History Of The World From A Gambler’s Perspective: A Scholarly Discussion

It’s here:

It is of pretty good paperback quality. It looks like it mostly consists of pretty small chapters and clocks in at 280 pages. I dont know where to start, I may just pick and choose chapters that look like they could be funny.

He’s gotta chapter about rumble in the jungle foreman v ali and I’m a big boxing fan so I’ll read that first.


Lol i already found a typo


I 100% support creation of a hate-reading thread


Totally agree.

Yes please.

Edit - I just want enough posted to stop me from buying it.

I’m down but need some guidance about excerpts - my instinct is to say no, because I don’t want to get in trouble. So i’m gonna just post cliffs of stuff I find funny.

The chapter on “why hillary lost in 2016” has put me on monkey tilt.

1 Like

Omg post excerpts

1 Like

I’m tempted to gift two copies to the IDEOAT podcast, but I don’t want Mason to have my money. There’s an extremely small chance they might do an episode on this book if you send them two copies and explain that it’s written by a self-proclaimed poker genius.


Would excerpts fall under satire exception as fair use?

Brief excerpts used in a review are clearly covered by fair use, the forum is hosted on a Canadian server, both admins have non-US citizenship, and the domain is owned by a lawyer. You’re good.



I shit you not this is a line in the introduction:

“Much of what follows comes from Wikipedia.”


Shut up! Are you serious.

Is there a bibliography?

Yes and I was confused in the few chapters I read when there were all these random paragraphs and sentences surrounded by quotes with no footnote. The intro says these came from wikipedia.

It’s funny because as I was reading i was like “it’s almost like that’s from wikipedia” but quickly dismissed the thought.


So, not footnotes or endnotes citing Wikipedia?

There’s footnotes when they use real sources. But I just see an index and no endnotes or bibliography.

I am already beginning to question the academic rigor of this history book.


Wonder if he thinks Wikipedia is peer reviewed? Good to know his academic standards wouldn’t be acceptable in a middle school essay.


You’d really expect better from a renowned scholar like Antonio Carrasco.


Lol. I posted that quote where Mason said they’d chosen topics from wikipedia, and I wondered if I was maybe being unfair. History’s big, after all, and so if they just used that to narrow it down and then did the research, it’s probably fine, isn’t it?

But, no.

@jmakin can I extract this to a thread in Sundry Chitchat? If so, pick a title, I think it will make a great read.

(edit: “History Of The World From A Gambler’s Perspective: A Scholarly Discussion”?)

1 Like

I like that, go for it