 separate and distinct ways in which that post is totally retarded baal =[

edit: id list them but youd only yawn at more walls of text (also, stfu with your yawning nobody cares if ur not interested, this is some interesting discussion here)

On July 17 2008 11:44 Ket wrote: lol wat. i can count 4 separate and distinct ways in which that post is totally retarded baal =[ edit: id list them but youd only yawn at more walls of text (also, stfu with your yawning nobody cares if ur not interested, this is some interesting discussion here)

how is it retarded, that is true he is the biggest winner in online nlhe for the past 3 years, more than Patrick, Ivey or anybody else, i can understand u think that is not proof of him being the best thats why i clearly typed IMO he is the best.... to avoid posts like the one u just made -.-

On July 16 2008 12:45 TSLto wrote: TenBagger, '' ...If that were the case, everyone in the world would have the mental capacity to discover the theory of relativity if they just applied themselves. Everyone could crush high stakes games and everyone could win an OGN Starleague. ... ,, Yes, everyone can do this if they dedicate themselves to it at 100% like the professionals, but the factor that stops them to do it is how hardworking they are. We are mostly talking for theory and abstract things now, and you have forgotten how hard actually is to achieve something in reality. It really sounds that simple and because of that you doubt it but this is the perfect formula for sucess - practice 24/7 for a given amount of time and you will be if not the best, then one of the bests. But not everyone can practice 24/7, not everyone can handle when it starts to be 'borring' in some way, not everyone can be so high motivated to keep trying and keep trying and keep trying... until it finally happens. Plus most people are just too fucking lazy just to 'think'. I remember some bw player - ToT)SEn( and honestly when I watched his replays he wasn't creative at all. He looked like a dumb but perfect machine that just keeps pwning and pwning units and macroing all the map no matter who the opponent, which the race and what the map is. I highly doubt his tallent but he was one of the best foreigners back then when he was active. And that just because of sick amount of practice. He just played insanely huge amount of games and became perfect at his macro strategy. Well I don't think he's actually is dumb in person and we may never know but I know something for sure - he became gosu for one reason - sick, sick practice and nothing else. And I agree with Beast that he can actually teach a monkey to math, even there are research universities where scientists are teaching monkeys to math, and very sucessfully. I've watched the series on Discovery Channel. lol.

So you thinka person with a 90IQ can come up with the theory of relativity if only he dedicated the neccesary time to physics... ROFL.

okay one of my four reasons was that urindanger has won more than him. he has 4 accounts in the hsdb all time top 50.

another reason is that he has a 54k hand sample at 80-100ptbb/100 standard deviation games so its about as close to proof hes the best as [witty analogy here that im too lazy to think up, open to good suggestions for the lulz value]

another is you have no idea how any of the other top nlhe players play and think, and only have a shadow of an idea about krantz thru dc vids. your opinion is based on nothing

and the last is even if u were given the lifetime hhs of the top 10 nlhe players at nosebleed stakes, so that youd have actual material to base an opinion on, youre not close to good enough to understand most of whats happening and correctly pick whos the 'best' (this isnt an insult, nor am i)

i never said it was a proven thing since its nearly impossible to determine who is the best player i just happen to like Krants however Rhaegar's posts suggest Krants is an underdog against the top players saying he should dodge (not based on variance because he didnt mention other names), and that imo is totally wrong.

i agree with beast

repetition is only valid if you are repeating something tested and robust

a failure in testing or ego or control or anything else is more likely to account for error than a lack of intelligence, esp in poker, because poker is a very easy game to understand

you get 2 cards. they get 2 cards. 5 cards come out. if a card is in your hand or on the board, they cannot have it. insert introductory hand rankings with music. hf.

casper can u send me some chocolate milk. u still have me and myth's address?

TenBagger, I just wanted to give an example that information is more important than anything else. If I apply that concept to your GO example.. If someone solved GO useing great mathematical skills and a supercomputer and I was to apply this solution to different game situations and study the results, eventually I'd become the best player in the world, at least for a while. Natural talent as far as those games go, would be the speed in which one is able to extract quality information. Having a great learning tool (that noone else has) to help me gain the needed information faster, basically will make me much smarter for purposes of the game.

