It certainly does work. It worked remarkably well. It changed the whole public perception of war in 1917-1918. If you can find it, read "How We Advertised America" by George Creel. Bernays was involved in that.
Yes and no. Bernays was one of the players during WWI propaganda, specifically he was part of Committee on Public Information. If I remember correctly, Lippmann had in mind that particular time period when he wrote about manufacturing consent. A real eye opening account comes from George Creel, organizer of CPI. If you haven't read that yet, look into "How We Advertised America." It's incredible, I wrote a paper on this for my undergrad thesis. Propaganda of that time was so remarkable that you can use their copy as a classic example in advertising today.
Well, you're right about Bernays getting too much credit. It's just at the same time he was a major player as well.
After re-reading your comment, I think we are on the same page, more or less. But Lippmann was writing about the very same work and propaganda that Bernays actively participated and "invented" during his time at CPI. Lippmann saw how it played out in 1917-1918, so he wrote about it. Bernays later wrote his book, but it wasn't journalistic work, he wrote from direct experience.
That's pretty impressive, the win rate and amount of hands played. It's certainly not a fluke. At the same time, these 4 pros, I've never heard of them. This AI and organizers should focus on HU specialists. Perhaps even invite players like Negreanu, Ivey, and more recent online pros who've made a fortune. Just don't let Hellmuth to play this machine, it would be a disaster.
These pros are considered to be top 20 HU online specialists, they would destroy Negreanu and Ivey over the long run at this particular variant (which they have played millions of hands at).
Back when I played poker (up to ~2010), Negreanu was mostly a celebrity, as well as a pretty good blog writer. He was no match for the best pro players, but perhaps he has dramatically improved.
Conversely, not many of the celebrity players have had much success playing online. Ivey did have some good years but even he has been struggling for the past few years.
Almost all pros who have had success both online and live agree that live games a ridiculously soft compared to online games. The reason more online pros don't play live is because you have to live in Las Vegas or Macau to play a the highest stakes, or you have to be invited. Also, the big live games are usually mixed games that don't afford a huge edge to online pros who specialise in a few games.
I don't dispute any of that, I simply dispute whether or not Negreanu is a "top pro," or whether he would be a match for "the top pros."
He is a top pro. Not in HU cash. He couldn't hang with these guys at HU cash, at least not with his current skill in the discipline. But hey, poker is not that narrow of a term. It includes all kinds of disciplines, live and online, horse and stud and hold 'em, the list goes on.
Those same "top pros" who Negreanu wouldn't play HU Cash wouldn't sit in the big game with him.
Arguably bankroll management is the most important skill of a top poker professional, and that's maybe what big-game players are best at.
Also, a small caveat to all of your comment is that live games are soft compared to online games of the same limit. There is no online equivalent of the big game, or at least there wasn't when black friday hit and knocked me out of the professional poker scene.
There is no question that Daniel Negreanu is a very good tournament player, possibly one of the best. I don't think there is any evidence that he is anywhere near the top when it comes to cash games of any popular variety.
And while bankroll management is certainly an important and required skill to endure as a professional poker player at any level, it is by no means what differentiates high-stakes pros from pros at the lower levels. There are lots of small stakes and mid stakes players who practice sensible bankroll management, but who will never acquire the skill necessary to make it at the highest levels. If you want to get a sense of how much skill goes into playing poker at the highest level, you should watch some of Phil Galfond's strategy videos on YouTube (see for instance [1]). Poker strategy has come a long way since Super System[2] and The Theory of Poker[3]. Even players who were considered very good just five years ago, can no longer compete at the highest levels.
The "Big Game" which was run by Doyle Brunson, Chip Reese, etc had nothing to do with HUNL. It's mostly run hoping that some inexperienced player would drop in. It also almost always ran as a rotation of games to both bring in players who though they had an edge in "their" game and then exploit them in the other games.
The Big Game and online HUNL are both technically "poker" but they are truly completely different games.
