Every hobby is filled with old bitter jealous haters who piss on anyone new.

legit lol'd when i read this , then realized you were serious.

I agree that that type of reaction is indeed a thing that normally happens (not just with poker, but with any niche hobby or thing that a relatively small proportion of the overall population has extremely in-depth, long-term knowledge and passion about).

But, I'm not so sure I agree with the conclusion - that this phenomenon is evidence that these people are "idiots", that is.

I think this phenomenon has to do with the fact that the people who have been into whatever the niche is, for a long time, with a lot of in-depth knowledge, passion, expertise, etc, are able to easily and instantly spot tons of errors or misconceptions or mischaracterizations of the hobby at hand, whereas the broader audience who isn't as in-the-know don't spot those things.

Thus, the in-the-know people who are really into whatever that hobby or occupation or thing is, end up having a laundry list of (often genuine, and valid) disagreements with the book or article or movie that misrepresented or had lots of inaccuracies about the subject at hand.

To an outsider, it would just look like a bunch of randomly pissed off people who are just being automatically angry about anything being released about their subject at hand, for no reason. But, to an extremely knowledgeable insider, their disagreements might all be pretty accurate and valid.

So, I'm not so sure this effect means they are "idiots". It makes sense that this would be the reaction from the in-group if their stuff gets portrayed very inaccurately and it's something they care and know a lot about and have built their whole lives around.

+1

She was interviewed on the Freakonomics podcast too. I think it came out a couple weeks ago. Good listen.

Valid? Errors? Sorry, but not one thing about the game of poker has been misrepresented in the article or book. Not one thing. It's gonzo journalism at its finest. The haters are seething bitter nobodies who are jealous no matter what was written. Idiots to the core.

I wasn't addressing this article. I have no idea if it was accurate or had errors or not. I was addressing your more general, sweeping comment of:

"People obsessed with a niche hobby are always the first bitter attackers when mainstream media takes an interest in their stupid little hobby.
I am sure everyone trashed Molly's Game. If Rounders came out today, every poker nerd would trash it. People are idiots, is the bottom line."

Which is why I quoted that when I replied.

Also, on a side note, I can't help but notice that you seem like quite a "bitter" person, and kind of a "hater", yourself.

Check out the way you are describing hobbyists, and their "stupid little hobbies" and calling them all haters and "seething bitter nobodies" and so on.

Seems like the glass house stone throwing thing might be applicable here. You don't exactly come across like a bundle of joy, yourself.

I agree that there are some people who overreact negatively to almost anything that comes out about their hobby, or anything/anyone new that comes in, and so on.

But, you seem to be overreacting just as hard in the reverse direction, and are coming off pretty mean-spirited.

Either I missed this episode, or I'm just that far behind on my subs (both are quite possible). Thanks for the heads-up.

Also, just started the book. I've found I don't have the patience to read almost anything these days, but I'm still enjoying it.

Jesus Christ, what if her kids/parents/colleagues are reading this thread?

Is it ok if we speculate whether you'd take it up the ass for some poker lessons? What if we threw in a sweet staking deal as well? Does a 50/50 split guarantee us some half and half? TBD

Reading the article...

I gave a hearty chuckle at Seidel telling her the $140 dallies at Aria are too tough lmfao

well not everyone has squandered a decade of their life on a pointless gambling game. lmfao

wat? The $140s at aria arent too tough is what Im saying.

Abbadabba -- You say you are just criticizing the article and the idea that the author is being venerated as a poker champion, and that it has nothing to do with the author being a woman:

But your lead criticism/commentary is that Konnikova's success was likely purchased in exchange for a blowjob, given to someone who could only be interested in working with her because she is a woman:

Maybe in your heart of hearts you don't think you're being sexist, but I really encourage you to give some thought as to why you even think, much less openly suggest on a public message board, that the Seidel would only be interested in working with Konnikova because she is an attractive woman who may have offered him sexual favors. I also encourage you to give some serious thought to why you think that is at all a relevant criticism of Konnikova's writing.

If I am being charitable, I think the argument you are trying to make is that Konnikova takes too much credit for her success, where most likely her success is mostly attributable to some combination of obtaining coaching from a highly successful player and variance. Do you see how I just made your argument without putting Konnikova's sex/gender at issue? I encourage you to think about why felt compelled to frame your argument your way.

(By the way, from what I have read, Konnikova makes it very clear that much if not most of her success is owed to her access to Seidel and Phil Galfond, and to luck.)

Hi Everyone:

I'm reading Maria's book and are about 25 percent through it. My initial reaction is that it's an enjoyable read which many people would also enjoy. Of course, I know quite well some of the people she talks about, and this includes Erik Seidel and Dan Harrington. So, this is an aspect that I may find a little more interesting than others. But based on what I have read so far, I definitely would recommend her book.

Best wishes,
Mason

not too tough.

Also Aria runs a great promo from time to time where they give a free $25,000 high roller ticket to randomly selected person that enters a $140.

anyone actually read the book? good?

I just went and picked it up today. I really enjoyed her book Mastermind, so I knew I would probably enjoy this.

I am about 60 pages in atm and its is pretty good so far.

Hi Bukafax:

I currently have you beat and are on page 117. But my opinion is the same as yours.

Best wishes,
Mason

Yea, that's my point. I am sure $140 level is not easy .......for anyone who hasn't flushed a decade of their life studying this game. So, Eric was probably accurate with that advice.

Excellent, in my opinion. Her poker journey from complete novice (not knowing hand rankings) to circuit traveler and mtt winning player is well told. But the book is unlike any other poker book I've read in significant ways. First, her training primarily at the hands of Seidel and Galfond with a little Dan Harrington and professional psychologists with expertise in poker tells thrown in is interesting, as she learns both the mathematics and game theory side and the feel side of the game. Second, the way she applies the lessons of variance in poker to aspects of probabilistic thinking and decision-making in everyday life is, for me, unique and insightful. She's humble, funny, and articulate and thoughtful throughout.

If you're looking for another how to poker book, this one isn't it. But it covers interesting and valuable ground that I don't think any other one does.

As for the Aria $140s, the decision on where to start playing live tournament poker in LV was based on her very limited experience with online and even less with live mtts (one charity tournament in New York), coupled with a limited bankroll, and the value of learning from starting out playing the low stakes daily turbos at places like the Nugget.

Ive probably played much more Aria dallies than Seidel has, I would rather recommend those to a beginner versus the jank turbos run in rooms like Ballys or Flamingo. Those are almost like play money with 80 percent of the time being unbelievably shallow.

Okay, but are you as successful as Seidel?

I'm more apt to trust his perspective.

Some podcasts for those who don't like to read books
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTg0...ture=emb_title
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKgdHJ0NBbk

No, you're way off the mark. not suggesting at all that she's taking too much credit. I'm saying the article is baiting lay people into imagining something that's not at all realistic. SHE seems reasonably humble, even admitting she was bleeding money until her one big score, and it would pretty hard not to be humble about it considering she's most definitely down a lot of money over the course of this experience.

I also didn't say she offered a blowjob, i suggested he was hoping for one.
But even if i did suggest she used her sexuality in an opportunistic way, why exactly would that be misogynistic?


Why would that not be ok? Would anyone care?

... maybe if it was a high roller.

I do trust his advice. That says nothing about how easy it is. You, for instance, have been trying and failing to beat penny games online for the past few years. That doesn't mean that it isn't easy or that it requires countless years of experience to do it.