They're heads-up pros. Ivey and many other well-known names are not heads up specialists like these competitors. They'd likely have an edge over almost any "recognizable" name player.
Jason Les and Dong Kim both played in the previous competition, with Doug Polk (arguably the best heads up player in the world). They're reasonably in the discussion, and other factors such as interest and availability possibly factored in.
The $200k pool of money for an actual 'celebrated' poker player is absolutely not worth the time and effort. Hence why you get a few tiers down in terms of player skill. Still valid tests though, you can't only compare it to the top 1%
It's not a few tiers down in skill, it's a few tiers down in fame. Each of the four players named is likely a favorite over Ivey in this format. Being a specialist counts for a lot here.
“Your favorite poker player almost surely wouldn't agree to play any of these guys for high stakes, and would lose a lot of money if they did,” Galfond added. “Each of the four would beat me decisively.”
All-time winnings is not the best measurement as it doesn't take into account things like years played/measured, single individual large wins, etc. It's a decent list for one mode of inspection (winnings) but shouldn't automatically be taken as a ranking of players by skill.
Ivey is a very good player, for sure. In the context of HU play (as being discussed in the article), there are better.
That looks much more like he quit playing online. Saying he 'just got lucky a few times' is very odd. Ivey is considered one of the top pros by virtually everyone.
Beyond that, he (like many top pros), prioritizes lucrative cash games over tournament play (or exploiting an edge at baccarat, if the opportunity arises) which we can't track.
Dismissive comments like these miss Perry's concerns entirely. We've been on this sleepwalk towards increasing nuclear risk long before Trump. There are many existing risks which are still inadequately addressed. Loose material being acquired by terrorists, North Korea, a Russia more openly using nuclear weapons as a threat (installing nuclear capable missiles in Kaliningrad as we speak!), the previous $1 Trillion US nuclear modernization program which while addresses many safety concerns introduces new tactical capabilities for weapons packages making them more usable.
He speaks out for concern on all of the above. The article states he hopes to meet with Trump & Mattis to work with him and give his advice.
If you want to disagree with him, then give an argument. However if you want to do a quick smear and dodge then keep repeating that it's "thinly veiled political commentary" over and over again.
Five months ago, there wasn't an increased vocalized threat of risk towards, for example, the Iran nuclear deal, or vocalized suggestions of nuclear arms proliferation increasing. There is new information now, and that needs to be factored into level of concern. Of course it's political, but that doesn't excuse new information from having an impact on risk assessment.
it's hard to maintain relevance as a figure of import when you're shut in some embassy. his outlandish claims are a requirement of his position (attention).
Wasn't he recently implicated in the election leaks?
Seems his import has not suffered that much.
But in any case, there is a difference between "outlandish" and "extraordinary". Are you saying he is just some attention seeker? That he isn't being hounded by the authorities?
along these lines, note how many news stories etc are currently touting the power of stock indices and index investing. given a shiller pe of ~28, i'd say most are in for a very rude awakening (again and forever).
Solely discussing stock valuations without also considering bond yields is a little misleading. With interest rates so low on a historical basis (albeit now possibly picking up), higher stock pricing is expected and isn't necessarily "overpriced"
I'm not sure where that guy is getting his data, but I think the average stock market P/E when 10 year treasury rates are in the 4-6% range is more like 19. But maybe he's looking at 'forward P/E' or something.
Agreed, but bullish sentiment remains strong and most people are oblivious to valuation metrics.
As long as people don't panic sell in the next crash, they should be able to ride it out and break even in a decade or two. Unless we end up like Japan, that is.
r/news comments i avoid like the plague. i have that sub blocked on my front page (along with r/politics and "popular" candidate subs including but not limited to the bern, hillary, and trump). life's too short for any of that shit.
my wife buys organic milk, and it kills me. it doesn't matter how many studies of composition and pesticides etc i provide, the religion of organic rules.
Saving money amounts to producing some wealth without consuming any wealth in exchange (generally because you expect your savings to conserve value, and therefore get the right to consume without producing some time later. Like all bets and promises, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't)
That's good for the economy when there is a lack of supply: plenty of people willing to buy stuff while nobody wants to make those stuff. When there's a lack of demand, it doesn't help. When there's a lack of demand, you need to make people consume more, possibly by delaying / alleviating the expectation that they produce something valuable first. This consumption is expected to allow creation of supply. That's the principle of a Keynesian stimulus.
The problem typically associated with massive unemployment is a lack of demand: there are plenty of unemployed people who would like to produce and consume, but they can't find anyone willing to buy whatever they might produce.
Put another way, UBI is a way to raise the velocity of money, the amount of commercial exchanges per amount of time occurring in the economy; saving lowers money velocity.
> money "saved" is usually invested, and that too stimulates an economy -- and probably more meaningfully long-term.
Money gets very tricky at scale. If "money" means "paper bills" and "saved" means "sitting in a warehouse", then no, saving enormous amounts of money will not make you richer or improve your future. You can't eat bills—or bitcoins. And indeed, if enough people decide to hold onto large amounts of cash, it makes it harder to trade.
Can this really happen? Sure. When the market looked like it was about to crash in 2008, I moved my investments out of index funds and into cash equivalents. Now, this might have been a dumb move—but I'm not the only one who panicked and invested very conservatively. As a result of this, it became much harder for even solvent businesses to get short-term loans to pay for inventory, etc.
Or we could use a really simple model to visualize this: Imagine that the entire economy consists of (vertically integrated) restaurants. When the economy goes to hell in a hand-basket, people will do two things: (1) eat out less, and (2) try to get more hours at work. Obviously if nobody eats out, the restaurant will not be offering anybody very many hours!
What's happening here is that a sudden change in risk tolerance drops the total demand for goods and services below what the economy is capable of producing, while increasing the number of people who want jobs. When demand is lower than production capacity, we'll produce less than we can, and fewer jobs will be available. Apparently, you need a reasonable balance between the number of people who want to work, and the quantity of goods we want to consume.
Now, is any of this true? Who knows. The Keynesians certainly think so, and their model does explain some things. (Krugman, who's a Keynesian when he's not a political commentator, gives his own personal favorite introduction here: http://www.pkarchive.org/theory/baby.html) Other economists disagree. And of course, it's also possible that the Keynesians were correct about the exceptional events of 1929 and 2008, but that their theory is irrelevant in ordinary economic times. But the key takeaway is that money is weird at scale—because it's basically an illusion, among other things—and that you shouldn't expect personal intuitions from your day-to-day life to always apply in obvious ways.
It logically leads to the existence of an optimum rate of saving/spending and the requirement of some powerful actor to keep that rate near optimum. Notice that the math is flawless, but there are some issues with its meaning, so again, reality is more complex than that too.