I'm fully aware--I was a poker pro for a while in a niche (HUSNGs).
The post I responded to slighted Negreanu, saying he wasn't a "top pro." He certainly is. Not a HU cash pro, of course, but a top pro? Absolutely. A match for the "best pro players?" Certainly.
The "best pro players" in a given niche wouldn't have sat in the big game, and he wouldn't have sat in their specialty. Overall he's the better poker player.
Parent's comment about the big game is accurate; they were all friends waiting for some whale to show up, so playing there doesn't mean you're one of the best players in the world, skill-wise.
Up to 2010, Negreanu had some up and down and as poker theory developed, his game showed a number of pretty big flaws--which he himself admitted. Sure, he was a competent player, so calling him just a 'celebrity' might be misleading, but there were many players in the top online scene who did a lot more of volume and analysis that Negreanu, who pushed more edge and who leaked much less.
I certainly agree with you that Negreanu is a top pro. I thought I was responding to the parent post from marklgr. Current threading looks like I missed a couple of levels.
That would be interesting to read about this journey. I am pretty much starting my first steps in the same direction, don't know where I'll be but I don't have any other plans or choice.
It is a work of fiction but it's fairly dense. One of my philosophy classes used the first Matrix to explore some philosophical themes. It's been a while for concrete examples, one of the users pointed out Plato already. And this particular quote "human beings define their reality through suffering and misery." made me think of Dostoevsky's literature for some reason.
.. and zizek has used anything from Alien to Hitchcock to illustrate his concepts often enough. Hardly makes either a work of any particular philosophical depth - merely something one may illustrate notions with on a pop-cultural or introductory-educational level.
And I don't disagree! There's nothing wrong with that device as far as fiction writing goes, it's an interesting one. I'm just pointing out that while certain events unfolded there, we should always remember that it's a work of fiction, which means it, in and of itself, is not evidence that those events would unfold that way.
One time I was craving some juice or smoothie, so at the gas station I took one of those 'Naked' brands and glanced on the label, it had some ridiculous amount of carbs and sugar in it, more than 50g. Put it right back.
Not coincidentally Naked was sued in a class-action in 2012 for labeling issues ("misuse of health phrases") and of course they settled so there is no finding of liability on the claim.
Even the best juice possible (made fresh, raw, organic, and green-leafy vegetables) will be comparatively high in sugar. A 16oz juice requires somewhere in the amount of 4-6 lbs of vegetables and naturally no one would ever consume 4-6 lbs worth of vegetable sugars in one sitting much less 6x a day. With the store bought juices there are also likely fruits added which have even more sugar than green leafy veggies and they store bought juices likely aren't raw (i.e. pasteurized) killing many of the beneficial enzymes and nutrients.
I was doing that for years on gas stations, just picked the blue ones. Now that I am more sugar aware, I look at the labels a lot. I was also shocked to see some ridiculous amount of sugar in that what used to be my favourite drink.
> Schools force you to waste some of the most productive years learning about pretty useless things and are super inefficient at that too.
I don't know if this is the part of the problem for hikikomori phenomena but you are right about the above.
I started working at 16 and have worked multiple industries ever since. I've had many opportunities to advance and have a promotion but I was always held back by one thing, college. Simply because I was told to do it. I've half-assed both things, college and work, not because I wanted to or I was lazy, but because it was hard to do both at the same time. So many missed chances. "Oh you are in school? Sorry we need somebody full time for this position." Now several years later, I have a piece of paper and many lost opportunities with one weird resume. I wish I never listened to anyone about "you must go to college" and just worked and took on opportunities that I had instead of "sorry, it's not compatible with my college schedule, can't take this on".
And I gotta say that I am a "recent" graduate now who has been working since 16 but my resume looks like I am a dabbler with no extensive experience in anything. I am worse off now with a debt.
I'd be lying if I said it didn't effected me greatly emotionally and physically. The confusion about what I've done wrong is so stressful that I am a borderline hikikomori. So I think you are right in some parts.
