Monthly Archives: June 2007

No Free Lunch!?

Posted on by
4

Free Lunch ClubI completely agree, but it comes across as objectionable and I don’t think influences people.

What made me think of this is the fantastic KDE developer Ian Monroe’s response “Ain’t no free lunch. ;) ” to my Best Free Image Hosting: ImageShack?

It reminded me of the fantastic Mozilla community leader Asa Dotzler‘s absurd comment “Ian [McKellar], I’m sure you all would love a free lunch, (Flock did too,) but that ain’t how Open Source works or what being a member of the community means.” — but I will save the absurdity for another article.

No free lunch. I seem to hear it all a lot. Why is that?

Everything has a cost, to someone, but it seems free if the cost does not matter to you.

I often wish it didn’t matter to me or did matter to you.

We live in a society of consumerism, for all the fun and frustration that results in, that’s the reality. We have to speak in costs that people care about or figure out a way for them to care about the cost as we see it.

Bad Poker Advice From An Authority?

Posted on by
2


My brother Dylan provided this interesting analysis about the “professional” advice that The Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper, includes as a daily feature on its comic page (Globe Review).

While the hands are interesting, the analysis ranges from mediocre to awful.

For example, the hand for Wednesday, May 30th, 2007 was:

World Poker Tour Season III: Invitational at the Commerce

Johan Storakers / 925,000 in chips / 10c 8c
Tom Everett Scott / 612,100 / 6d 6c

Preflop:
“With the blinds at $8,000 and $16,000 with a $2,000 ante, Johan raised to $35,000 from the small blind. Scott reraised to $100,000 from the big blind. Johan called.”

Flop: 7s 7h Ks
“Johan checked. Scott went all-in for $510,000. Johan folded.”

Analysis:

“Scott won the hand with his aggressive play. With only $200,000 in the pot he could have made the bet smaller than he did and found out the same information. If he made it $300,000 Johan would have only re-raised with a better hand and Scott could fold if he was beat.”

This analysis is just plain wrong. If Scott had bet $300,000, a re-raise by Storakers means absolutely nothing as Scott is already pot-committed and is getting great odds on the call. Scott would be getting 5:1 on the final call (210,000 into a 1,014,000 pot). No pro alive would advocate folding in that spot.

Bad analysis, but the average reader probably doesn’t take a close enough look to care.

I have no passion or knowledge of poker or other gambling — I get too worked up to be a gambler.

What does my brother know? Am I participating in The Cult of the Amateur: How today’s Internet is killing our culture or is technology enabling expertise outside of the institutions?