cheaptorque

And regarding what effective altruists would have said about improving the lives of slaves 200 years ago: Probably would have said the same thing that they say today, about improving the lives of countless billions of animals suffering in our agricultural industries. Some think it is better to take baby steps and improve what they deem achievable. Others argue that this is not good enough, and campaign to end animal agriculture entirely. Personally I think the best option is for both groups to exist in some kind of mixed model, and for the former to lay the groundwork in order to then pass the baton to the latter when the atmosphere is ripe. But the more I think about it the more I wonder if you are right...What use is another 3 centimeters of space to a battery hen? Is that really an improvement at all? Or a complete waste of time which could be spent instead campaigning to end animal agriculture in its entirety?

Tough questions. I agree with several of the things that you've said, but I am not sure that acting to affect structural change within society falls outside the realm of effective altruism. Does it?

I would imagine the effectiveness of those sorts of endeavours varies pretty widely on a case by case basis, and must be very difficult to estimate prospectively. The Martin Luther King Jr's, Nelson Mandela's, of the world acted to affect large structural change, despite significant expense to themselves, achieved their goals with what I would argue was a great deal of efficacy.

I suppose this brings the question, how should we measure effective altruism? Should we do so on the basis of the outcome, after the fact, or on the basis of the expectation, which is in some cases next to impossible to do with any degree of accuracy?

Hope I understood your points correctly, my apologies if not.

^And even if he didn't you'd think he'd be one of the few people able to resource the funds from investors. Seems hard to imagine it's a cash flow issue. But who knows, perhaps they've decided it isn't the most wonderful outlook after all, and changed their minds? If the two options were that & cash flow I'd say the latter would be more probable. And then there's the possibility that it's still coming, which is probably the most likely, at least I feel like it is.

To me it feels like, if I do a handstand while nobody is watching did I really do a handstand, type of question. I still did a handstand. The consequences have no impact on whether or not I did a handstand, because by definition they happen after/consequently to the act in question. How could they have some kind of retrograde impact on whether or not it was moral/lawful?

Zenfish - If the answer were no, would it not also stand for acting morally as well as lawfully? I.e. if you act immorally with zero consequences are you still acting immorally? Intuitively I would like to think so.

Love this comment.

Nooo, I'm fucking kicking myself for ever making that comment. I downgraded to Essential as I had planned to decrease volume for the month & just watch Apotheosis's videos. Went to do that tonight to find I couldn't, because he's now Elite. Can't help but wonder if my idiotic comment had any influence over that decision lol...Foot in mouth.

I don't suppose it would be possible at all, or even the fairest of the two options, to make his videos that were made prior to putting him into the Elite category available to those with the Essential sub? Guessing not, it is good material as far as my limited opinion goes, but figured it was worth the shot.

Arghhhhh

^Damn I wrote that a long time ago. I see it does in fact have tournament & cash settings, and I guess unless it's final table everything is going to be fairly close to chip EV, so running hands as cash games ought not matter. Cheers.

I have found after getting the elite sub that I end up watching mainly essential videos. There seems to be a few essential coaches that, in my fishy opinion, appear a great deal better than many of the coaches in the elite section. Undoubtedly some of this will be a result of not being up to where the elite section coaches assume their viewers are at prior to watching. Can't help but wonder if the selection criteria for coaches is a little iffy, though. But paying $99 a month and having to sift through mud content to find the good stuff kind of sucks...

Why not throw those guys into the essential price range, if the price for essential is increasing? Not to name names, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but food for thought.

26:00 When you say he has no fold equity anymore, do you mean with respect to the hand we are in? That he can't make people fold over the top of the other shove as much as he could do with the same chips by open shoving them himself/herself?

Or do you mean if he loses he has less FE after the fact?

Cheers!

Having sex with the chicken is more moral than purchasing dead chickens to begin with. I think that's a clearly demonstrable fact. Arguments against are often based in fallacy, and the result of succumbing to cognitive biases. I was always very disappointed with many of my psychology lecturers, because they appeared to fail so miserably at applying many of the things they taught in their every day real life situations. Not all, but far too many. I found those in the area of clinical psychology retained a certain degree of arrogance, and appeared far too certain of their own assertions than the evidence seemed to justify. The very people most educated around how biased the human mind is, consciously and unconsciously, ought to be the very least sure of themselves and the assertions that they make. Perhaps careful is the word I should use. And yet, as the DSM changes drastically time and time again, as disorders appear and are removed from the manual, the certainty of far too many clinicians remains as high as it was when we were categorizing homosexuals as mentally ill. Have you seen the work by social psychologist, Melanie Joy? I'm a huge fan of her work.

