[ Moderator's note: OK, you all have beat this to death. This thread
is ended. -- deb ]
Chung wrote:
wrote:
Chung wrote:
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 5 Nov 2005 01:00:50 GMT, wrote:
The logic has been presented. it is simple.
But, so far as I can see, not logical at all.
People with experience in one specific endevour are likely to
have greater skill in another endevour that is closely related in skill
sets.
This is not an argument, it is a claim. So far, no logic.
It is not only a logical position
If so, why not give the "logic"?
it is often supported by evidence.
"Often supported by evidence" is not good enough. For a claim to be
generally accepted it has to be supported by *all* the evidence.
A single counter-example, on the other hand, is enough to refute the
claim.
Boxers and wrestlers are usually better street fighters than
the average person. This fact has been proven unfortunately in many a
street fight. Basketball players usally can jump higher than average
people.
Well, obviously people who excel at a particular skill are likely to
excell at sub-sets of that skill! High jumpers can jump higher than
average people too, by golly! Amazing!!
These examples are not evidence at all, so far as I can see.
Math experts often make better poker players.
I have seen no evidence whatsoever of this and you provide none.
this can be seen by the number of poker players with advanced
degrees in math now making a liing at the poker tables. I could go on
and on.
In fact, mathematical skill is probably a handicap at poker. A good
memory and the ability to remember odds is helpful, but other skills are
*much* more important.
I think the logical mistakes that posters like porkygeorge make is
similar to this: if all else are equal, then on average, people who are
good in math may be better than others in poker, because of a better
understanding of probabality. Now that is a reasonable claim. But then
they extend it to a claim that "mathematicians are often better poker
players". Which is a highly illogical, overly simplistic, and factually
untrue claim.
actually it is highley logical and factually true. The large percentage
of top poker players who are highly adept at math is a fact. I have
cited one such expert if you need I can name many more. But if you have
some facts to support your claim that it isn't true please present
them. Better yet, show me one top poker player that doesn't have a much
better understanding of the odds in poker than the average Joe.
Your logic is, uh, simply, amazing.
Perhaps if you were able to follow it...
If someone has a better understanding of the odds in poker than the
average Joe, does that make that person a "math expert"?
Did i say that? no. Like I said, you might be amazed at my loigc if you
were able to follow it. OTOH at the risk of being redundant, if someone
is a math expert it is extremely likely that they already hae a better
understanding of the odds in poker than the average Joe and that will
give the math expert an inherent advantage in poker over the average
Joe. It will be interesting to see if this time you can follow that
logic and not misrepreesent it in your interpretation.
Maybe he is to
you, but certainly not to the rest of us.
If you were able to follow my arguments you would understand that no
such position has been presented. Aperson who merely understands the
odds of poker in full is at least an expert in the relevant math to
poker but not neccessarily a mathe expert in genereral. here I will
explain why. A working knowledge of the odds in poker would be a subset
of inherent skills for a geniune math expert so it would be expected
that someone with this sunset of skills would have an advantage over
the average Joe. OTOH having *just* that subset of skills does not make
one a math expert in broder terms because those broader skills do not
have that kind of substantial overlap with other math skills. It may
actually improve the basic math skills of Joe to learn the odds of
poker at the level of a top player but it has no other significant
overlaps that one would find in the skill sets of a geniune math
expert.
Anyone can buy a book or go online to read up on the probability needed
to play poker. Does everyone who does that qualifies as a math expert?
Of course not. Had you understood my line of reasoning you wouldn't
feel the ned to ask such absurd questions.
Well, maybe to you,
No not to me.
I know many mathematicians, i.e., real math experts with advanced
degrees in math, who are notoriusly poor poker players, because they
cannot read opponents, or they show everyone what card they have by the
way they bet, or they do not have guts to follow their developed
instincts.
This would have some relevance if I had said that all math experts by
rule are excellent poker players. But i never said or implied any such
thing.
knowing the
odds is probably one of the easiest one to acquire, and, no, it does not
take a math expert to do so.
I never said it did. please pay attention to the arguments before
trying to rebut them.
This i
will tell you from being related to a top notch poker player, when the
pros turn over the cards before they draw you never see a disagreement
as to who has the advantage. they always know. You never see both
players look happy with their hands.
How does that have anything to do with your claim that the math experts
are better poker players?
Again I suggest you read my claims more carefully. I never said "math
experts *are* better poker players." I said "math experts *often* make
better poker players" and explained why because knowing the odds of
poker, something that comes easy to math experts but does not allways
come easy to others is a valuable tool to a skilled poker player.
Because all else is not equal.
actully on average it is. perhaps you don't know about the mathematical
principle of returning to the mean.
Wow, everyone, we have the "mathematical principle of returning to the
mean" by porkygeorge! You read it here first!
Maybe you did. i'm sure others didn't.
