I'm always amazed at the way people will always find a way to be outraged at change.
LinkedIn makes it so if you want to see who's viewing you, you have to agree to be viewable, removing a potential information asymmetry and this is somehow a horrible offense?
I like the change, and I'm glad of it. I like that you can't elect to be hypocritical about profile viewing information. I'll continue ramping up my LinkedIn usage, especially as it seems to only get more valuable for me over time (unlike FB, which has never provided me with any measurable utility.)
I would not go so far as to say I am outraged. Using any site, paid or free is an individual value judgement. Many people may be happy to have competitors, potential new recruits, bosses and employees know you viewed their profile - for me, and how I used Linkedin, its not something I am willing to accept. My choice to leave. Your choice to stay. No outrage here, just a comment.
If somebody says "evolution is a lie, and it shouldn't be taught to children", the fact that they don't actually live their life according to that credo is sort of irrelevant.
I've never been on deucescracked, but as a long-time acquaintance (and poker foe) of Joe Tall, DeathDonkey and Jay Rosenkratz, I'd be surprised if it wasn't good.
I can still remember the exact moment back in 2002 or 2003 where I realized just how much than me better Joe Tall was. We were having a cigarette near the Foxwoods poker room and he reviewed the action on a few hands we'd just played in a 20/40 game, and he remembered them in more detail than me, but he also processed the detail differently to emphasize different aspects of my game.
I was a winning player but after that night I stopped playing for a month, did nothing but study books, analyze hands and sessions, and grind out math to see if some of my assumptions about lines against various hand ranges were correct.
After that I got a lot better, jumped limits, and ended up meeting DeathDonkey in a 100/200 game at Commerce and again realized I was outclassed.
I'd say I owe them a debt of gratitude, but I'm pretty sure I already paid it at the tables.
Didn't expect a response from you! All is excellent, except for the fact that I'm east coast now and the mixed game and limit game selection around here is worse than terrible.
Seriously though, I meant what I said about the debt of gratitude. Massive thanks.
So typical - you see this all the time. Moving up too soon thinking they are the best in the world, only to lose it all.
(For non players, this means that you are a winner at lower stakes, say $5/10 - but a common trait is that you become bored with that level because the most you can win each day is ~$1000-3000. As you move up levels the play is a lot harder (exponentially so). Players like this guy crush the small levels and think they are good enough for the higher levels, and just end up losing it all - often blaming their luck in the process. If you look at his chart, you will see that he won it all playing medium stakes, and lost it all (in a lot shorter time) playing high stakes).
He also could have been staked for the high stakes and so didn't necessarily lose his own money. From what I hear this is not uncommon for winning players taking a shot at the higher stakes or even a high stakes regular who found what he feels is a good but risky spot.
Actually the article headline seems inconsistent with the text, which suggests he decided to quit to pursue other things and is not in fact "busto" as rumored.
Not saying you're wrong but it's another possibility.
Entertainment, because professional players are allowing amateurs to pay to meet better players, and test their skills against them. There really aren't many other games where this is the case.
Education, because there are huge numbers of available lessons (in both hard and soft skills) for players who decide to think about the game deeply.
I don't see anything "empty" about it. But then again, I'm a winning poker player who ported lessons from poker into everything from business to my golf game. It's had such a positive impact on my life that I can't view it negatively.
My car automatically throws on the brakes if it thinks I'm about to hit something (tested accidentally, once, and it stopped me with about one car length to spare.), and my cruise control watches for cars in front of me, so it will go the speed I set, unless there's a slower car in front of me, in which case it leaves a safe distance.
I kind of agree, actually, I didn't need to throw that in. My point was not to whine about being marked down, but rather to comment that I'm surprised that a community of people as sharp as this one didn't agree that there seemed to be something major missing from the earlier article.
This guy doesn't deal in those books. He deals in books with known prices and enough volume that he can be reasonably sure it'll sell in a moderate amount of time.
If nobody else has it on amazon, this guy isn't buying it and putting it up there.
He deals in non-obscure books with known pricing and demand. Your hard to find, obscure book won't be on his shelf. And on the off-chance it is, he's pricing based on other vendor prices, so it won't be cheaper.
So... consider him a saint all you'd like, but he is not helping you in the way you imagine he is.
All he's doing is going to thrift shops, and ensuring that poor people don't get any of the popular books at below market prices. Nothing saintly about that, IMO.
LinkedIn makes it so if you want to see who's viewing you, you have to agree to be viewable, removing a potential information asymmetry and this is somehow a horrible offense?
I like the change, and I'm glad of it. I like that you can't elect to be hypocritical about profile viewing information. I'll continue ramping up my LinkedIn usage, especially as it seems to only get more valuable for me over time (unlike FB, which has never provided me with any measurable utility.)