Oh man I nearly want to let Phil Laak away with it, because the fact that he actually did that is just so damn hilarious. He looks ridiculous...Whoever thought Colonel Sanders would be at the main. I guess everyone would have found out 10 minutes into day 1 that it wasn't an old man, and he'd have had to sit there looking utterly stupid for no good reason for the remainder of the day?

This video isn't Elite, It's Essential. And why are you so mad? If you pay for Elite, why are you watching Essential? Seems pretty silly to me. Also, I can't see how religious education could possibly tell you anything about morality. What does worshiping an imaginary being, who asks for you to be cruel to animals, in order to appease him, tell you about morality? I took R.E. at school also...It taught me absolutely nothing, except how not to believe everything that your teacher tells you as fact. Based on your attitude and the way in which you are addressing another human being in these comments, I think this video is EXACTLY what you need, Sir.

Couple of things...Having a background in both bioethics and biological sciences, I found the information about the history of smallpox, and its eradication, very interesting. Thank you for that. On a less positive note - Doug Polk desperately needs to watch this video. He made me see red, when he took a big portion of a pod cast to talk about why he doesn't donate money to charity. He provided a bunch of myths, clearly having not researched his position whatsoever before adopting it, to justify never donating a cent of his fortunes to charity. I felt it was incredibly greedy and selfish, and I stopped watching his videos. I try not to feel too much disdain for the guy, I'm sure he can't help it. But it is incredibly frustrating to see a guy with the mental capacity to excel at poker, yet who won't/can't/hasn't put a shred of thought into the way in which we influence the world around us. Let alone who then goes and tries to convince a wide audience of followers not to do so either.

Back to a positive note - Is there an open access video with similar content? I feel this ought to be made available for everybody free of cost. The smallpox comparison is great. I wonder if RIO might consider letting it slide as charity? ;)

Beliefs are irrelevant in this debate. What evidence is there for free will? I'd say absolutely none. There is stacks of evidence supporting a lack of free will, on the other hand. If an action leads to a dangerous situation, or risk of harmful repercussions to the actor, this does not make it an immoral act. A fireman running into a collapsing building, to save lives, is an example of this sort of act being quite moral. Also there is no requirement that the world be a just one, for it to make sense rationally. There are endless examples of horrible injustices, in our world, that any of us ought to be able to think of at any time. There are hook worms that burrow into the eye balls of the most innocent babies, and devour their retina leaving them forever debilitated. Often these young babies do not have access to medical treatment, and will live their lives for months or years with these worms infesting their tissues. This is but one example, the world is not a just one.

Retribution for crime would generally not be just, if there is no free will. But that ought not mean we would need to let people walk around free, after committing murders etc.. Those criminals, who pose a real danger to others, could still be locked up from a harm prevention perspective, rather than as a means of retribution. Also if we were to follow the retributive line to its logical conclusion, perhaps one must also argue in favour of torturing convicts to that end. Do two wrongs make a right? I think prisons should be used only for preventing harm, not to mete harm out.

The drugs debate is another entirely...With respect to freedom to treat ones own body as one wishes, that's one argument. But the arguments regarding social harm can easily be addressed, as far as legal inconsistencies go. 3/4ths of violent crime, prosecuted in our courts, is documented as having been committed by persons under the influence of an entirely legal intoxicant, alcohol. Alcohol is known to promote aggressive behaviours in many people, and increases risk for violent and other types of offending. The published evidence supporting this is overwhelming and undeniable. I have never seen a junkie nodding out to sleep on heroin, whilst simultaneously committing violent assaults on people while intoxicated. They're practically asleep by comparison. The drug that causes the most crime, and societal harm, as judged by a large body of experts across a wide variety of disciplines, is the drug that is legal and sold in larger quantities than nearly any other widely consumed drug on the planet. But should we punish people merely for having a beer? If not, why should we punish people having a joint, or a bowl, or using needles to take heroin? Surely having an open dialogue about drug dependency, and increasing access for these people to mental health facilities, would result in a better outcome for all parties.

