Leave out the human 'players' - And ALL 'human' inter-actions and
competitions' would Lose much of their meaning! ..{a 'stray' thought that might've spurred the Divine, to long-ago instigate the 'Big Bang' etc?! ..{rhetorical}
Affecting the Universe In Microscopic Ways
Sort:
Apr 28, 2016
0
#84
Fear rather than talent affects girls’ mathematics
Girls face a big problem with maths says Scots-led research
The study focused on girls’ negative emotions about mathematics, described as “mathematics anxiety”.
Researchers defined this as “a psychological factor that can undermine the pursuit of mathematics”, and included time spent working on a maths assignment as well as actual lessons.
Lead researcher Dr Gijsbert Stoet, reader in psychology in the university’s school of education, said the study also found positive female role models and gender equality policies make little difference.
Instead, Dr Stoet said gender issues such as boys being generally less afraid of things than girls was a key factor. But he said the way to tackle such differences was to provide better quality education.
The study revealed girls’ mathematics anxiety was unconnected to whether or not they had mothers working in science, technology, engineering or mathematics. Furthermore researchers found parents in more developed countries were more inclined to encourage their sons’ mathematical development than their daughters. The team, including psychologists from the universities of California and Missouri, analysed data and socio-economic indicators from the Programme for International Student Assessment relating it to World Economic Forum and the United Nations indicators from nearly 500,000 15-year-old pupils in 68 countries.
Dr Stoet said: “Policies to attract more girls and women into subjects such as computer science, physics and engineering have largely failed. Gender equality is a key value in enlightened and developed societies, but our research shows policy-makers cannot rely on it as the sole factor in getting more girls into subjects like physics and computer science.”
Apr 29, 2016
0
#86
It looks like, there are More things that one can appropriate for themselves, than mere 'Opening lines'! -- Worthwhile, 'links'! [ :
http://www.lifedaily.com/21-stunning-horses-from-around-the-world-with-unusual-coat-patterns/#utm_medium=referral&utm_source=yahoo&utm_campaign=YH-StunningHorse
Apr 30, 2016
0
#87
May 1, 2016
0
#88
.. And, I'm a 'poor imitation' of "David Livingstone"..{from the little I know of him} - Yet, nonetheless.. 'Saved'-by-Grace'!
May 1, 2016
0
#89
- A professional 'pianist' both demonstrates & tutors his talented student{s} ? {from, 2011/his 'Hong Kong' 'home base' I assume}.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRVvfrK8Ur8
May 2, 2016
0
#90
Not, to Most People's reading 'tastes'! - Possible exception? - 'chessplayers' among others. [ :
May 3, 2016
0
#91
From, having just 'News' {page} 'googled' the word - 'perserverance' 0:
http://lifehacker.com/the-importance-of-grit-and-perseverance-in-your-health-1774513441
May 5, 2016
0
#93
.. Accomplished, woman 'Aussie- sculptor' 'passes-on.'
May 6, 2016
0
#94
I think that about, equally interesting - Is an 'embedded' related article sub-link - Re. the 'copyright' court battle, over - Is 'Klingon' {language} 'protected'!? ..{plaintiff -"Paramount Pictures" Inc.}
May 7, 2016
0
#95
"10 Most Consequential Poker Players In History" ..{parttimepoker.com}
As a music buff, the deaths of David Bowie and Prince shook me a bit. I’ve always been a big fan of both, and recognized them for the musical geniuses they were, but their deaths caused me to reflect on just how consequential they were to music.
This got me to thinking about poker – as most things do. Who are the poker equivalents of Bowie or Prince? Who are the true legends of the game that were bigger the game? As the fake Babe Ruth said in the Sandlot, “Heroes get remembered but legends never die.”
During the poker boom, the barrage of World Series of Poker and World Poker Tour episodes created a number of poker celebrities. The heroes up and coming players could emulate. A lot of these poker celebrities were like the musical act that creates a few good records. Even more were one hit wonders. But some turned into legends, joining a couple of already existing legends as extremely consequential figures who not only rose to the top of the game, but fundamentally changed poker and the way it’s played.
