Hellmuth woes echo Sports Bettors woes

Hellmuth woes echo Sports Bettors woes Time Magazine recently published... [I]Hellmuth says his change in fortune is not attributable to the cards. He blames the new breed of players: math nerds who use a mountain of sortable data from the millions of hands played online to dominate the game. "The reason I won 11 bracelets is my ability to read opponents," he explains. "These new guys are focused on the math, and they are changing everything." [/I] The same thing has already happened in sports betting. Old-Time Sports handicappers that WERE successful simply by reading the newspaper and watching the games are finding it more difficult to be successful today because the "math nerds" have made the lines sharper than ever. The same thing has happened in the Stock Market. Wall Street has hired hundreds of PhD physicists -- guys who know the difference between random noise and real signal -- guys who aren't fooled by randomness -- guys who know the importance of getting the best possible line -- guys like Steve Fezzik. The most potent handicapper, of course, will have BOTH the ability to crunch the numbers AND the ability to know what they mean. One of the two is no longer enough. It's going to get harder and harder to be a successful handicapper without having the ability to thoroughly interrogate the past results. Prof Meyer

So the "young" math guys try to out think their opponent, while the "experienced" guy tries to out read his opponent. Sounds similar to JK's comment (on the radio), but this comparison is much more acceptable in the mainstream. Does Phil have a valid point, or is this just an excuse of his?

If you use the stereotype that the older you get the more reticent you are to change, then it is easy to write off his opinion as such. Truth of the matter is that it's really hard to do something differently when a history of success tells you the status quo is just fine. Conservative politicans' success and failure are largely attributable to the same concept, because many cannot make this adjustment. Living in Alabama also helps.

[QUOTE=joelshitshow;28708]If you use the stereotype that the older you get the more reticent you are to change, then it is easy to write off his opinion as such. Truth of the matter is that it's really hard to do something differently when a history of success tells you the status quo is just fine. Conservative politicans' success and failure are largely attributable to the same concept, because many cannot make this adjustment. Living in Alabama also helps.[/QUOTE] What adjustments do you suggest they make? Oh, maybe you mean they need to adjust their "moral" values.

To be successful at anything in life involves understanding others' points of view. It has nothing to do with whether they are right, but rather, it's because you need to understand where they are coming from so you can negotiate with them effectively to get whatever it is that you want.

[QUOTE=joelshitshow;28715]To be successful at anything in life involves understanding others' points of view. It has nothing to do with whether they are right, but rather, it's because you need to understand where they are coming from so you can negotiate with them effectively to get whatever it is that you want.[/QUOTE] So you believe that they don't understand where you are coming from? I believe both sides understands where the other is coming from they just have different morals, believes and goals. Some issues are intractable. Believing that they simply don't get you is naive. They more then likely do, they probably just simply don't believe what you do. There are numerous issues that conflict with peoples core beliefs. This isn't the right place for this conversation, if you want to continue discussing this with me just PM me. I always enjoy learning where others are coming from.

Getting at Helmuth's issue. He simply has been left behind because he refuses or cannot adjust to the ever changing game. It isn't his lack of skill, it is more related to his life choices. He's getting old, he plays more conservatively, likely trying to protect what he has, where that is consciously or unconsciously. The math nerds aren't winning necessarily because of the math alone, they are winning because there are 1000's of them. Hyper aggressive players that are willing to take huge risks with little to no edge. If you cannot play like that at the highest levels, then you aren't likely to win. I know I'm being simplistic, but he can't continue thinking he's going to win by playing passively.

Phil needs to get the DBADL Query Analysis (Dude's Bowling Alley Database Lingo). We have had 3 winning weekends and did stumble this 4th weekend, but it is nothing a few white russians cant handle. We will be down at The..... [url]https://www.in-n-out.com/[/url] as usual discussing the current bowling league games, and also scouring the week 4 lines. Good Luck [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrLLdNuOESk[/url]

Dude's model is old school though. Not sure there is a waning moon query. And while sports betting is getting tougher, you can't draw too many conclusions from poker imo. Different landscape and time line for the two.

My comment about what's "acceptable in the mainstream" was meant to point out some irony - and hopefully provide a little humor. Didn't mean to start any political debate. Glad the thread came back to a gambling discussion, as that's the reason we're here.