C’mon that’s a bit of hyperbole.
LOL what does Joey “do” for the poker community?
I mean other than hosting white nationalists on his podcast and not challenging any of their stupid ideas?
1 Like
Joey bringing light to the issue got someone paid out for a BBJ when it looked like BetOnline was gonna screw over the players. Basically the player mysteriously got disconnected on the turn or river where he was obviously never folding then got reconnected just in time to see the showdown.
2+2 and the early Sklansky and Malmuth books were foundational in my early poker playing days. This thread is like learning that your father is drunk, high, wears a toupee and did not, in fact, invent the question mark.
5 Likes
I am not part of any community because the GOP banned poker and I’m not allowed to play it. From what I’ve seen though, which are the MM episodes and also the ones where he invited DFS cheaters to come on and spew their bullshit, he’s like the Joe Rogan of poker. Instead of asking something like why are you still backing the party that vaporized your business, it’s just awful book plugs and softball tosses. There are no critical questions or understanding of controversial issues surrounding some of the guests.
2 Likes
cliffs on DFS cheaters?
If you want to see Joey’s podcast be crritical MM’s crap, you need him to get people on who don’t like Mason and who want to talk about why they don’t like Mason. If you could get someone like Doug Polk to have some anti-Malmuth hot takes, for example. The well-known player who seems to have the most public animus towards him is Daniel Negreanu. His podcast co-hosts seem to be left-libertarianish and there might be some resentment on the part of Mason because they jumped from the 2+2 podcast to Negreanu’s. I’d be curious to see how DAT Poker Podcast would handle it if Mason said something deplorable.
Haven’t seen what Joey’s been up to lately since a month ago he was talking about a global conspiracy of (((those people))) who secretly run the world. He’ll get along great with MM.
1 Like
maxdalury won millions breaking the ToS. There have been a lot of multi accounters, surely more than we know about, and some of them were on the show iirc. He doesn’t know enough about it to do any more than the “so how did ya get started in this whole dfs thing?” schtick.
That sounds very poker-dork-has-a-Youtoobz-for-poker-dorks to me. I assume you guys are right and it’s very entertaining in that domain. What about issues that stretch beyond poker? Postle scandal is the only thing I can think of since Phil Ivey and he was absolutely horrible on that.
I mean, sort of? There’s a chance that, at age 33, he had his first epiphany on world power structure and concluded that a secret cabal of lizard people run everything out of the Bilderberg hotel. Sorry but that isn’t a person I want to listen to talk about anything.
1 Like
I’m trying to understand what his value add is outside of having the followers and platform to get big names on. Isn’t it just the Joe Rogan model applied to poker?
For the third time now, he’s invited a disingenuous know-nothing deplorable who has pushed extreme conservative politics on the largest poker forum for years and who very recently made a despicable pro-life argument based on slavery. He brought on two (that I’m aware of) dfs players with major cheating accusations against them. He was unable to articulate why Postle was cheating and tweeted this after the case was dismissed:
https://twitter.com/Joeingram1/status/1268326433698373634
https://twitter.com/Joeingram1/status/1268328104209952768
He’s either extremely naive or giving a scammer a platform to lie in exchange for clicks.
1 Like
I think there’s plenty value in stuff like Joey’s Podcast and Twitch streamers for getting poker in the public spotlight and getting casuals interested again. But as a hardcore player, I don’t really care for much of Joey’s content, but still appreciate what he’s doing. That being said, I did love his breakdowns of the Galfond v. VeniVidi match and a few other videos.
The Spanish Armada is also referred to as the Invincible Armada. Here, in what is clearly another Carrasco chapter, the choice is to translate that as the “Invincible Navy”, which Google suggests is a rare way to discuss this topic. I chalk that up to a likely combination of someone who is not a native English speaker being edited by someone who is not knowledgeable on the topic.
The authors believe that the Earps shot first in the gunfight at the OK Corral, yet describe the incident as a self-weighting disaster on the part of their opponents because they were just shooting. But if the Cowboys didn’t fire first, then “just shooting” was a reasonable reaction. What this chapter lacks is an explanation of what a non-self-weighting strategy on the part of the Cowboys would look like.
Improper placement of the apostrophe in a plural possessive. (“Cowboy’s perspective”)
The chapter on trench warfare fails to address the strategy of fighting a war of attrition.
A missing space is a sign the editor failed Proofreading 101. ("…of the United States in1867…")
I find it weird that the location for the Rumble in the Jungle is referred to as “Zaire, Africa” multiple times, but the city of Kinshasa is not mentioned once.
The authors choose to write “hind-sight is the twenty-twenty” instead of “hindsight is 20/20”.
The 2016 chapter correctly notes in a footnote that Maine is an exception to winner-take-all electoral votes, but does not mention Nebraska.
Yet another sentence ending in a comma instead of a period.
I’m done.
5 Likes
NotBruceZ the entire time he read this book
2 Likes
Having finished, this is how I might write a review of the book.
Overall, the idea for History of the World from a Gambler’s Perspective isn’t awful, but the execution is horrible. Most of the chapters begin with a lengthy restatement cribbed from Wikipedia. The use of quoted sections from Wikipedia seem like they were intended to lend gravitas, but they are completely random. These historical sections come across as written by an incompetent high school student who is too lazy to paraphrase the entire article and haphazardly chooses certain parts to be direct quotes.
The chapters end with an assertion that some sort of gambling has taken place. The authors appear to lack the imagination or the depth to posit counterfactual scenarios whenever the claim is that a historical figure made a bad gamble. This leads to the perception that the book is results-oriented in its interpretations. There might be a token example of someone making a good decision but getting a bad outcome due to variance. A book that wanted to about how to think like a good gambler should be making this point more often.
A better way to write and organize this book would be to come up with several topics important to a gambler–bluffing, metagame, bankroll management–and coming up with several examples that illustrate those concepts. This book feels more like a few chapters on people the authors wanted to write about, plus some shallowly-researched chapters to pad things out and make it a book-length effort. In many chapters, it feels like a struggle to shoehorn the story into a gambling motif. This might be forgivable if the book consisted of entertaining re-tellings of historical events with crisp narratives that put us inside the heads of historical personages, but what we get instead is clunky prose that is significantly more awkward than the Wikipedia articles that the facts are cribbed from.
Combine this with a comically amateurish proofreading job–I have never seen more typos, misspellings, and grammatical mistakes in a book–and this is not really a book worth reading, but it could have been. Instead, what we have is a vanity press offering from a man who owns a publishing company.
20 Likes