Law school seems absolutely ******ed to me. There's no way you can convince me that a proper education in undergrad couldn't prep you enough to be able to study for the bar.

Of course it could. Many countries do that.

Its economics, artificially holding the supply down (by requiring going to a graduate school) increases the $$ paid to lawyers. Which members of the bar have an incentive to do.

That paradigm may not make much sense in today's economy when there is a silly oversupply of lawyers. But when the economy was at its peak if you let just "anyone" become a lawyer, lawyers would make less money.

Well there was a time when you became a lawyer the same way you became a cobbler; apprenticed with someone who was a master, in this field a judge. The bar just travelled a circuit together, I believe they called it Bar Hopping

There is no way an undergrad can just jump into the profession. You have to learn an entirely new way of thinking and writing to be of any use to anyone.

Ah yes, that would involve less pool studying than my lazy azz which went to FSU, and only got in cuz I knocked the LSAT out.

While the "new way of thinking" argument may be true, I don't see any good reason why that couldn't be accomplished with an undergraduate degree. LIke I said it works in other countries. My relatives in other countries laughed at me when I told them I was going to/paying for another 3 years of school.

But maybe I'm just being pissy because its Saturday night and I'm reading about searches and seizures.

Why law school?

Been on two cruises, one of each. Royal Caribbean was e-table, IIRC, and MSC was live.

Edit, and they were both 10%. RC was capped at $10 and MSC at 8 Euros, I think.

No way an undergraduate could come out if college and be useful to a law firm.

You have to learn the new way of thinking to even begin to be useful.

I don't have any problems with the idea, say, of scrapping law school in favor of an apprenticeship at a firm. But it'd take two years of apprenticeship before an undergrad was anything other than a huge money loser for a firm.

I taught prelaw classes to undergrads for several years; the idea of turning them loose on a real client's problem, even under close supervision, would scare the **** out of me.

But it's sort of irrelevant, as firms wouldn't take untrained college grads anyway. Most firms lose money on lawyers right out of law school anyway, as they have to spend a lot if time cleaning up after the first year lawyer's mistakes. Right now firms have a sweet deal--young lawyers pay to learn the law and the new way of thinking. Firms would fight like he'll against an apprentice program for college grads that would essentially transfer the training costs to them.

I don't really think the fact that "most firms lose money on lawyers right out of law school" is a particularly good reason for why law school is currently a necessity.

But you're 100% right that this is all an entirely useless conversation, because there's no way such an entrenched system that is so profitable for the people in charge of it will ever change. Which is either good or bad depending on your perspective.

In a middle of a marathon session. I was down 800, I'm now up 1200.

Damn you guys are smart, sucks you guys have to deal with my bs.

Jack I apologize for earlier. I don't know why I choose to argue about bs when your too smart to have a convo with me.

I still stand by statement that LLSNL is not 100% about thin value.

Jack: AK on a A2349 board is not thin value.

@Fun101 98 on a flop check threw is not thin value on a A9587 lmao, misapplied information, smh.

Most firms losing money on new lawyers is a good reason why firms would fight a system that placed people right out of college in firms.

The fact is that a really smart college grad needs two to four additional years if training to be even a marginally profitable asset to a firm. Somebody has to pay for that training. Right now, the new lawyer pays fir most of it, and firms only have to incur a small loss putting the polish on after the person graduates from law school.

Maybe I went a bit astray in my first post on the subject; shrug. The point is that college grads are in no way qualified to go anywhere near a real client's problems. It takes several years of additional training.

Even if you adopted a system where law was an undergrad degree, it just wouldn't work. Four years of study just isn't long enough to develop the judgment, sophistication and wisdom necessary to be a marginally competent lawyer. Moreover, the vast majority of 22 year olds are simply not mature enough to make competent lawyers.

I think probably the age factor is the most compelling thing to me. You're right that most 22 year olds aren't mature/responsible enough to be useful lawyers.

I guess you're probably right. And you certainly have a much better perspective for coming to an informed conclusion about all this. My only point is that from everything I hear, and you to some extent seem to agree, is that law school may be better than nothing for training lawyers, but I'm not sure it necessarily follows that its the best way. But I guess that's a different conversation.

