Date: 4/12/2000
From: Jim Geary
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Subject: JG on BY v DS
Intro: David Sklansky asked for the smart person privately in cahoots with him to merely reveal himself at Barbara Yoon's challenge of their actual existence. Before doing so, Barbara upped the ante so to speak. In the following I will outline the premise, my belief for the premise and some appendices to the argument to hopefully establish my honest intent. I have tried to be as clear as possible. This marks my entry and exit into this subject matter. I have invested too much time in this one post already, and only do so in the interest of clarity of thought. I thank all in advance for reading this.
DS's singular original premise (for those who have been misdirected by the smoke and mirrors) was that writing a program to evaluate hand matchups or enumerating combos is not in and of itself the skill used in analyzing poker.
His corollary to this is that if one believes that the two skills above are what constitutes being a good poker analyst, then one is not in fact a good poker analyst.
Now, can I PROVE the assertion or corollary? No. It's pretty damn hard to prove anything really once you understand what it means to prove something. A certain net-kook with the initials of DG was aware of this and constantly challenged his opponents to PROVE that his wild assertions were false to the degree of rigor shown in mathematical academia. The inability for his opponents to do so, while however satisfying it was to him, did not in the least detract from their well-thought positions. This same net-kook spent brief time in this newsgroup similary challenging people to PROVE that a raked game could be beat. I certainly can't PROVE this. But I can show 18 years of logs with 17 years of winners(not many hours in '98) that lead me to believe with a confidence asymptotically approaching one that I have been doing so. The reason I mention this IS NOT to imply that since I've been playing poker for so long, take everything I say on faith. I mention it merely to show the difference between a busload of evidence and a mathematical proof. I also cannot prove that BY knows this, but my confidence in my suspicion of such is approximately the same as my confidence in the suspicion that I'm beating poker. (Arguably, repeatedly challenging opponents to PROVE their positions in contexts where one KNOWS that neither the opponent nor oneself can do so is the hallmark of a net-kook. One way to sidestep this assignation would be to carefully avoid using the word proof but use pseudo-synonyms that one can disavow later as calls for proof but to the untrained eye look like challenges to prove -- really quite brilliant, showing an eye for the big picture, tho perhaps it's rote to super-usenet veterans -- but that's neither here nor there w.r.t. the original premise.)
In the absence of a proof, I will try to offer a busload of evidence.
1) The fact that BY jumps all over DS's not mentioning one of the possible combos in his his matchup column some time back is in itself telling. Firstly, it was a rather sterile column IIRC, and secondly the error is so so far removed from what it means to PLAY POKER that to repeatedly hold it up as if there is just so much significance belies complete naivete about what goes on in a poker game. I CANNOT PROVE that this is the intent of repeatedly bringing up this issue to question DS's theoretical poker reasoning skills; I can only weigh the evidence as it comes in.
2) DS invested a nontrivial amount of his time to actually analyzing the KTs v JTs differences producing some very high-content (by rgp standards) information. (Ironically, this post was given under duress of sorts.) There have been no replies from the opposition of a same quality. A subsequent reply merely listed some data points WITH THE IMPLIED ASSERTION that this is my counterargument. Since no one can ever ascribe that kind of intent with 100% certainty, BY can deftly throw it up as some great argument, but at the same time disavow it in anyway disputes DS's analysis. This has been a leitmotiv of these threads.
3) The counterarguments she offers are either intentionally completely orthogonal to the issue at hand or belie a real lack of understanding on how to judge the merits of poker hands. See appendix 1(A1) for an example.
4) I have yet to see BY offer anything on the order of poker analysis that requires anything beyond first-level thinking. I have seen DS offer very very much stuff. One disgusted grumble of his(pointed to in my letter at jimgeary.com/poker/letters/PWRGP037.HTM) contributed more to analyzing poker than all of the 1.37 to 1's in the rgp universe.
5) DS has cleanly tried to keep the focus of this debate to the points mentioned at the onset. He has not misdirected the argument, and every time it has been he has tried to steer it to these premises which I believe he has made clear. This in itself is not prima facie proof, but to the armchair observer is a definite indication of an honesty with regards to the conduct of the discourse. This clarity has not been universally present.
6) Despite numerous opportunities to dispute these differences on the basis of how the hands play, when it would no doubt be beneficial to do so, BY has not done so. The reasons can only be that she cannot do so, or believes that the significance is meagre. Either of these reasons underscores the thesis that just generating data is not playing poker. Since it is impossible for me to prove intent on either of those counts, maybe it is arguable that neither statement is true and that BY just hasn't gotten around to engaging the debate at the level DS has. This is mathematically a possible explanation, but given the ample opportunities to do so forgone, seems rather unlikely.
Some Housekeeping as I leave this thread.
** BEGIN byohsure **
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 22:41:16 -0400
From: Barbara Yoon
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Subject: Re: Caro's Hand Rankings?
> I then mentioned that I was getting private emails from smart > people giggling at Yoon's not realizing the flaw.Oh sure...then name just one of these "smart people giggling"...
