3 ms·
But his point wasn't about the rarity of the action; commitment doesn't have to be rare. It does have to be demonstrated and that demonstration is a meaningful
by saraid216 14y ago
But his point wasn't about the rarity of the action; commitment doesn't have to be rare. It does have to be demonstrated and that demonstration is a meaningful gesture that signals other players. That's his point: that commitment needs to be seen.
- thenomad 14y agoI guess the bit that made me twitch was the "great poker players do X". It's true, great poker players do indeed go all in to demonstrate, amongst other things, commitment to a hand (well, ish. Actually it's more to reduce the value of the pot for other players. Amongst other reasons. Sort of.) - but so do good poker players, average poker players, and crap poker players who've read about 2/3 of a short book on no limit (the latter would be me). Given that the point of the statement was to compare how Mark Pinkus could be great, rather than average or crap, that rather undermines the whole rhetorical point.
- jcc80 14y agoGood point - I was equating the rarity of the action w/ it being a genuine demonstration. The demonstration of showing such commitment by going "all in", at least in poker, isn't really meaningful. It's a function of math and happens all the time. But, poker on ESPN for example, makes it into a dramatic event for their viewers. My favorite is when they would have the "all-in" moments brought to you by X sponsor.