4 ms·
I don't understand why the author seemingly understands and uses opportunity costs in his argument against college, but ignores them when advocating that people
by ssharp 14y ago
I don't understand why the author seemingly understands and uses opportunity costs in his argument against college, but ignores them when advocating that people learn poker.
Poker is a means to earn some money. Along the way, you pick up some analytical skills. If you're really good, you reach a point where you can inductively and deductively make decisions. Poker is also risky. It's also an emotional roller coaster. It's certainly not for everyone. The inductive skills you learn in poker will not necessarily translate to other walks of life and there are certainly better ways to beef up your reasoning skills than sitting at a poker table.
- tynan 14y agoAuthor here... I suggest poker because it's something I have a fair bit of experience with and I'd repeat the entire process even if I was strictly break-even (I am profitable inline with my estimations in the post). In my experience, the lessons do translate to real life, and making money is nice, too. One particularly relevant advantage of playing poker is that the money keeps it honest-- over the long term, you know exactly how well you've learned the logical skills. Business is like this, too, but not many other things are. It's not for everyone, but neither are many classes required in school. Biology wasn't "for me", but I did it. The point of my proposed curriculum is to illustrate an alternative to school that someone could use as a base, not an absolute "you must do this" mandate.