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 -
Replying to @patio11
Is there any domain where non-experts can distinguish between good and great?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, many of them; generally depends on legibility of the output rather than difficulty of producing it. (Runners are very easy to evaluate. Cooks are surprisingly easy to evaluate, particularly if you can watch them work, at sufficiently coarse gradations of skill.)
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.