Sondra speaks out.

[al Hartman]

  It takes about 20 minutes to learn, and a lifetime to master....

   ...kind of like the gospel!

al

[sfortescue]

Sorry to bore you with the proprietary language, Joe.

Watch the Travel Channel and you can see exactly what we are talking about and learn the game.  It takes about 20 minutes to learn, and a lifetime to master....

On my mom's side, my grandfather and aunt both liked playing poker.  I never was much into games of chance.  Back in High School, there were some students in the calculus class who liked playing Bridge.  Bridge seems to have more strategy in it than poker, but I never got into playing Bridge either.


This link has info on the worlds best poker-playing computer software:

http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/

Some technical details about the software:

http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/Papers/IJCAI03-ov.html


A Science News article about computers playing various games:

http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/8_2_97/bob1.htm

Go is by far the most difficult game for present computer technology.

[al Hartman]

Go is by far the most difficult game for present computer technology.

     Maybe it all depends on where you Go!

[editor]

On my mom's side, my grandfather and aunt both liked playing poker.  I never was much into games of chance.  Back in High School, there were some students in the calculus class who liked playing Bridge.  Bridge seems to have more strategy in it than poker, but I never got into playing Bridge either.


This link has info on the worlds best poker-playing computer software:

http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/

Some technical details about the software:

http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/Papers/IJCAI03-ov.html


A Science News article about computers playing various games:

http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/8_2_97/bob1.htm

Go is by far the most difficult game for present computer technology.

Actually, the strategy for poker is about on par with bridge, because both use the same deck and therefore have the same mathmatical odds for hitting certain cards.  The only difference with poker, other than the rules, is that there is a tremendous amount of psychology that has nothing to do with the cards.

I can play a game with beginners, and actually win, or break even without looking at my cards, just by bullying them with my betting.  I've done it.  It's a good exercise for people who are trying to develop their game.  Plus, with poker, greed, fear, survival insitnct and competition come into play.  Also, you can train your opponents to react to you a certain way, and then trap them.  You can also create a false table image of yourself and take advantage of it, etc.

Strategy wise, it is mostly based on an emotional level in the advanced games.  Having a great memory helps too.  People tend to play certain types of hands, and play them the same way every time.  Knowing this tells you when you can bluff, and when you are being bluffed.  The probability is fundamental, and every intermediate player knows it. However, the real skill is the people skill, knowing how to apply maximum pressure to protect your mediocre hand,  or suck someone in to a trap.

Poker is the Bridge of today. The difference is that Poker is a multibillion dollar industry, while Bridge is becoming a lost pastime, although I wouldn't be surprised if it made a comeback.

Brent

[M2]

Hi Folks. I invoked my 24 hour rule on this and in accordance with Tom's entreaty this will be only post on the subject.

