If you are to be calling anyone an idiot, Julio, it should be Scott, since he appears to be committed to saying that we shouldn't judge monopoly and should just take the word of someone who plays monopoly a lot for our knowledge of how complex it is. Which indeed is absurd.
I of course don't think Scott is one, but he may have to revise his beliefs a little.
If you are to be calling anyone an idiot, Julio, it should be Scott, since he appears to be committed to saying that we shouldn't judge monopoly and should just take the word of someone who plays monopoly a lot for our knowledge of how complex it is. Which indeed is absurd.
I of course don't think Scott is one, but he may have to revise his beliefs a little.
I've never studied monopoly theory. I make no judgement.
If you are to be calling anyone an idiot, Julio, it should be Scott, since he appears to be committed to saying that we shouldn't judge monopoly and should just take the word of someone who plays monopoly a lot for our knowledge of how complex it is. Which indeed is absurd.
I of course don't think Scott is one, but he may have to revise his beliefs a little.
I've never studied monopoly theory. I make no judgement.
Hehe, right, and I'm the one who "makes myself look stupid" 
Correct.
"Am I supposed to think there is a 50-50 chance chess is more complex than monopoly too?"
The difference is that no one is trying (or would try) to convince you that Monopoly is as complex as chess.
is smaller than 1 by 0.000...1
...
Does it work the same way though? If the 1 exists, where is it?
"Am I supposed to think there is a 50-50 chance chess is more complex than monopoly too?"
The difference is that no one is trying (or would try) to convince you that Monopoly is as complex as chess.
I think scott would find a 50-50 chance of Monopoly being more complex than chess to be reasonable. As would anyone that follows his previous reasoning.
is smaller than 1 by 0.000...1
...
Does it work the same way though? If the 1 exists, where is it?
Just after the 3 dots.
"Am I supposed to think there is a 50-50 chance chess is more complex than monopoly too?"
The difference is that no one is trying (or would try) to convince you that Monopoly is as complex as chess.
I think scott would find a 50-50 chance of Monopoly being more complex than chess to be reasonable. As would anyone that follows his previous reasoning.
I didn't say that. You made up the 50/50 because it fits your simple mind and take on life.
"Am I supposed to think there is a 50-50 chance chess is more complex than monopoly too?"
The difference is that no one is trying (or would try) to convince you that Monopoly is as complex as chess.
I think scott would find a 50-50 chance of Monopoly being more complex than chess to be reasonable. As would anyone that follows his previous reasoning.
I didn't say that. You made up the 50/50 because it fits your simple mind and take on life.
I made up the 50/50 because any other number would assume you have conceded. To think the odds are less than or more than 50% is making a judgment. You're using what you know to distinguish two outcomes.
is smaller than 1 by 0.000...1
...
Does it work the same way though? If the 1 exists, where is it?
Just after the 3 dots.
What does it mean to be after these three dots?
What does it mean to be after these three dots?
Just after infinite zeros 
http://www.deucescracked.com/forums
Go and tell them they should just risk it and bluff.
is smaller than 1 by 0.000...1
...
Does it work the same way though? If the 1 exists, where is it?
it's hiding behind your intelligence.
Yeah I could be wrong, but I'm not just going to cloud myself in doubt just because of that possibility. If my curiosity is to result in me being called an idiot, so be it.
For me it makes more sense to just call it a number with a limit of zero. I guess his expression is supposed to be equivalent to that, but I'm not sure it does a good job of expressing this idea. With .9 repeating there doesn't seem to be a problem as you just have the repeating, not repeating and then something happening after that.
is smaller than 1 by 0.000...1
...
Does it work the same way though? If the 1 exists, where is it?
Just after the 3 dots.
What does it mean to be after these three dots?
it means that it's after these 3 dots rather than in front of them.
Well yes, I know "after these three dots" = "after these three dots." I'm glad to know you know that too!
I made up the 50/50 because any other number would assume you have conceded. To think the odds are less than or more than 50% is making a judgment. You're using what you know to distinguish two outcomes.
You can make a judgement all you like. We are just saying it has no weight because you only understand one game and ignore anything to the contrary.
Scientific reasoning should seek information that may contradict initial assumptions. You just belittle it.
Which is not out line with anything else I said. You're assuming a somewhat linear skill progression, which is strange since you yourself seemed to be saying that at the very top level there is a ton of skill packed in ;)...
Being able to perform at 90% of Ivey's capacity for a winning result in a single heads up encounter is in no way is equivalent to absorbing 90% of everything Phil Ivey knows about Poker.
Well in that case a 2000 player might be 90% as good as Carlsen as he'd choose a lot of the same moves. It's not the reality. I see your point but I think we can agree it was intended to deceive. Playing 90% as well is nothing, it's useless (and unmeasurable).
The difference is that chess is a more strictly cumulative game. If you make 90% of the same moves Carlsen would choose, by the time you reach a 40 move time control (for example), you've made ~4 more mistakes than he did, any 1 of which probably lost you your game.
In Poker, making your flush on the river corrects somewhat for those kind of mistakes and resets things to a degree, everything is not completely dependent on what came before...unless you play 100,000 hands and normalize things out.
I'm not going to wade too far into bluffing, but I agree that the value of bluffing is (a) overrated by beginnners, but (b) not really as complicated as some people claim. Maybe bots don't do it well yet, but chess computers used to suck as well...which was more a fault of developers that could not codify and translate "human" factors into decent algorithms (thus the quantum leap in Deep Blue when they brought Joel Benjamin in).
Going back to the 80/20 rule idea, I would say that if you:
- Accurately assess the other player's tendencies (not to bluff, but how they receive and respond to bluffs)
- Know the odds overall and accurately assess based on the flop what you can reasonably represent
- Know the odds and also therefore understand when you can semi-bluff, and how weak or strong that semi-bluff is
- Know the basic theory and have a set percentage of hands that you choose to bluff simply to ruin your opponent's reads on your play
- Know how to use table position, pot size, and your opponents' remaining chips to enhance your bluffing choices
...you are in pretty decent shape.
Far more impartant to my mind is correctly using table position in general, watching betting trends accurately and extrapolating opponent's decisions from that, just deciding what hands to actually play when things get streaky, etc.
A bluff is a bluff. Once you make the percentage call and make one, all you can do is follow things to their logical conclusion. Whether your individual bluffs work or not is not that important in the long run. If it works, you got some chips, if it doesn't work, you sent a message, both work for you in their own ways.
Yeah, that might all sound simplistic to a "pro", but again...80/20 is all you need. Can you squeeze 80% of the potential benefit out of your bluffing strategy only knowing the most fundamental but useful 20% of everything there is to know about bluffing? I'd say yes.
Blah...stopping now because I said I wasn't going to get into it ;)...
"How does "raw talent" manifest itself in the game of poker?"
Good lord. How does "raw talent" manifest itself in anything? Certain skills and abilities are very advantageous in poker, and some people naturally have those skills more than others: quick calculation and estimation skills, logical reasoning, psychological awareness, good observation skills, patience, the ability to synthesize lots of information to make a decision in the moment, emotional discipline, ...
I made up the 50/50 because any other number would assume you have conceded. To think the odds are less than or more than 50% is making a judgment. You're using what you know to distinguish two outcomes.
You can make a judgement all you like. We are just saying it has no weight because you only understand one game and ignore anything to the contrary.
Scientific reasoning should seek information that may contradict initial assumptions. You just belittle it.
You yourself are making a judgment, supposedly with no weight, if you are saying there is a chance other than 50% that monopoly is more complex than chess. You're being a hypocrite.
0.999... is smaller than 1 by 0.000...1
...