Compiling this list was a lot harder than I first thought it would be. There were many additions and subtractions along the way, and ordering them was even harder. In the end, I landed on these 10 names.
#10: Bobby Baldwin
Bobby Baldwin was the first poker wizard. Baldwin won the 1978 World Series of Poker Main Event at the tender age of 28, which was extraordinary considering the average age of the winner up to this point was around 115 – that may be a bit overstated.
But it’s Baldwin’s role behind the scenes, assembling games, running poker rooms, and eventually landing high-profile executive roles with major casino corporations that nabbed him a spot on this list.
Basically, whatever project Baldwin was working on at the time became the center of the poker universe, which is why Bobby’s Room at the Bellagio is named in his honor. Without Baldwin who knows what state live poker would be in today.
Baldwin was inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame in 2003.
#9: Jason Somerville
Because of his relative freshness, Jason Somerville was a difficult addition to this list. On the other hand, it’s hard to argue with the overall impact he’s already had on the game of poker. He’s ushered in a new era of poker media, through new mediums, that are so cutting edge there were arguments if what he was doing was actually poker media when he was nominated for an American Poker Award earlier this year.
Somerville’s contributions to the game away from the felt are so grand they’ve overshadowed his poker prowess, which includes $3.5 million in live tournament winnings (and Somerville is mainly known as an online player), and a WSOP bracelet.
No offense to Daniel Negreanu, but it’s Somerville who is the current poker ambassador par excellence.
#8: Phil Ivey
Phil Ivey was the best of the best during the poker boom, which means the general public thinks he’s the best poker player of all time – which he very well may be.
Ivey’s story is utterly amazing – from using a fake ID to hone his poker chops in Atlantic City to the ongoing edge-sorting scandal that saw Ivey take two casinos for over $20 million – and his poker achievements are even more amazing:
- 10 WSOP bracelets, and the only player with a real shot of catching Phil Hellmuth;
- At one time he was simultaneously the winningest live and online cash game player;
- Nearly $24 million in career tournament winnings – good enough for 5th all-time.
Ivey is a shoe-in for the Poker Hall of Fame this year.
#7: Johnny Chan
Johnny Chan was Phil Ivey before Phil Ivey.
He can also lay claim to the sickest poker accomplishment in the game’s history (at least in my opinion), as he finished 1st, 1st, and 2nd in back-to-back-to back World Series of Poker Main Events from 1987-1989 – Johnny Chan man… Johnny F’ing Chan.
For a decade-plus, Chan was the epitome of a poker high-roller, and thanks to the numerous mentions of his poker prowess and his cameo appearance in the movie Rounders, Chan is an absolute poker legend and one of the game’s most recognizable players.
Chan was inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame in 2002.
#6: Tom Dwan
In the early days of the poker boom, there were plenty of mini-online-poker-legends – SpirtRock, ElkY, Hollingol, NeverWin, and so on. But it was a young, ultra-aggressive online poker player named durrrr who captured the imagination of the entire poker world.
durrrr, real name Tom Dwan, is the definition of a game changer.
His style of play was so unorthodox that the top pros of the day thought very little of him – just another fish on a heater. And oh, how wrong they were. Dwan’s game was so innovative it took several years of success before he started getting the credit he deserved.
Suffice it to say, Dwan is the godfather of online poker.
#5: Amarillo Slim
Before the poker boom, the only time you saw a poker player on TV was if you were watching ESPN at 3 AM… except for Thomas “Amarillo Slim” Preston.
Slim’s ability to tell a story (true or not) helped him become a cult figure of sorts during the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s, and promote poker for the first time since the days of the Wild West.
Even his peers realized Slim was the perfect poker salesman, as it’s widely believed he was allowed to win the 1972 WSOP Main Event so he could do what he loved to do; promote the game.