We say one has talent for something, when his work (results from his intentional actions) distinguish himself from the majority in that field. For me talent is rather a combination of personal characteristics (waiting to be provoked), than some "innate ability" (as stated in the dictionary). No one would ever be able to see Mozart's talent, if he was born two centuries before his time. So, for one's talent to be unleashed there has to be the right environment as a prerequisite. And the rest is just exploring how far you can develop it in this environment (and here comes the dedication, practice and so on).

"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Einstein
But we see this "passionately curious" as part of his talent. And when speaking about talent in poker/card games, always one phrase pops up in my mind, "freak of nature".
"At 15 I was massacring people who had mastered this stuff for 30 years. I made a shambles out of them. I guess you could say I was a freak of nature." - Ungar

So yeah, let's suppose a person with some average IQ at the age of 40 gets immortal and begins to play poker 24/7 with the best poker players teaching him, he'll probably succeed to reach Stuey's best level after a couple of centuries, the problem is that no one has so much time and here comes what talent really is.

On July 17 2008 14:32 Rhaegar wrote: TenBagger, I just wanted to give an example that information is more important than anything else. If I apply that concept to your GO example.. If someone solved GO useing great mathematical skills and a supercomputer and I was to apply this solution to different game situations and study the results, eventually I'd become the best player in the world, at least for a while. Natural talent as far as those games go, would be the speed in which one is able to extract quality information. Having a great learning tool (that noone else has) to help me gain the needed information faster, basically will make me much smarter for purposes of the game.

you obviously don't understand the game of GO. Deep blue may beat kasparov but the world's fastest computer would still not be able to beat a novice in GO. You could use every tool in the universe, study for all of eternity and you'll never come close to beating Lee Sedol. There does not exist any tool that can help you in that regard besides the power of your own brain. The game of GO as it stands now is unsolvable and is unique in that no amount of raw supercomputing can do anything close to what human intelligence can do. That is why it is the holy grail of AI and also wy it is such a great example for this discussion. It is a game that is uniquely dependent on the intangible, unquantifiable, beauty that is natural human intelligence. And someone like Lee Sedol can do things with his mind that others are just incapable of doing, regardless of how much effort they put in. That is the natural talent that I'm referring to. Just like all of us on this forum are incapable of running a sub 10 second 100 meter dash. It doesn't matter how long we train, our bodies were just not built for it. In the same way, it doesn't matter what you can possibly do, you will NEVER ever be able to beat Lee Sedol in GO.

On July 17 2008 16:47 Expiate wrote: We say one has talent for something, when his work (results from his intentional actions) distinguish himself from the majority in that field. For me talent is rather a combination of personal characteristics (waiting to be provoked), than some "innate ability" (as stated in the dictionary). No one would ever be able to see Mozart's talent, if he was born two centuries before his time. So, for one's talent to be unleashed there has to be the right environment as a prerequisite. And the rest is just exploring how far you can develop it in this environment (and here comes the dedication, practice and so on). "I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Einstein But we see this "passionately curious" as part of his talent. And when speaking about talent in poker/card games, always one phrase pops up in my mind, "freak of nature". "At 15 I was massacring people who had mastered this stuff for 30 years. I made a shambles out of them. I guess you could say I was a freak of nature." - Ungar So yeah, let's suppose a person with some average IQ at the age of 40 gets immortal and begins to play poker 24/7 with the best poker players teaching him, he'll probably succeed to reach Stuey's best level after a couple of centuries, the problem is that no one has so much time and here comes what talent really is.

but if Ungar attained the same level of poker in 1/10th of the time that would mean he is genetically superior in that field.

I mean, if you are skinny as hell go ask in a gym if u will ever be able to be a bodybuilder... you wont, simply because you dont have a mesomorph body you wont get huge, no matter if u go to the gym every day for 20 years, you simply wont build enough muscle mass because your body is genetically set to another shape.

