Try not to become a man of SUCCESS but rather try to become a man of VALUE
Barcelona, España
Joined January 2016
- Tweets2.2K
- Following264
- Followers416
- Likes4.2K
ArtusG retweeted
A fan sitting courtside hits the female ref with the ball and gets ejected.
Luka Doncic: "What the f*ck are you doing?"
ArtusG retweeted
¿Por qué @YuriNerdguy ya no juega en Triton? “No tengo bankroll suficiente” 💸
▫️El brasileño 🇧🇷 defiende que incluso los mejores jugadores necesitan bankrolls de ocho cifras para asumir la varianza de las Triton Poker Series con una gestión responsable.
poker-red.com/noticias/por-q…
ArtusG retweeted
Hay argumentos que, cuando se aplican en sentido contrario, dejan al descubierto su propia contradicción.
Los ganaderos del Sueve dicen que «quien quiera lobos, que se los lleve para casa».
¿Y si aplicamos exactamente la misma lógica con su ganado doméstico? ¿A que ya no parece tan razonable?
Porque el problema de fondo es precisamente ese: el monte no es propiedad exclusiva de una actividad humana. El hecho de llevar ganado a un espacio natural no convierte ese espacio en un territorio privado donde quien desarrolla una actividad particular pueda decidir qué animales tienen derecho a vivir y cuáles deben desaparecer.
El lobo no necesita que nadie «se lo lleve para casa». Está en su hábitat. Igual que otras especies silvestres que forman parte del ecosistema.
Y si aceptamos que la solución a cualquier conflicto entre una actividad humana y la fauna es sencillamente eliminar o expulsar al animal, entonces dejemos de hablar de conservación, de naturaleza y de convivencia.
Hablemos de otra cosa: de un monte diseñado a la carta para que solo permanezca aquello que resulte útil o conveniente para determinados intereses.
¿Hay daños? Se investigan, se acreditan y se compensan.
¿Hay formas de prevenirlos? Se aplican y se mejoran.
¿Hay problemas de gestión? Se corrigen.
Lo que no es aceptable es convertir una especie autóctona y vital para el buen funcionamiento de los ecosostemas en el único elemento que sobra del paisaje.
Así que, puestos a utilizar ese argumento tan simplista:
Si quien quiere lobos tiene que llevárselos para casa, quien quiera xatos, vacas, ovejas, cabras o caballos que se los lleve también para casa.
O, mejor todavía, dejemos de pensar que la naturaleza funciona así.
El monte no es un cortijo.
El lobo no es un intruso.
Y la fauna silvestre no tiene que pedir permiso para existir. – at Galicia, Spain
ArtusG retweeted
I think one of the most important skills in poker is the skill of simplifying.
When you're studying, you have unlimited time. You can look at outputs, compare sizings, study frequencies and understand exactly why a strategy looks the way it does.
Then Sunday comes.
You have 20 seconds, 12 tables and somebody has done something slightly different from what you studied.
In that moment, your job isn't to remember the strategy.
Your job is to create a strategy.
I think of poker strategy a little bit like painting.
You have different colours and textures available to you. Your value hands, your bluffs, your sizings, your frequencies, your blockers, your opponent's tendencies.
Your job is to take what's in front of you and paint a picture that makes sense.
Maybe I decide this spot wants a big bet.
Okay, what are my strongest value hands?
What worse hands am I actually trying to get called by?
If those are my value bets, which bluffs naturally go alongside them?
Which hands don't want to bet?
Suddenly I've created a strategy.
It might not be the perfect strategy. If I put the spot into a solver afterwards, maybe it uses 67% instead of 100%. Maybe one bluff I chose prefers checking. Maybe I've missed an entire category of hands.
That's okay.
Because the alternative is trying to recreate somebody else's painting from memory.
You vaguely remember what it looked like.
There was some red over here, some blue over there, this hand bet 70% of the time, that hand mixed, this combo checked...
But you'll never recreate the whole painting.
And when one part of the spot changes, stack size, position, sizing, opponent, suddenly the picture you're trying to remember doesn't even exist anymore.
This is where I think some players get lost studying poker.
They become incredibly good at remembering solutions and not necessarily good at building strategies.
I'd much rather somebody understand why we're betting and construct a simple, logical strategy themselves than perfectly remember 15 frequencies from a sim they studied three weeks ago.
The best simplification isn't making poker less sophisticated.
It's understanding something complicated well enough that you can rebuild it simply.
Don't try to remember the painting.
Learn what the colours do, then paint your own.