** END byohsure **
to, perhaps having accepted that DS's friend isn't an invisible rabbit, and possibly even suspecting the identity begetting the scare quotes no doubt:
** BEGIN byormuck**
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 01:26:40 -0400
From: Barbara Yoon
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Subject: Sklansky's 'gigglers'...'show' or 'muck'...
Dsklansky: > I was getting private emails from smart people giggling at > Yoon's not realizing the flaw. ... I said "Surely you didn't give > these statistics as evidence for KT vs JT" But that is in fact > what you were doing. ... ...you basically simply said something > like JT makes a straight 16 ways versus 10 ways for KT...
Below is what I posted (April 5, "J-10-suited...K-10-suited" thread):
>>>> TEST - YOUR - INTUITION: >>>> With all possible sets of upcards, for every 10 straights or >>>> straight flushes made by a K-10-suited, a J-10-suited makes >>>> approximately how many? >>>> >>>> A> 16 B> 18 C> 20 D> 22 >>>> >>>> Scroll down for answers... >>>> >>>> [Answer:] For every 10 straights or straight flushes made by a >>>> K-10-suited, a J-10-suited makes approximately 16 (answer A>).
OK, Mr. Sklansky...now 'show' or 'muck' -- SHOW us "THE FLAW" that got all those "SMART PEOPLE" of yours so "GIGGLY"...
** END byormuck **
The flaw? That this has anything to do with PLAYING POKER. Oh wait. You didn't assert that. Actually you don't assert anything ever almost. You wait for people to draw their own conclusions and then say that's not what I meant or better yet from your stand, said. Your posts are intentionally unclear as to their intent. (Can I prove this? No. But my world-class pattern recognition skills are picking something up I think...)
And so we get to the heart of the matter.
In response to analysis, BY posts raw data saying where's the flaw? The data is, I trust, accurate. So there is now flaw. This is the archtype of the BY argument style. The thing is, it shows NOTHING with regards to PLAYING POKER. The flaw would maybe be do you think this has anything to do with playing poker? Buy you never assert so. You make your posts to lead others to conclusions that anytime you can disavow as to your own.
And now that Sklansky's Darth-Maul-like apprentice has revealed himself, there is no need to use the scare quotes with regards to the word _smart_. Unlike TomW, I AM WILLING TO COMPETE IN AN IQ TEST FOR A WAGER OF $1000. (With you, Barbara, not Tom) I don't say this to imply that a decline of my offer implies anything; I'm merely a +EV gambler and given the distribution of IQs that you have +EV among the distribution of IQs wherein you might fade my action, I like my odds. Admittedly, I'm also preemptorily addressing assaults on my credibility, but I doubt that you think that that would sell on rgp. But who knows.
** BEGIN jg->by1 **
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000
From: Jim Geary
To: Barbara Yoon
Subject: Re: J-10, K-10...off-topic...Elian...boxers
Actually, it's my impression that David has conducted himself with admirable civility. The reason I made the remark about the former thread is that it is so far removed from what real poker is that its continued existence may distract people from the real issues. I have a longer post forthcoming in this thread that I'm finishing in another window.
[her post to which I replied omitted given the use of her would _private_]
** END jg->by1 **
** BEGIN jg->by2 **
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000
From: Jim Geary
To: Barbara Yoon
Subject: Re: "admirably civil" "bad-mouthing"
[the first paragraph is regarding a bit of a thread on rgp where I expressed what I would do if it were my daughter being kept from me by her "Miami relatives," and Barbara implied that I was somehow applying a double standard, tho I don't see how given my original note to rgp]
Funny you mention Elian; I told my wife if they needed volunteers to shoot those people, I'd be first in line; despite all my faults, I'm not a relativist.
I have never met you, but you seem nice from our correspondence. I have met and played with David and found him to be pleasant, tho occasionally abrupt. I think he'd admit this. The thing is, this whole concept is such a nonissue, it pains me to see it become the focal point of rgp for days, as well as a dividing line for personal animosities. For the record I have none. Despite the number of people on rgp with whom I go to war, I have good relations with all of them. (Ask Badger).
You probably won't believe me on word alone, and I'm not sure if I can demonstrate it rigorously, but you should realize that debating these rankings IS NOT what poker is about. When Abdul first came up with his "new" hand rankings, he showed them to me over dinner before publishing them. It was just a bunch of tables. I suspected that the formatting was an offshoot of his mentality begotten as a BJ pro. I said, "look these are nice, but you gotta explain these in situational contexts." And so he did. Even the smallest piece of that info is more helpful than sim data. I think I wrote something similar on 2+2 a while ago. (..com/poker/letters/PWTPT020.HTM) THAT is what poker is about, analyzing the context of the situation and then making decisions. The strategy forums at 2+2 are always analyzing poker decisions like that. There are a lot of people whose analysis models could use improvement, but just the same they're working towards a greater understanding of the game. The JT-KT sim controversies do not really.
** END jg->by2 **
JG
Last Modified 1/18/01
Back to Poker Letters Page.
Back to Jim's Poker Page
Back to Jim's Main Page