Its the same thing in almost any thing in life, it obviously fluctuates how much "talent" you need depending on the activity, lets put an example, shuffling chips, its a very practice oriented thing, while mm.. dancing its a much more raw natural talent thing, i mean im only stating the obvious but you ar denying the obvious.

A person with an IQ of 70 no matter if he spends 300 years studying math and physics, he will never be able to come up with the theory of relativity.

Intelligence is so attractive, I think Im gay for tenbagger

Thank you baal for getting my point.

I think this whole point has been clouded a bit by the comparison to poker. Poker is a very difficult thing to quantify, as it is a game of incomplete information and the rules are relatively simple. Also the fact that so much of the general population puts in very little effort in actually improving their game opens the opportunity for someone who might not be a genius to be able to put in a lot of time and effort and to be a winning player.

BW is also a game of incomplete information and beast keeps on referring to the point that it's all about acquisition of information. That may hold a certain degree of truth in these games but not in other examples, such as GO.

Take a different mental task such as how many places of Pi you can memorize. Is there any importance of the whole "acquisition of information" that beast talks about. NO! It is available for everyone to get all the information they need. People can certainly improve by practicing more but there are certain people that have a natural talent for memory that can just memorize more than is possible for the general population. And the example that I came up with regarding the theory of relativity. I mean c'mon, is there any rational person that truly believes that any idiot could come up with it independently if he just tried hard enough. I can't believe we're even discussing that point because it is so painfully obvious. When you take tasks or games or challenges that are easier and simpler, then it is easier for practice to bridge the gap of natural talent. I mean if you take tic tac toe, then a person with 70 IQ could become just as good as a genius with enough practice. As the game gets more complex and challenging, the ability for a person to bridge the gap in talent by practice becomes harder and harder.

This whole discussion started when beast made the claim that basically talent is 0% while practice is 100%. Well, that can be true in certain things. In tic tac toe, it is basically 100% true. It really doesn't matter how smart you are, if you practice hard enough you'll be the best in the world , or at least in a multi-billion way tie for the best in the world. On other things, the ratio shifts and the importance of natural talent becomes greater. Poker is further along the spectrum where natural talent becomes meaningful although it is still at a stage where enough practice and effort means that you'll be better than the majority of people, even if they are "smarter". When you go to the extreme high end of difficulty though, you reach a certain point where no amount of practice can overcome a deficiency in natural talent. This holds true in certain sports such as sprinting and it also holds true for the game of GO.

On July 17 2008 17:27 TenBagger wrote: Show nested quote + On July 17 2008 14:32 Rhaegar wrote: TenBagger, I just wanted to give an example that information is more important than anything else. If I apply that concept to your GO example.. If someone solved GO useing great mathematical skills and a supercomputer and I was to apply this solution to different game situations and study the results, eventually I'd become the best player in the world, at least for a while. Natural talent as far as those games go, would be the speed in which one is able to extract quality information. Having a great learning tool (that noone else has) to help me gain the needed information faster, basically will make me much smarter for purposes of the game. you obviously don't understand the game of GO. Deep blue may beat kasparov but the world's fastest computer would still not be able to beat a novice in GO. You could use every tool in the universe, study for all of eternity and you'll never come close to beating Lee Sedol. There does not exist any tool that can help you in that regard besides the power of your own brain. The game of GO as it stands now is unsolvable and is unique in that no amount of raw supercomputing can do anything close to what human intelligence can do. That is why it is the holy grail of AI and also wy it is such a great example for this discussion. It is a game that is uniquely dependent on the intangible, unquantifiable, beauty that is natural human intelligence. And someone like Lee Sedol can do things with his mind that others are just incapable of doing, regardless of how much effort they put in. That is the natural talent that I'm referring to. Just like all of us on this forum are incapable of running a sub 10 second 100 meter dash. It doesn't matter how long we train, our bodies were just not built for it. In the same way, it doesn't matter what you can possibly do, you will NEVER ever be able to beat Lee Sedol in GO.

I dont know how to play go well, but there is a flaw in your argument.