Just let me dream about a world where you don't have to incur all this (additional) debt to subsequently have a chance of being usefully employed.

And with that I'm done complaining in the chat thread.

Currently in lockdown mode just flatted kings for no reason. Ace otf, flop checked threw. I bet the turn everyone folded, ****.

Your 22 jack? That's crazy, you have so much ahead of you in life. What type of lawyer you want to be?

And PB I don't really know how to respond to that. So I'll just say GJ on having a winning session. Wish I got to play more poker. I probably have spent more time talking about poker than playing poker this year. I have played probably 50 hours max of live poker and 30-40 hours online.

And I don't view it as an imposition to "deal" with anyone on 2+2. If it was I would put them on ignore. I think you make plenty of useful contributions PB, but sometimes you are just unwilling to consider that when 100% of people disagree with you, your thinking may be a little bit off.

If it would make you feel better about it, I'll change my comment. Making thinner value bets is a very important concept for LLSNL players who all too often only value bet the very top of their range. There are obviously other things that are important, so you are correct its not "100%". I only meant to emphasize that b/f a wide range is a tool that is going to be extremely profitable in LLSNL.

Anyway, Chinese new year's resolution: start no more arguments in the chat thread. I think I can do that for at least a week.

I'm a lesbian.

I agree I go to far when I'm attacked by multiple people. The more I learn about you guys, the more I come to conclusion that I hold onto stupid petty things in arguments.

Jmurder is right, if 1/5 people understand what I'm saying then I'm clearly not communicating properly.

We all hold on to stupid petty things in arguments. So don't sweat it. GL with the rest of your session.

Hi guys, I am about to make a bet with a friend. Play 25 times live at 2/2, if I make profit after 25 times, I win the bet. I would say 4 fish at a table on average, and weak regs. I beat 50nl online. How do you guys think chances are that I win this bet? Did play few times live, but have no idea about variance live. Variance is less because my edge is so much bigger, but is 25 times still a big gamble?

Btw, every time is about 6 hours, so it will be about 150 hours of poker. I know 4k hands is a lolbad sample online, but wonder if your big edge makes up for it. Fwiw, rake is 10% with 10 cap.

If these guys don't start double and tripling up from each other. I'm going to leave because I have all the money on the table. People think I'm up so much, stupid fish. I'm in the game for 1100, have over 3 geez on the table.

Yeah I'm done!

Jack, I'm not sure whether law school is the best way to train new lawyers. I have thought about it a lot, starting back when I was in law school. I did my graduation thesis on a somewhat related topic.

What I do know is that the reason we have the system we have is because it trains new lawyers at the least expense to law firms.

That said, I do think law school is a pretty effective method of training new lawyers. I'm not sure an apprenticeship would work as well, because there would always be pressure on the firm to get production out of the apprentice rather than formal training.

In the trades, apprenticeships work because you can get formal training and production at the same time. You take an apprentice carpenter and you put him to work on the elementary tasks that he has to master before he has hopes of being able to build a piece of furniture, such as learning to saw wood in a straight line, etc. So the apprentice learns to saw a straight line, and the master gets his lumber cut for the next few projects.

The apprenticeship doesn't translate as well to law, because to even do the most elementary tasks, you first need to have learned a completely new way of thinking. But learning it doesn't produce anything for the master, so the apprentice would be unprofitable.

Of course, law school has it's own down sides. You learn to think, but you get very little practical experience, even if you participate in a clinic.

I guess any system would be imperfect.

I know I have thought about it a lot, and don't really have a solution. We DO need a major overhaul if the student loan system, though. Prices just keep getting more insane every year, and it is really screwing up the legal and health care systems as a minimum.

lol.

If you really wanted to angle you could easily win this bet.

If you are up nicely after a few sessions (or even just one) play 24 "sessions" of one hand in the big blind, post a win for that amount of time and then ship the bet despite winning 4% of your sessions.

Over 25 6hr sessions I would expect to win over that time 90% plus given my winrate and playing style.

Lol, he is a friend, I would never do that obv. Let's say the bet is about 150 hours of poker instead of 25 sessions But I get the point. Guess I am gonna accept the bet, also because I think the hourly will be about the same as 50nl online (15 an hour), so it will be a nice change of scenery.