Slim was the first player to figure out poker could be sold as entertainment, which he tried to do in a variety of PT Barnum-esque ways. From his Super Bowl of Poker, to hosting tournaments and casino openings from Marrakesh to Columbia, to his Tonight Show appearances, to his Bobby Riggs vs. Billie Jean King style gender match, the wheels were always turning in Slim’s head.
There was a darker side to the man that has tarnished what would have been an incredible legacy worthy of Top 3 on this list. But anyone drawn to poker before the poker boom, Amarillo Slim was likely a factor.
Amarillo Slim was inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame in 1992.
#4: Stu Ungar
Stu Ungar’s feats and accomplishments are the stuff of a tall tales book, and for the most part, they all really happened. Part of Ungar’s legacy is the superhuman plays he made at the poker table, but another part of his legend was the air of mystique that surrounded Ungar, not unlike Prince – he was such a genius that people simply couldn’t wrap their mind around the way he thought.
For Prince, making music consumed most of his waking hours. For Ungar it was gambling.
Ungar was a poker dynamo, playing the modern loose-aggressive style when all of his contemporaries were playing tight-aggressive. Completely ahead of his time, Ungar racked up an impressive poker resume (and poker wasn’t even his best game) including three WSOP Main Event wins, and the hard to fathom feat of winning 10 of the 30 tournaments he entered with buy-ins of at least $5,000.
Ungar was posthumously inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame in 2001.
#3: Daniel Negreanu
Daniel Negreanu flipped the image of a professional poker player on its head. The diminutive, affable, trendy, and outspoken player put to rest the notion of the wizened and grizzled gambler.
Negreanu was approachable and the first player to truly engage his fans, which has led to him becoming the face of PokerStars.
His resume is pretty impressive as well, as he’s the winningest tournament player in poker history with over $32 million, and is one of the few people who has a lot of experience, in cash games and tournaments, booth live and online.
Negreanu was inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame in 2015.
#2: Doyle Brunson
Doyle is the living legend of poker.
The 10 time bracelet winner, including back-to-back WSOP Main Event titles in 1976 and 1977, authored the transformative book Super System, and despite his age was at the forefront of the online era.
The remarkable thing about Doyle is his longevity. Doyle beat the highest stakes games in the world for 50 years, and to this day he can still hold his own.
Doyle was inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame in 1988.
#1: Phil Hellmuth
If you asked a random person on the street to name five poker players, I’d wager money that the name Phil Hellmuth would have more mentions than any other poker player.
Hellmuth is a brand unto himself (and a chronic self-promoter), and even though his current playing schedule consists of about six weeks during the World Series of Poker he’s ubiquitous in the poker world. He pops up on TV, at charity events, and is constantly posting pictures of himself with A-list celebrities on social media. The man is simply everywhere, and has been the most visible poker player for the past 25 years.
Phil also holds virtually every major World Series of poker record – cashes, final tables, and bracelets.
Hellmuth was inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame in 2007. {fini}
May 7, 2016
0
#96
Figuring, that a 'pic' to go with a name.. {involving a 'link'}.. Is somewhat more interesting..{re. of who}.. than a mere 'name.' .. Unless they're another {perception 'bias' warning}.. 'plain jane'.. or 'homely joe.'
http://www.signalscv.com/section/486/article/151820/
May 8, 2016
0
#97
Probably, should've gone on the 'World Record' thread - But, if where I'm 'posting' were a 'Q'-line - This 'thread' is 'about due' for another.
http://abc27.com/2016/05/08/national-memory-championship-tests-competitive-rememberers-in-hershey/
May 8, 2016
0
#98
The kind of 'Bad-Seed-Uncle' news item, {as of earlier today} - That one, hates to read or hear about!
May 9, 2016
0
#99
As unconventional a Life's choice, that 'he-she' made, {ie. "Caitlyn Jenner"} - As long as her decision, was Not 'taxpayer' funded - No one, can put themselves, in another person's mind, in this specific case; And say, 'your reality is erroneous.'
