The sociology of poker games is interesting in that everyone is playing the same game within theoretically the same rules but that the motivations which bring them to the table are very different, in ways which materially impact the game.
-
Show this thread
-
Fun story on that one: Poker pro: "So you play at home right?" Me: "Oh no, it's illegal at home." "Really?" "Yeah I only get to play the once a year and it's fun but I'm bad at it." *shocked look* "You're wondering if anyone can be stupid enough to announce that and yes I can."
1 reply 0 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
(Some times the person who announces that they are a bad poker player is, despite the massive incentive to lie about such things and other indicia of probably being a good poker player, actually exactly the bad player that they announce themselves as.)
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
Even in poker, which has an incentive system which reads like a bad parody of capitalism (it's a negative-sum game when you count the rake and the strategic way to make a living at is is to preferentially target the weakest players), there is still a widely accepted etiquette.
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
I feel like "The person who makes the most money at the poker table doesn't play poker... they own the poker table" is a useful insight except that it's probably misleading as stated, since the poker table is generally a loss leader for the rest of the casino.
2 replies 0 retweets 15 likesShow this thread -
You could also think of it as less of a loss leader and more of an expenditure of rent on preferred social outcomes. Every university runs a business doing credentialing and occasionally teaches some classes; the Bellagio uses slots winnings to keep independent poker artists fed.
1 reply 2 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
(I mean, you could call them "independent entertainment consultants with variable compensation", but a portion of the service offering *is* performance art.)
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likesShow this thread -
It's a useful skill to have to have an explicit mental model of how your counterparty thinks about things, to update that mental model over one's relationship as you gain more information, and to understand ways in which their mental model is different than yours.
1 reply 3 retweets 28 likesShow this thread -
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.
3 replies 4 retweets 14 likesShow 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.")
4 replies 4 retweets 31 likesShow 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.)
-
-
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.
4 replies 0 retweets 8 likesShow 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.
0 replies 2 retweets 24 likesShow 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.