I'm fairly certain that the game of GO like everything is ruled by cause and effect relationships. And so a mathematical model of it can be made. I'd guess the problem of GO is that there is no easy way for a human to simplify the math so that it can give him good decisions without solving the entire tree. Thats what is done in chess, thats what is done in poker. Ultimately a perfect solution for the game is only possible by solving the whole game tree, but you can use a whole array of other tools that can help you pick good moves.

If it's possible to construct a workable mathematical model of GO, i cannot agree that its impossible to play better than this guy. And I'm fairly sure its possible. But the problem is most simple models will require an incredible compuational power, so more advanced math and solutions are needed. And there are some ways in which the brain thinks better than a standart computer program. I'd guess that the ability to think in pictures and to evaluate them makes the game much easier for a human to find good moves, than for a regular programming approach, that is unable to use those tools.

I'm a bit tired and don't know if that came out too well, but I hope my point is somewhat understandable. I guess this guy has an advantage over everything else that is strongly pronounced by the nature of the game, being well suited for the human brain and not suited for the standart programming tools that are used now. This does not mean his advantage is impossible to overcome. Someone with great knowledge of advanced nath and programming (even maybe brain science and neural networks) should be able to construct a workable model and when he does, it might be enough to give a normal player an edge.

"A person with an IQ of 70 no matter if he spends 300 years studying math and physics, he will never be able to come up with the theory of relativity."

I'm fairly sure he would be able to. There are few physicists with average IQ that spend even 10 years of hard work in trying to develop the theory. And I'd think that the main reason physics and other sciences dont get solved so fast is that ppl spend their short lives doing many other things and never devote enough time to the subject.

"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Einstein
I like this thinking a lot.


I think that we're forgetting what we're arguing for. My point is natural talent is generally irrelevant until you get into fields where everyone is useing every available tool to gain an advantage (but can this ever be the case in the real world?) and it does gets pronounced in certain competative sports even more. But it still is generally irrelevant. Every average person is capable of extreme accomplishments, given high quality information and enough time.

Btw Boxer is a good example of my point actually. He used to be the best player in the world, because of his thing for advanced counter strategies. I can imagine him sitting for days behind the computer, experimenting with different build orders, looking at timing and etc... Since he focuses on preplanned strategies, whats left then is to practice the micro in every game and not really think much about the build order (not true? he has never really been good at macroing) so this has let him get great at his micro than the other players.
And Id say Boxer isnt a genius, but that his general approach to the game was much better than everyone elses that would mindlessly put in 14h a day and improve their macro more than anything else...

But now that quality information is available to everyone, Boxer isnt all that strong in his field anymore. His passion that made him the best before, doesnt help him much anymore.

So he used to be the best player in the world and now hes not. I think that is just a very good example of how its not that much natural talent, but a whole array of different factors that dictate how good you get.

Now, the players that are dominating are most certainly genetically superior in playing BW than all the rest. But the cool thing is that Boxer was able to be the best in the world, because of applying a better approach to the game than everyone else at the time. I'd argue that he's actually not genetically superior in any way than his opponents, except if you consider curiousity to be a talent.

cmon beast, that's ridiculous. A person with 70 IQ will barely be able to read let alone discover the theory of relativity.

so let me get this clear. you think that every human being given enough practice could match the world record holder and memorize 67890 digits of Pi?

you think if we all tried hard enough that we could run a sub 10 second 100 meter dash?

that every average person is capable of equal achivements and there is no bell curve?

c'mon, dude you are being a bit ridiculous now.

On July 15 2008 21:45 Rhaegar wrote: Well to get good at abstract games, I'd say the ability to improve your game constantly is most important and its not really a talent.

Well, some people are reasonably better at learning then the others, without any visible factors that could explain the difference.

So I guess my point is, I dont think talent plays that much of a role in BW or Poker. A great coach and a shitload of practice will suffice too.

some people can be given a coach and never succeed, and some can coach themselves fairly well. Some people have talent for sports- they become sportsmen and some people have talent for improving people- they become coaches, often due to genetically set physical limitations.

