(You could go a long digression on how a game where everyone is structurally guaranteed to be equal both a) generates endless complaints among observers that the game is rigged and b) generates marked disparity of outcomes because players are, in fact, not equal in ability.)
-
-
Perhaps surprisingly for a game with a relatively clear objective function, it's almost impossible for non-experts to distinguish between good play and great play, and for that matter between good play and abominable play, but the non-experts are convinced they can do so, easily.
Show this thread -
(Oh I've got *so* many thoughts on how the tech industry would probably interview for poker playing skill... let's say that the *savviest companies* would land on "Play one hand of poker on a whiteboard with me.")
Show this thread -
(If you come for the software and stay for the poker, and not the other way around, the implication is that the variance of a single hand of poker swamps most of the variance in the candidate pool, assuming you've FizzBuzz filtered first.)
Show this thread -
FizzBuzz: No lie, if you were to ask "Before I let you go to that table, first: tell me any five cards which would form a flush" that would prevent at least some people from sitting down at the 1/2 tables. Sometimes they win a hand. Sometimes they even end positive on a session.
Show this thread -
Continuing the analogy: there are many more people that can talk at substantial length about strategy, sometimes at substantial levels of theoretical sophistication, than are capable of executing that strategy, or a markedly less sophisticated strategy, at a given bar.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.