The definition of humility in the assemblies was that you accepted any and all criticism and accusations without reflection and/or rebuttal. Particularly if it came from a worker or leading brother or one of their agents. It did not matter if there was no factual basis in what was being asserted, nor if there were mitigating circumstances, you were guilty as charged, and permitted to demonstrate your humility by promptly and meekly agreeing with whatever was said in accusation. Sounds familiar?
I apologized to Sondra for calling her an adulteress and my apology stands.
It does not matter whether I think someone married more than once qualifies or not for that is not the point. The spirit and purpose attending the statement was intended to injure and that was wrong. Any thing said in that spirit, factual or not is wrong and I readily admit that. I have made many such statements in referring to her and they also were wrong.
I have not repeated such statements to the best of my knowledge with the exception to state that her recent conduct on the BB was “vicious” and “thuggish”.
I get the impression the in the minds of some, my apology to her meant that I would never again criticize anything that she did, nor publicly disagree with her.
Why would any one make such an assumption?
I remained silent as shortly after accepting my apology, she trained her guns on new targets.
How is it that she insists on being treated with respect and deference by those visiting her website, yet she is allowed to come here and insult the moderator of this board, and hurl ludicrous accusations at one of our regular posters? This person in the face of this kind of accusation then felt the need to delete an entirely innocent post. Why were some of you e-mailing me in private to criticize her while remaining silent when this was going on?
This is rank hypocrisy! While I am loathe to mention this, even after we had agreed to wait a week to talk about our differences, she got on the BB and launched another unbelievable slew of charges as a result of outrage over my not responding to an e-mail I had not even read!
Every one who knows the history of her website knows that she has been on a search and destroy mission so far as Verne Carty is concerned since the day it was launched. While she may criticize and disagree with me, she does not have the right to slander and lie about me. My own failing was to respond to her in kind. This is undoubtedly the street-fighter instinct in me (an instinct which has saved my life more than once) but it was certainly not Christian conduct.
I knew this woman was insincere when she admitted that she may have posted false statements about my tenure at Champaign Alliance Church yet did not have the decency to retract it.
She clams to be a believer.
Why is she sending lists of things I have said to her that offended her to everyone but me?
Why is it that she chose not to follow the Biblical standard and confront me as a brother in Christ with those matters privately?
Is it possibly because her conscience would not allow it?
Was it because it was always her intention to enlist the support of presumably credible people in her non-stop attempts to discredit me?
Is it possible that she realized that there were cat’s paws she could employ by playing the sympathy game and using that to present me in the poorest light?
Here’s the biggest the biggest disappointment of all.
Rather than advise her, as was proper, to send that list to the offending party and recite her grievances, the list is apparently accepted as fact, no opportunity for rebuttal is given, but everyone involved gets on the BB during her full-scale assault and makes  public statements about the ball being in my court.
To try to publicly ambush me (to say nothing of subjecting the BB to this fiasco) instead of allowing  me to deal with this in private, was not mediation.  It was grand-standing. I ought to know for I have done my fair share of it. I am happy for them if it won you her respect for those involved, but at what cost?.
I apologized not because of the Brent, Marcia and Sondra troika. I apologized because God used what what Dave posted to prick me in the conscience and I had to admit that he was right; that I myself  had often been heavy- handed even on the BB and that was not right.
An apology at the time was proper, regardless of what I personally felt about this person..
Despite the statement about everything she said about me being validated by my now speaking out against her on-going conduct, the apology was sincere.
I will repeat that my own conduct toward Sondra Jameson was not right and my apology was genuine. I am deeply disappointed that those of you calling yourselves her friends, and mine, did not have the courage to say the same thing to her and say so publicly.
Tom, I want to say to you as moderator this will be the last time I use this person’s name or refer to her in any way on this BB. Thanks for your patience.
Verne

Hi Verne,

Thank you for re-stating and for clarifying where you stand on this matter.  I am posting this on public forum because I have stated my opinion about this issue publicly.  I do not wish to revive the whole discussion again.

Personally, I believe that I can still have fellowship with you and discuss topics with you, and we sometimes may simply have to agree to disagree.  So that would mean that I have settled in the pro-Verne camp eh??

God bless,
Marcia

[vernecarty]

Hi Verne,

Thank you for re-stating and for clarifying where you stand on this matter.  I am posting this on public forum because I have stated my opinion about this issue publicly.  I do not wish to revive the whole discussion again.

Personally, I believe that I can still have fellowship with you and discuss topics with you, and we sometimes may simply have to agree to disagree.  So that would mean that I have settled in the pro-Verne camp eh??

God bless,
Marcia

That you and Brent are my sister and brother in Christ there is no doubt. What's a family without an occsional spat?
Always in His love,
Verne

[sfortescue]

I don't know a lot about cards.  The last game I was at people were saying things like "got any sixes?" or "got any fives?"  I kind of lost interest at that time, but maybe poker might prove more interesting.  I'd just have to understand some of the terminology a little better I think.

--Joe

Sorry to bore you with the proprietary language, Joe.

Watch the Travel Channel and you can see exactly what we are talking about and learn the game.  It takes about 20 minutes to learn, and a lifetime to master....

On my mom's side, my grandfather and aunt both liked playing poker.  I never was much into games of chance.  Back in High School, there were some students in the calculus class who liked playing Bridge.  Bridge seems to have more strategy in it than poker, but I never got into playing Bridge either.


This link has info on the worlds best poker-playing computer software:

http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/

Some technical details about the software:

http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/Papers/IJCAI03-ov.html


A Science News article about computers playing various games:

http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/8_2_97/bob1.htm

Go is by far the most difficult game for present computer technology.