Regarding thieves, some cultures (inuits, or inuvaluits, iirc) have no concept of theft. Their people simply assume that if something has been taken that the person must have had greater need for it than they had. There isn't a lingual translation for 'stealing', or something to that effect, in these cultures language. The problem is that many people, perhaps quite logically so, reject the idea of private property rights. I know I do, and that is why I give a large portion of my winnings to charity. I am not entitled to that wealth, because I have had it easy in life. I have had oppourtunities, being born into the right geographical region, by chance. Being born into the right family, by chance. Having access to a high level, early childhood education, by chance. Transgenerational wealth often means that those who own property mightn't necessarily be entitled to that property. Even if you worked for the money to buy that property, it's hardly fair on the person who did not have access to the same job oppourtunities, due to something outside of their control (e.g. being born in a war torn, famine riddled country). That person would typically have to work much harder than I did to get the same return on their effort.

5:51 what should sintoras be calling with here, the QJs spot? Given ICM?

Down vote

I'd like it too but it's probably going to be far too long. I think I like this the best since it's a lot of content in the most important stages. Maybe Chris could make an early game review vid or series?

I vote to keep the voice...Geting far too much enjoyment from reading people crying about it for that to stop any time soon. Welcome and look forward to the next videos.

Re the last hand, I would expect him to check raise turn with gutshot but not to lead it himself because the J hits your range and is higher on the board than was the top flop card, so he's checking to you again most of the time to give you another chance to cbet at it. I could understand if the flop was J high and the turn came the 8 that he'd be more likely to lead the K9 in that situation...I like the in game call for that reason.

Hi,

Why did you 3bet to $3 with the KK vs cutoff 3bb open, then later on the same stack depths you 3bet to $10 vs a 2.5bb open in the same positions with AKo?

Are you just going bigger because you don't want to encourage a call as much with AK as with KK?

On the flop I am betting smaller, around 42-44% off this stack depth on that board. Definitely bet smaller to get value from mid pairs or maybe even just check it to him some amount of the time (prefer to bet though given stack depths). There's so little in his range that we beat that can also call a flop bet here, so I am definitely cbetting smaller or checking it to villain sometimes to try and get some bluffs.

Agree on the turn not to be worried about 5x and its now also very unlikely that he has a set of fives. I feel like his range here is very mid pair heavy like 77-TT, and a very small amount of AT-AQs. The board is slightly more drawy although it's hard to think he turns a backdoor flush draw very often at all, if we check he will check back 77-TT sometimes, bet it sometimes, and probably bet his Ax but when we fire a second barrel and villain calls I feel like their range becomes quite narrow. I don't think he's flatting 78s here too often pre, but at this stack depth it probably isn't awful (correct me if I'm wrong I'm not 100% here). I struggle to think of anything we're beating on the river that we can get value from...78 got there, flopped sets got there, 77-TT is probably folding most of the time if they didn't fold turn. I feel like AK would have 3bet preflop often, AT-AQs may have flatted although I don't like flatting ATs here so villain dependent (if they're a bit fishy?). I feel like if you bet you're only getting called by worse, I probably wouldn't even bet small and would just check here.

Agree with ralphy, just jam this in preflop. Personally I doubt I would often 3bet anything other than all in with this hand off this stack depth (maybe off 25bb+ to a min open) let alone 4bet not all in with it.

It's weird, given the line he takes if I make his river betting range as condensed as: TT+, 55, 66, 88, TT-JJ, KK-AA, KQs, JTs, 89s, 78s, my hand all of a sudden has 21.79% equity against that range on the river...

If his range is this narrow (allows for 78s 89s, KQs, as bluffs) then QQ becomes a fold here...But if I add in AJs it becomes a marginally +ev call...

I don't think hes betting any of his Tx on the river so I've excluded these, he may or may not value bet AJs on the river but I'm not sure how often that's calling flop, I don't think hes betting his weaker Jx too often although its possible, however I'm blocking QJ and because I don't think I ever check back a T or better on that turn (in his mind) except for hands like 79s, what does he think he can get value from by betting just a pair of jacks on that river? Potentially 99? I think I would check that back on the flop some amount of the time...

Keen, I am playing similar stakes to you and very hungry to work on my game. Enjoy to study and discuss spots...

Skype is menacerec name on pokerstars is menacerec, 888 was badgernz and cheaptorque, ipoker is torqueischeap, and partypoker cheaptorque, my pocketfives acct is also cheaptorque and I am keeping a poker diary there which I update daily currently in the community forum if you want to get a feel for what my discussion is like.

Thanks

Some general pointers on how to play in 3bet pots in MTT I would love to see. And also a hh review of one of your tournaments, if possible a mid stakes one (nothing over $55).

Hopefully I will make some nice money soon and will be able to get my elite sub back, but if not thanks for making the vids they have been great.

Add me please, menacerec

Sorry what does tabling the hand mean?