A 'pov' incidentally - I would Not have held, less than 5 years ago 'sfaik'.
May 9, 2016
0
#100
A 'Copy-and-Paste' from, Myself.. back in '2010' ..{plus 1 reply}.
Backgammon; 'Skill,' versus, 'Luck' ..{from, the backgammon, blogs}
Is backgammon a game of skill, or luck? Many people ask that. Some have very strong opinions that it's a game of luck - if you get the right dice rolls, you'll win; If you get the wrong ones, you'll lose.
Well, no reasonable person can say anything other than that it is a game of skill And luck. To say how much skill and how much luck is like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It is a question that defies a precise answer.
Let me give two extreme examples. Take a chess player who has just learned the rules and perhaps played a couple dozen games. Now, let him play a game against the world champion. He will lose. Period. Even the most amazing chess prodigy in the world will not beat the world champion.
Now take two players of comparable experience and give them each 10,000 $1 chips to bet on a roulette wheel. Require them to play for four hours and to each bet 100 chips on each spin of the wheel. The more experienced player has exactly a 50% chance of ending with more money than the less experienced one. Every bet on the roulette wheel has exactly the same house percentage {with one exception, which presumably the weaker "player" could be told, so that they both avoid that bet}. Therefore; Roulette, is a game purely of luck.
Most games are a combination. All games of cards and dice involve some luck. Take Monopoly. A skillful player can make deals with his opponents that are more to his advantage than to theirs. He can use the rules on building shortages to his advantage.
Well, no reasonable person can say anything other than that it is a game of skill And luck. To say how much skill and how much luck is like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It is a question that defies a precise answer.
Let me give two extreme examples. Take a chess player who has just learned the rules and perhaps played a couple dozen games. Now, let him play a game against the world champion. He will lose. Period. Even the most amazing chess prodigy in the world will not beat the world champion.
Now take two players of comparable experience and give them each 10,000 $1 chips to bet on a roulette wheel. Require them to play for four hours and to each bet 100 chips on each spin of the wheel. The more experienced player has exactly a 50% chance of ending with more money than the less experienced one. Every bet on the roulette wheel has exactly the same house percentage {with one exception, which presumably the weaker "player" could be told, so that they both avoid that bet}. Therefore; Roulette, is a game purely of luck.
Most games are a combination. All games of cards and dice involve some luck. Take Monopoly. A skillful player can make deals with his opponents that are more to his advantage than to theirs. He can use the rules on building shortages to his advantage.
Over a large number of games he will win more often than less skillful players. But if an 8-year-old who just learned the game happens to land on Park Place and Boardwalk the first time around the board, and understands that he can build houses, he is very very likely to win this game quickly.
Over the course of a single game, or a short match, luck is a significant factor. At the same time, it is clear that some players win more often than others, sometimes by a remarkable margin. Even in a long match, luck is a major factor. Not long ago I was playing a match to 11. I was trailing 6-5 when I doubled, and my opponent took. He turned the game around and was on the verge of doubling me. Then I rolled double 4's. I was able to enter from the bar and hit three of his checkers on that roll. He wound up with 5 checkers on my ace-point.
Over the course of a single game, or a short match, luck is a significant factor. At the same time, it is clear that some players win more often than others, sometimes by a remarkable margin. Even in a long match, luck is a major factor. Not long ago I was playing a match to 11. I was trailing 6-5 when I doubled, and my opponent took. He turned the game around and was on the verge of doubling me. Then I rolled double 4's. I was able to enter from the bar and hit three of his checkers on that roll. He wound up with 5 checkers on my ace-point.
At the very end, he was very unlucky. He had two checkers there when I had two on my 2 and 3-points, and he rolled double 2's. He wound up not able to escape his checkers and lost a doubled backgammon, for 6 points. Match to me.