Actually, the strategy for poker is about on par with bridge, because both use the same deck and therefore have the same mathmatical odds for hitting certain cards.  The only difference with poker, other than the rules, is that there is a tremendous amount of psychology that has nothing to do with the cards.

I can play a game with beginners, and actually win, or break even without looking at my cards, just by bullying them with my betting.  I've done it.  It's a good exercise for people who are trying to develop their game.  Plus, with poker, greed, fear, survival insitnct and competition come into play.  Also, you can train your opponents to react to you a certain way, and then trap them.  You can also create a false table image of yourself and take advantage of it, etc.

Strategy wise, it is mostly based on an emotional level in the advanced games.  Having a great memory helps too.  People tend to play certain types of hands, and play them the same way every time.  Knowing this tells you when you can bluff, and when you are being bluffed.  The probability is fundamental, and every intermediate player knows it. However, the real skill is the people skill, knowing how to apply maximum pressure to protect your mediocre hand,  or suck someone in to a trap.

Poker is the Bridge of today. The difference is that Poker is a multibillion dollar industry, while Bridge is becoming a lost pastime, although I wouldn't be surprised if it made a comeback.

Brent

Mathematical game theory is actually most relevant when playing against experts.  Predicting and influencing what an opponent will do based on psychology amounts to taking advantage of weaknesses of the other players.  A strong player can't be taken advantage of in that way, so if you want to succeed against top players, you will need to become skilled at mathematically precise play.

A simple example of mathematically precise strategy is the scissors-paper-stone game.  The optimum strategy is to choose each possibility with equal probability.  If you're playing the game against a poor player, then you will often be able to guess what your opponent will do and take advantage of it.  Against a good player, you won't be able to guess, so the random strategy is the best.

The weakness of poker computer programs is that they don't take maximal advantage of poor players.  Against expert players they do fairly well.

[enchilada]

Also, you can train your opponents to react to you a certain way, and then trap them.  You can also create a false table image of yourself and take advantage of it, etc.

Brent

This description of poker seems to apply to several things in life.  For example, at a car dealership today where I'm testing/checking out some new stuff, I get the feeling that the salesman is trying to pull things of similar nature.  The I open the hood and ask the dealer how much it would cost to change the alternator that's buried beneath layers of hoses and rigid lines(which I know is $400 for parts, and mostly labor)  and confirm my notion with his answer:  $150. 

[editor]

A strong player can't be taken advantage of in that way, so if you want to succeed against top players, you will need to become skilled at mathematically precise play.

Hi Steve,

Please, for your own sake, don't start playing poker for money.  You could learn how to play mathmatically precise in about a day.  You would lose so much money to the experts it would make you cry.

Probablility, or mathmatically precise play, is for beginners.  Sort of like dogpaddling and floating for swimmers.  You don't play waterpolo unless you know how to float, and you don't use perfect freestyle either.

Same with poker.  For example, against an expert, you would be quickly identified as a player who only played quality cards, in order to press your advantage.  The expert would note that, and pretend he also had quality cards, even better than yours.  However, when the type of cards coming off the deck (the flop) were low, trashy cards, he would bet into you, causing you to fold, and lose your money.  It happens all the time.

Deception is a much greater part of the game than math.   You must use the math, you must understand the odds, but you must also play your opponent.  If they can see your cards, you can never win!  And by playing mathmatically precise, it's almost the same as if you show them your cards.

So, if you want to succed against beginners and recreational players, math is important.  If you want to succeed against experts, a whole lot more is involved.

Dan, your observation about the car dealer is right on, and by playing along you were able to catch him in a lie, which gives you vital information about his ethics and motivation.  That's poker.

Brent

[sfortescue]

...

This link has info on the worlds best poker-playing computer software:

http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/

Some technical details about the software:

http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/Papers/IJCAI03-ov.html


A Science News article about computers playing various games:

http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/8_2_97/bob1.htm

Go is by far the most difficult game for present computer technology.

Actually, the strategy for poker is about on par with bridge, because both use the same deck and therefore have the same mathmatical odds for hitting certain cards.  The only difference with poker, other than the rules, is that there is a tremendous amount of psychology that has nothing to do with the cards.