Btw the word talent is horribly undefined, i hate it! Always makes me argue with ppl for hours at a time. Reality is driven by cause and effect, but all the things leading towards you winning Ongamenet for example are so many, its nearly impossible for a human being to perceive what part of them he can control. (i realize my english is starting to fail me)

Well i believe talent has a real easy definition, of course people will try to spin it any way they like, but dont they do it to anything anyway?
Talent is first and foremost a set of genetic predispositions to succeed in one or multiple areas, and second of all, a combination of life factors that has influenced persons ability for succeeding in one or multiple areas, while being unrelated to actual practice. Second part is arguable of course.

I think you're not really trying to understand what im saying. I said in plain words that genetic advantage is real. But its importance depends on the goal. Some competative sports are designed in a way that will heighten this importance. 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.

Is 70 IQ so low? I'm not familiar with how its calculated (im fairly certain its pretty inaccurate and unreal anyway) . I consider my mom fairly dumb, but Id think that if she devoted 300 years to studying physics as her goal in life shed be able to discover the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, particle theory, string theory and probably more...

I think IQ is mostly a measurement of how fast one thinks and nothing else. I've come to this conclusion from the fact that I used to think pretty fast when i was say 16 year old, but was quite dumb now that I think of it. Now I think as fast as before, but I feel im 10 times smarter than I was. That improvement is based on curiousity and learning how to think correctly, not on a genetic factor obviously.

On July 16 2008 01:38 TenBagger wrote: Rhaegar, I'm gonna have to disagree with you again. I think you opinion is based partly on the fact that you have succeeded at everything you put your mind to, giving you the illusion that anyone can do it as long as they try hard enough. Well, you're probably much smarter than most people in the world. There are a lot of people in this world that just flat out lack the mental capacity to excel at certain things.

you make a pretty good point, i dont think it would be boasting to say that I, and most of the both liquid sites regulars have intelligence exceeding that of average. We might take many things for granted.

Let me give a couple examples. I have a good friend that I've known for many years. OK, let me compound racial stereotypes and mention that he's black. We both went to the same high school, one of the top schools in the country, so you can't use the excuse that he's lacking the same education and opportunity. Well, he's a smart guy and very gifted in language. He's an excellent writer and his ability to freestyle rap is unbeliveable. But you know what, he is fucking horrible in math. He always failed it in school and when I tried to teach him basic concepts in poker, he just couldn't grasp it. I am certain that NO amount of practice or training will make him a top poker player. Same holds for BW, Backgammon, Chess, Go and other games that utilize that section of your brain. Maybe with enough effort, he may become average or slightly above average. But I am absolutely sure that no amount of practice could make him a long term winner at mid to high stakes. He just doesn't have the natural ability to do so.

This example doesnt suit the point youre trying to argue. It is clear that he doesnt and never had any interest in math related areas. Of course you will never excel at anything unless you're genuinely interested in the subject.

Remember Rhaegar, only one person can win a OGN Starleague. Only one person can win a Wimbledon and the Masters. If the entire world were completely fair and everybody had the same access to training and practice, well there still will only one winner. There still will be a last place. That is what I'm talking about when I mention the word talent. Sure there are a tremendous number of factors that lead to a champion, but talent will always remain the biggest factor. I think you are grossly underestimating the importance of talent.

Well when it comes to OGN it really isnt the talent that is the biggest factors, but rather ability to play under pressure and choosing the right strategy.
Its hard to deny of course that July has more talent then Mumuyng, but despite winning last OSL, does he have more talent then Best? Probably not, and most likely Best will do much better then July next OSL. In this kind of extreme pool of genius its outside factors that play the biggest role.