What do Good Players do
But what most players forget is that good players create their own luck. If you play in such a way that you have more good rolls than your opponent, of course you will get more good rolls. One thing that I do is that I take more risks when my opponent has blots in his inner board. So of course I get more "good rolls" than my opponents. I put myself in positions where I create more good rolls for myself, and fewer for my opponent.
One player, not a bad one, on the Internet Gaming Zone, told me that it was pointless for me to put up a site with backgammon tips. It wasn't so much that he thought I was overstating my abilities at backgammon, but that learning about backgammon was pointless, because it's a game of luck.
What do Good Players do
But what most players forget is that good players create their own luck. If you play in such a way that you have more good rolls than your opponent, of course you will get more good rolls. One thing that I do is that I take more risks when my opponent has blots in his inner board. So of course I get more "good rolls" than my opponents. I put myself in positions where I create more good rolls for myself, and fewer for my opponent.
One player, not a bad one, on the Internet Gaming Zone, told me that it was pointless for me to put up a site with backgammon tips. It wasn't so much that he thought I was overstating my abilities at backgammon, but that learning about backgammon was pointless, because it's a game of luck.
Now, if someone wants to tell me "RedTop, you're not good enough to give advice," well, they might very well be right. That's why virtually all the advice on this site has come from other people - top experts in backgammon. Have I played any of them? Yes. Have I beaten any of them? Yes, but not as often as I've lost.
The argument about dice also ignores the skill involved in making cube decisions. Surely, no one would argue that after a game has been played out some number of moves that it remains "all luck." Consider the extreme case where one player has no idea when he is in a strong or weak position, so he never doubles and always takes. In effect, he is agreeing to lose two points for every point he wins. No one can win in the long run if they give those kinds of odds.
In fact, I will go so far as to say this. Put me up against the best player in the world, but provide that I can double and my opponent cannot. Under those conditions, I suspect you could not find a single player in the world who would play against me for money. The doubling cube is a huge factor in backgammon, at all levels.
Final Note about Match Skill
There is no question that over the course of a single game, or a short match, a poor player can beat a good one. But it's a question of percentages. I have played literally thousands of games on the Internet Gaming Zone. I don't have any idea what my won-loss record is by games, but by matches, it's around 80%. Am I that much luckier than my opponents? I don't think so. Not over thousands of games.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Caissa' poster's note: I may've played backgammon once; informally. But, given the 'Western' prediliction/popularity, for betting, and the 'chance' factor; I suspect that chess..{a game Mostly of skill; Thanks to computer-server 'glitches'; And 'Web' disconnects}; Will ALWAYS be poker's {the card game; Among other games of 'chance'}; Poor, second cousin; To borrow a metaphor.
Final Note about Match Skill
There is no question that over the course of a single game, or a short match, a poor player can beat a good one. But it's a question of percentages. I have played literally thousands of games on the Internet Gaming Zone. I don't have any idea what my won-loss record is by games, but by matches, it's around 80%. Am I that much luckier than my opponents? I don't think so. Not over thousands of games.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Caissa' poster's note: I may've played backgammon once; informally. But, given the 'Western' prediliction/popularity, for betting, and the 'chance' factor; I suspect that chess..{a game Mostly of skill; Thanks to computer-server 'glitches'; And 'Web' disconnects}; Will ALWAYS be poker's {the card game; Among other games of 'chance'}; Poor, second cousin; To borrow a metaphor.
seek  Elite Member United StatesPosts: 19
Reply |
30 Jan 2010, 14:17:22
In reply to buzzkill
Re: Backgammon; 'Skill,' versus, 'Luck' ..{from, the backgammon, blogs}
I have never caught on to backgammon. Like driving a stick-shift, I THINK I had it at one point, but I never cemented the knowledge and I lost it.
Its too dicey....I don't go for luck in my games. Thats why I'm not a fan of 960 - although we both get the same dice roll there, its still a dice roll to me. |
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-sports-car-whittled-out-of-wood-1461681364