I can play a game with beginners, and actually win, or break even without looking at my cards, just by bullying them with my betting.  I've done it.  It's a good exercise for people who are trying to develop their game.  Plus, with poker, greed, fear, survival insitnct and competition come into play.  Also, you can train your opponents to react to you a certain way, and then trap them.  You can also create a false table image of yourself and take advantage of it, etc.

Strategy wise, it is mostly based on an emotional level in the advanced games.  Having a great memory helps too.  People tend to play certain types of hands, and play them the same way every time.  Knowing this tells you when you can bluff, and when you are being bluffed.  The probability is fundamental, and every intermediate player knows it. However, the real skill is the people skill, knowing how to apply maximum pressure to protect your mediocre hand,  or suck someone in to a trap.

Poker is the Bridge of today. The difference is that Poker is a multibillion dollar industry, while Bridge is becoming a lost pastime, although I wouldn't be surprised if it made a comeback.

Brent

Mathematical game theory is actually most relevant when playing against experts.  Predicting and influencing what an opponent will do based on psychology amounts to taking advantage of weaknesses of the other players.  A strong player can't be taken advantage of in that way, so if you want to succeed against top players, you will need to become skilled at mathematically precise play.

A simple example of mathematically precise strategy is the scissors-paper-stone game.  The optimum strategy is to choose each possibility with equal probability.  If you're playing the game against a poor player, then you will often be able to guess what your opponent will do and take advantage of it.  Against a good player, you won't be able to guess, so the random strategy is the best.

The weakness of poker computer programs is that they don't take maximal advantage of poor players.  Against expert players they do fairly well.

Hi Steve,

Please, for your own sake, don't start playing poker for money.

Of course, I wouldn't play for real money without learning the game first, but I don't feel motivated to invest a lot of time in learning the game, at least not at this time.

You could learn how to play mathmatically precise in about a day.

You must not have read the description, in the second link that I posted, of what mathematically precise play actually is, nor understood the analogy of the scissors-paper-stone game.  By precise, I don't mean doing the same thing every time you get a certain hand.  Precise means taking into account the whole history of events during the process of playing the game, and using specific probabilities based on that info to decide randomly what you should do.

Here is a quote from the second link:

It is impossible to compute the complete game-theoretic solution for Texas Hold'em (the poker variant used to determine the World Champion), because the 2-player game has more than a quintillion states (ie. 10 to the 18th power, or a billion billion).  We used abstraction techniques to create smaller games that have about 30 million states, but retain most of the key properties of the real game.  The solutions to these smaller games produce an approximation of the game-theoretic optimal solution for the real game.
This is obviously not something that anyone could ever completely learn, let alone in one day.

Deception is a much greater part of the game than math.   You must use the math, you must understand the odds, but you must also play your opponent.  If they can see your cards, you can never win!  And by playing mathmatically precise, it's almost the same as if you show them your cards.

The scissors-paper-stone game is an illustration that shows how the mathematically precise randomness evades revealing your cards.  The randomness is unpredictable, so the opponent won't know for sure what your actions mean.

So, if you want to succed against beginners and recreational players, math is important.  If you want to succeed against experts, a whole lot more is involved.

You yourself already said that beginners are more vulnerable to psychological tricks, and that you don't need math to win against beginners.  Any success with using psychology against experts is simply revealing their weaknesses.  Of course, you can argue that some weakness will always be there.  It is also difficult to choose randomly without some kind of randomizing device.  I wonder what other poker players would think, if an opponent used dice to decide what to do.  Would they be annoyed?

Dan, your observation about the car dealer is right on, and by playing along you were able to catch him in a lie, which gives you vital information about his ethics and motivation.  That's poker.

Brent

The car dealer obviously wasn't a good poker player, since he fell for that.  My grandfather was a car dealer, and then in later years went into selling Airstream trailers and mobile homes.  He was an expert salesman.  I remember him saying that it is foolish to lie to the customer about what you're selling.

Here's an interesting curiosity.

RoShamBo (rock-paper-scissors) Programming Competition:

http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsbpc.html

Or how about a strategy guide from the World RPS Society:

http://www.worldrps.com/advanced.html

In a Chinese lesson book, I read that this game is popular in China, as well as variants involving different numbers of fingers.  A typical way they play the game is that the loser of each round has to drink some wine.