On July 17 2008 18:42 Rhaegar wrote: Show nested quote + On July 17 2008 17:27 TenBagger wrote:   On July 17 2008 14:32 Rhaegar wrote: TenBagger, I just wanted to give an example that information is more important than anything else. If I apply that concept to your GO example.. If someone solved GO useing great mathematical skills and a supercomputer and I was to apply this solution to different game situations and study the results, eventually I'd become the best player in the world, at least for a while. Natural talent as far as those games go, would be the speed in which one is able to extract quality information. Having a great learning tool (that noone else has) to help me gain the needed information faster, basically will make me much smarter for purposes of the game. you obviously don't understand the game of GO. Deep blue may beat kasparov but the world's fastest computer would still not be able to beat a novice in GO. You could use every tool in the universe, study for all of eternity and you'll never come close to beating Lee Sedol. There does not exist any tool that can help you in that regard besides the power of your own brain. The game of GO as it stands now is unsolvable and is unique in that no amount of raw supercomputing can do anything close to what human intelligence can do. That is why it is the holy grail of AI and also wy it is such a great example for this discussion. It is a game that is uniquely dependent on the intangible, unquantifiable, beauty that is natural human intelligence. And someone like Lee Sedol can do things with his mind that others are just incapable of doing, regardless of how much effort they put in. That is the natural talent that I'm referring to. Just like all of us on this forum are incapable of running a sub 10 second 100 meter dash. It doesn't matter how long we train, our bodies were just not built for it. In the same way, it doesn't matter what you can possibly do, you will NEVER ever be able to beat Lee Sedol in GO. I dont know how to play go well, but there is a flaw in your argument. I'm fairly certain that the game of GO like everything is ruled by cause and effect relationships. And so a mathematical model of it can be made. I'd guess the problem of GO is that there is no easy way for a human to simplify the math so that it can give him good decisions without solving the entire tree. Thats what is done in chess, thats what is done in poker. Ultimately a perfect solution for the game is only possible by solving the whole game tree, but you can use a whole array of other tools that can help you pick good moves. If it's possible to construct a workable mathematical model of GO, i cannot agree that its impossible to play better than this guy. And I'm fairly sure its possible. But the problem is most simple models will require an incredible compuational power, so more advanced math and solutions are needed. And there are some ways in which the brain thinks better than a standart computer program. I'd guess that the ability to think in pictures and to evaluate them makes the game much easier for a human to find good moves, than for a regular programming approach, that is unable to use those tools. I'm a bit tired and don't know if that came out too well, but I hope my point is somewhat understandable. I guess this guy has an advantage over everything else that is strongly pronounced by the nature of the game, being well suited for the human brain and not suited for the standart programming tools that are used now. This does not mean his advantage is impossible to overcome. Someone with great knowledge of advanced nath and programming (even maybe brain science and neural networks) should be able to construct a workable model and when he does, it might be enough to give a normal player an edge.

beast, do some research into this and you'll realize that you are completely wrong on this topic. all the top minds in artificial intelligence are working on this and still the best they can do is to beat a novice about on par with say a D+ on ICCUP. They are so many light years away from beating a pro, let alone a top pro like Lee Sedol.

http://www.aihorizon.com/essays/goai/intro.htm

is a very basic description. you can also google GO and AI and get more information on this topic.

There is a point where it isn't just about gaining information but rather to process it. Human intelligence is not all created equal and there are people (such as tom) that are more talented than others. There are things where it isn't about how much you practice or how much information you gather but rather about how much your brain can do with that information. And the human mind is so complex than you can't just apply a mathematical model to it. It does things that computers cannot and it doesn't matter how much information you have.

On July 17 2008 19:21 Rhaegar wrote: I think you're not really trying to understand what im saying. I said in plain words that genetic advantage is real. But its importance depends on the goal. Some competative sports are designed in a way that will heighten this importance. 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.

Then i agree with you. However i think you and Tea are trying to jump to extremes too much. Surely practice is the most important part of success, but there is no denial that some people are just one level above everyone else for no apparent reason.

Is 70 IQ so low? I'm not familiar with how its calculated (im fairly certain its pretty inaccurate and unreal anyway) . I consider my mom fairly dumb, but Id think that if she devoted 300 years to studying physics as her goal in life shed be able to discover the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, particle theory, string theory and probably more...

70 is extremely low. I dont believe in IQ test tho.

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