Of course here are exceptions and
momentary abehrations but in the long run the numbers alays return to
the mean. IOW *in the long run* all else is equal.
It is very easy for a non-mathematician
to have a different skill that is even more advantageous in poker,
Actually no. You are dead money without this knowledge.
A non-mathematician can easily pick up the probaility skills needed to
play poker. Well, maybe it is difficult for some of us.
If you pick up the knowledge you are no longer without the knowledge.
Jeez.
Again i
challenge you to find one_single_ top poker player that doesn' have a
very adept understanding of the odds in poker.
Does understanding the odds in poker make one a math expert?
Did I say that it does?
by definition, I'm a math expert!
maybe you defenition. not by anything i have said though.
OTOH one can strole down
any casino and find most of the amatuers blowing their money at the
poker tables don't really know the odds well at all.
And there will be a lot of real math experts blowing their money at the
poker tables because they don't know how to play poker.
Really? A lot? Let's see you support this claim.
or
for someone to learn the statistics that is important in poker, so that
he can outperform a mathematician untrained in poker.
Well gee, if someone learns the relevant math to poker then they have
the same advantage as the math experts. That's one of the most lame
points i have ever seen and i have seen some really lame points.
Well, gee, anyone who learns the odds needed to play poker has become a
math expert.
You might believe that but f you were able to follow my arguments you
would see i have never made any such claim.
That's one of the most lame points we've seen here.
I agree, unfortunately you are the only one saying it. Maybe you should
stick with flying elephants.
You do not need a
degree in math to have a good working knowledge of the probability that
is necessary for good poker playing.
You don't need a degree in math it simply gives you the knowledge
needed, well at least a start. You do need a working knowledge of the
odds in poker to play at the top levels. You *need* it.
But do you have to be a math expert?
No, and I never said you did.
How about the many other things you
need to play at the top level? Do the math experts have it because they
are math experts?
No not because they are math experts. Again, at the risk of being
redundant I suggest you reread what I have said an try to get it this
time. You are arguing against claims that were never made.
So the statement "math experts often make poker players" is simply an
illogical extension.
I am shocked at your failure to see the logic here.
Because, frankly, your logic is shocking.
How do you know if you keep getting it so wrong in you interpretations?
I really don't think you followed it. I said a math expert *often*
makes a better poker player. i never said all better poker players are
math experts. Is that clear? If not take the following analogy, people
who J walk are more likely to be hit and killed by cars than those who
don't BUT not all ead people were hit and killed by cars. do you see
now? If A then B does NOT mean if B then A.
But you seem to be
in denial of the value of mathematical knowledge to a poker player.
As are the several preceding claims that
porkygeorge made.
Nope they were just as valid.
In a similar way, if all else are equal, then someone who is a musician
can be better than others in comparing performances of audio equipment,
if the goal is to compare how the equipment is used to reproduce the
kind of music he/she is used to hearing.
Yep that is the point.
But all else is not equal,
It is in the long run or do you not understand the statistical
principles behind this claim?
Do you understand that all else is not equal,
OK you didn't understand the claim. To bad.
and someone who is
familiar with audio will be a better judge in matters related to audio
than musicains?
Oh really? Now that is ripe. Funny thing is someone can be familir with
audio and be stone deaf can't they? Would they be better judges of what
we were talking about? The sound of playback compared to the sound of
live music? Peronally, I think most musicians will have them beat. Even
the rock musicians and the rappers.
and it is easy for a good listener, or an
audiophile, to develop the necessary discriminating skills to do a
better job than the musician who is untrained, in detecting differences
in audio reproduction performance.
No one is claiming that there are no exceptions to the basic rule that
musicians have this inherent advantage.
But you seem to claiming that expert listeners, or audiophiles, somehow
do not have this inherent advantage.
They don't. They have to aquire it.
I would trust the expert listener in
his ability to discriminate audio equipment much more than I would trust
a musician.
In most cases a musician is an expert listener.
Not in audio reproduction.
Please prove that musicians skills do not transfer to the ability to
dscriminate between live sound and play back. I think this is utter
nonsense. the inheent familiarity that comes with hearing so much live
music for th sort of musicians we are talking about and the critical
nature of that listening would make for an undeniable body of
experience with the reference in question. If you cannot see the
obvious advantage in that ast expereince then we really don't have much
to discuss and you may as well use unfamiliar recordings of oboes to
evaluate playback instead of familiar recordings of pianos. sAfter all
your exereince with live piano naturally would not help you. Right?
For instance, a lot of musicians are not even aware of the
fact that to make a meaningful comparison when differences are subtle,
levels much be matched.
Irrelevant. The claim is of greater sensitivity and analysis do to
experience not of greater abilities to set up comparisons.
It's relevant because it means some musicians have trouble making a
valid comparison, and their conclusions are often faulty.
No, the discussion ws not about the set up it was about the sensitivity
and analysis skills.
Scott