Sometimes the University of Alberta Computer Poker Research Group hosts a challenge to test their poker playing algorithms.  You can prove your skill against their computer logic.

http://games.cs.ualberta.ca/webgames/poker/Contests/contest.html

[moonflower2]

can't we kill this thread?

[al Hartman]

can't we kill this thread?

Moonflower, this thread is now all about poker, so you'll have to "talk to the hand!"

al

[editor]

You must not have read the description, in the second link that I posted, of what mathematically precise play actually is, nor understood the analogy of the scissors-paper-stone game.  By precise, I don't mean doing the same thing every time you get a certain hand.  Precise means taking into account the whole history of events during the process of playing the game, and using specific probabilities based on that info to decide randomly what you should do.

Hi Steve,

I think I pretty much understand what you said and what the link said.  Playing by probablilities is what a good intermediate player does.

A beginner bets when he has a good hand, and is basically unbluffable, cause he has something.  A novice bets because he likes the idea of winning a big pot, and he'll worry about whether he has a hand or not when it's showdown.  Novices and beginners rarely know when to fold their hands and are thus harder to bluff.

I was speaking about No-limit poker when talking about beating people without looking at cards.  You can only do it online, cause in real life people would begin to notice that you weren't looking at your cards.

I don't care what a computer does, I guarantee that a computer can't beat a really good player, let alone a table full of them. 

Example, let's say the computer has Ace Ace, the best possible starting hand.  I have 22, a decent hand, but a huge underdog to AA.

If I hit a 2 on the flop, I am now a huge favorite to AA. However, usually a person with AA isn't afraid of a 2....and I doubt the computer would be either.  However, in real life, you can watch the person swallow, watch their eyes "pop" and pick up on body language in order to tell you that they have a huge hand.  The computer can't do that, as all it can do is play mathmatically, and the game is all about human stuff at the higher levels.

Anyways,  I love  talking about poker.  Tonite I took 4th in a tournament, and then got 4 Aces in a game that followed.  Hopefully that hand will hold up and give me a few hundred dollars for the high hand jackpot.

I would love to play against the computer you speak of, that would be fun.

Brent

[moonflower2]

Yeah, cool. I like the investment tips, too. 

[Joe Sperling]

The post below brought back a time in the Assembly for me. I said "no" to one of the wives
of a brother who was leading a "brother's house". It concerned some of my own property,
and I was completely warranted in saying "no"---but not according to Assembly criteria. By
saying "no" I had said "no" to God.(according to the teachings of the Assembly).

I was asked to make a decision: to sell my car or remain in the brother's house. I chose to sell
my car so that I could remain in the house. But this wasn't good enough. I was asked to apologize
to all of the brothers at the dinner table. I did apologize saying "I was wrong for what I said".

But this was not good enough. I was told "Next time you apologize, do it with more feeling and
sincerity would you?" I was told "I know you would just like to close the door on this, but before
the Lord you don't get off so easily". I sold the car, made apologies, and on top of that was given
a list of extra stewardships to do. I was literally doing "penance" for my sin. This is the absolute truth--whatever I did it just wasn't "good enough" to appease those who were looking for my repentance and apology.

When someone admits to their "wrong" and plainly states it as such, who are we to judge them further? Do we say "that wasn't good enough--I want you to tear your clothing, pour ashes on your head, and admit what a sinner you are to the whole world?" When a person admits that they have been more than unkind, they have been wrong and they admit that, what more do we want? Does the Lord treat us like that? When we admit our wrong to him, does he say "Sorry, that wasn't good enough?"

I fully forgive everyone involved in the above story from so long ago. I share it only as an example of what
can happen when we become "judgers of others humility and repentance". When we presume to put our-
selves in a place where we say "your repentance wasn't good enough" or "your apology wasn't good enough for me" we are literally lifting ourselves up to a place where only God sits and judges.

When someone tells me they're sorry I accept it. I just don't understand this at all.(the post below) The Lord is "filled with
kindness and is READY TO FORGIVE". We should also be "ready to forgive"--not ignoring apologies and asking
for deeper humility from others. That was the old Assembly attitude, where no matter what you did it just wasn't good enough. "Your repentance wasn't good enough brother, you need to humble yourself more". "Your apology wasn't sincere enough brother--I need to see more humilty before I'll forgive you". Thank the Lord He isn't at all like that.

--Joe