Neither one is a big deal. Thousands have done those things. Much more proud of The Theory of Poker which I DICTATED off the top of my head without ever writing anything down.

Now SAT Math under drastically restricted time limit could be interesting.

Just checking in to see how my prediction is doing. Despite a "booked!" post itt already "no bets actually resolved" is still the favourite imo.

You are a politics regular?

David, what if the forum pools money against you, you fake enroll at UNLV for the fall semester by auditing 9 hours, and then sit the Putnam exam in December. Since you're so good at math/logic and you get SIX hours, you should have no problem scoring higher than 10 out of 120 or whatever. We could set the scoring targets to get odds in your favor, so you could maybe win a considerable amount by putting up a small piece.

What happened to bobo's bet? Why is that not going down?

David,

I have no idea what you would score on the LSAT. My point was that there are a lot of people floating around out there who are solid bets to score in the 176-180 range every time. (No one will score a 180 every time, if only because of the possibilities of carelessness or overthinking the response to a particular question.) Issuing an open challenge is pretty presumptuous unless you are confident that, at age 69, you remain one of those people who will score a 176-180 every time, and even then, it's no better than an even money bet because of the obvious selection bias among those who would agree to the bet.

In any case, the LSAT is far from a perfect proxy for intelligence. It's highly teachable, especially the games section.

And even if you scored a 180 a dozen times in a row, it wouldn't say much about the validity of your opinions on politics. I'm sure we could find people who scored a 180 on the LSAT who we both would agree have ridiculous and poorly thought out views on various political and social views.

David,

Below is an example of a thread you started that had all sorts of unwarranted and unstated assumptions about human behavior. I'm not offended by these sorts of comments, but they are so detached from the real world as to be little more than thought experiments. Maybe you understood as much when you made the thread. I don't know.

lol

WILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

What stakes do you most commonly play these days?

Regular reader, occasional poster.

Simple, you uncategorically claim that DS is wrong in how he applies logic to solve societal/political problems and in how he characterizes leadership in society then tell us what the correct way to do is because obviously you are claiming DS doesn't know how and you do. GTFO if you don't tell us how it should be done.

Can't keep addressing these posts because they invariably contain a misreading of my words rather than pointing out a legitimate error. In this case what was missed was that the challenge was directed only at those who were calling me dumb but were in fact, when it came to tests that measure such things, dumber than me.

If this thread ended up with a bet where DS couldn't beat .1/.25 online it would almost be worth it.

When I talk about 5-4 decisions being reviewable, or the randomness of justices dying (and now a new idea of mine that each justice should have a vice justice) or the benefit of a voter test (and my new idea that those 80% who don't pass get one rather than two votes, or a second different idea that you must sit in a class for an hour if you don't pass the test the first time, and again the second time, but if you do you automatically now pass because you tried) or ideas to stop silly laws for individual states ("not available in Iowa") I don't talk about them because I think they will be implemented. They are just out of the box thoughts without regard to their chances of happening. In law I have six:

The death penalty should require, if you have it at all, "beyond a shadow of a doubt"

Kidnappers and those involved in serious crimes should get some leniency if they choose not to kill

Along similar lines, escaped prisoners should have a few days window of amnesty if they return without hurting anyone.

Penalties should take into account the perps pot odds.

Institutionalized released prisoners should be allowed to "stipulate" to a crime rather than actually commit one to get back inside.

If you see someone rotting in jail with all appeals exhausted, you should get amnesty if you confess to that crime you got away with, to get him released.

I don't find it necessary to consider whether there is something about human nature that would keep these ideas from happening.

Except I play 80-160 mixed games at the Bellagio.

OK. Here is what you said.

This seemed pretty wide open. Maybe you clarified later and I missed it, in which case I apologize for the oversight.

In any case, we should all be able to agree that an LSAT challenge is silly and wouldn't prove much, whether directed at one person, ten people, or the entire world.

And there is no need for you to "keep addressing" anything. If you have said what you wanted to say about your inherent intelligence as it relates to your posts in this forum, then you obviously can just stop posting on the topic. That's what I'm going to do.

Not impressed -- super strong players like aoFrantic don't play in those games.

Sklansky- How is it that people dumber than you are so often right while you are wrong?

David is brilliant. But he's also weird. So he fails sometimes to make connections between the real world and a number between 0 and 1. We who have trouble with that number need people like David; otherwise we'd still be living in caves. Without real world knowledge--smarts?--the brilliant people can get us all into trouble. Von Neumann favored a niclear attack in the Soviet Union. Fortunately David didn't finish college. Thus he helped me make money playing poker and didn't get into a position where he could have advocated a nuclear attack and been taken seriously. He's proud he thought of the theory of poker without notes. But without his co-author, his thoughts would have been incoherent. The geniuses need us cave-dwellers too. I don't know if David truly appreciates that.

Lol. I absolutely did NOT say that. I had to search again, because I'd forgotten the two year old thread, but this is false.

Let's recall the facts. You made the ridiculous claim that Maddow could not - if her life depended on it - get a PhD in physics. Why would this clearly smart, clearly dedicated person have a PhD be so fundamentally incapable? She made a minor logic error. Since I, and my entire friend group at the time were all math and physics PhDs I corrected you on your ridiculous claim.

The quote that I think you must be (incorrectly) referring to, is this: " I'd suggest your series of basic errors here is much more disqualifying of you from being able to do a math phd as Maddow is from her error." The point, of course, wasn't that you were more or less likely to get a PhD in math than her, but that claiming someone absolutely couldn't based on occasional every day probability error is terrible.

So....uh....kinda hilarious that your misinterpretation of my response to your hilariously terrible claim - that maddow couldn't get a phd in physics if her life depended on it - is what caused you to write me off.

Potentially useful information:

I taught the LSAT for Kaplan. I scored 178-180-180-180 in the four practice tests prior to the actual administration. I scored 178 on the real administration.

It is trivially obvious to me that Sklansky is smart enough to study for the test and score perfect. That is because anyone with deductive capacity and deductive practice can learn how the LSAT game works and play the game to perfection. There are not that many variants of questions. If you understand necessary and sufficient conditions, you understand about 90% of the test, and the rest is habitual based on the information provided by a given question.

Moreover, the people who are "threats" to score top 1 percentile "every time," as has been referred to in here repeatedly, are the people who will only ever miss a question on Reading Comprehension, and never miss anything on Logical Reasoning or the Logic Games. There's no reason to miss anything on those sections if you're good enough at the LSAT to be blabbing about scoring well on it in the first place. On a related note, it is my strong suspicion that Sklansky only actually cares about the Logical Reasoning and Logic Games parts of the test. Reading Comp is, after all, a test of patience and focus more than your brain.

The LSAT is a brain game that you can practice and improve on through reps, and very little more. It is by its nature a very terrible assessment of native intelligence or processing power.

uhhh adios nobody is suggesting there is some like categorical "right" way to apply logic when trying to solve social and political problems. David's errors are well documented on this forum, I won't repeat them there, but what on earth answer are you expecting here???