"Sorry" in Poker : A focus example on insincere cultural practices

Tradition and culture are important lessons from the past that in general allows one to improve one's life through tried and tested methods of those that came before. The author grants that point of view but it is when these traditions and practices are followed blindly and not logically for social acceptance that the author starts to show outward disapproval of such traditions. The best summary of today's post is in this link from the movie on Confucius's life (start at minute 3:43)*. The linked clip on the issue of ritual sacrificial burials.

The same lesson gleamed from the link above can be readily applied to today's focus example of saying 'Sorry' after winning a hand (usually in a mathematically underdog position) in Poker but first, two main points of defense from the point of view of those who do say 'Sorry' and it's direct rebuttals:

Truly feeling sorry in getting lucky in the hand of Poker:  There is no doubt that one of normal character would feel embarrassed by getting lucky and winning the hand but if said person was asked if they wanted to get lucky to win. The answer in most cases would still be a resounding 'Yes'. Thus the act itself is insincere and defeats the meaning of the act of being sorry. I liken this same insincerity to a murderer lying in a court trial saying he is sorry for killing the victim. In this case, the murderer actually having more of a reason to lie as if he is able to pull the lie off, he gets a lighter sentence. While the 'Sorry' poker player usually getting nothing but a insincere smile back from the person one just got lucky on due to the fact that he knows of the insincerity in the 'Sorry' said too.

Wanting to avoid offending the other party by saying 'Sorry': This reason being trouble in itself due to the fact that if the person that has been beat is the type that is unreasonable and gets angry, then he would, regardless of whether one says sorry of not. In fact, in saying sorry, one might take spark offence. As in Poker everyone wants to win and thus unless one is willing to return the money won in the pot, saying sorry and raking in the winning chips/money is not only insincere but in doing so, might imply insult to the point that the person's intelligence can't recognize insincerity when it is shown.

Thus, in explaining the above, it would be lacking if one does not give a solution to the above problem. The Problem being having gotten lucky and then what to do. The best solution the author practices being doing nothing. Just accept you have won and collect the chips in silence, allowing the moment of tension to pass by and avoid saying anything to offend. A second solution if one is inclined, offering something to the other party, if not a little money back, then maybe helping him get a drink or such. The act itself showing no hard feelings and breaks the moment of tension too but in general, one still thinks the best act is just to let the moment pass quietly. 

In conclusion, all acts of tradition or even certain religious practices have their reasons on inception but the continuation of such practices have to be constantly reviewed logically and if outdated or a better practice having been discovered, abandon said traditional practice. As one would feel it would not only be illogcal but a injustice to a thinking species to avoid a good solution over the reasoning of : "It has always been this way." 

Till Next word...

*In case, the link above gets taken down. The clip is as follows. General Gong is arguing with Confucius that a runaway slave should be buried alive with his dead master due to the traditions of the time. The reason being the master needing the slave for his afterlife. This being said, Confucius states that if that is so, then General Gong should be buried alive with the slave too as there were many cases before the master's death of him saying he could not live without General Gong too. 

Poker's anomaly : The preference of tactics over strategy

Firstly, a brief definition of tactics and strategy applied to the game of Poker :

Tactics : The operational way of how each hand of Poker is played at the moment of conflict.

Strategy : The planning and execution before, during and after to set up and lead the opponents into tactical situations that favours the planner. 

Now that the above words have been defined for today's post, do note that this is not a post on how to play Poker but rather a commentary on observations of players favoring the strange situation of tactics over strategy. It is a situation that tends to rise up during a game with some but not all of the players that take Poker more seriously. This situation that arises is illogical as those players would tend to enthusiastically inform others on how much they would love to play against a player who is weak and that they are long term profit seeking individuals but in practice show actions that pit tactics over strategy. Thus losing in most cases, value in the long run. 

For example, during a raked Poker game of the author's personal experience. There was player A who called player B's pot size bet on the flop and turn to catch his flush on the river in a game of Texas Hold'em. Mathematically, A's play was wrong, as in the long run, A will be losing money. The hand being over, this is when B started to show the strange behaviour of favoring tactics over strategy. B started to focus only on how the hand is played and angrily berate very openly how bad A had played. This in the end, made A feel angry and leave the game with his profit (including B's money). In conversations later, when asked if B would want to play more with A, B said yes. The evident hypocrisy being, if one wanted to play more with a weaker player, B should have just have left A alone, continue to play 'bad' and allow the math of Poker to gain a profit over A in the long run. Instead by annoying A, A would in future not want to play at the game B plays at and in essence, B has lost value from a uneven match up where B feels he is the favorite.  

This being said, the above situation is usually not so direct and the berating is usually put in a mild manner or even sarcastically as a joke but in the end still equates to the same result of insulted individuals. Who would then prefer not to play with the berating player in the future. This is simply because, most people are not stupid and tend to know when they are being insulted. It would seem too that some berating individuals have a more skewed view of the Math of Poker, as their reaction to losing a hand they are leading percentage wise tends to feel like they really could not fathom out of the realm of nature that they could lose at all. Losing their cool/temper in this way in one's view, equivalent to being angry that the sun rose the next day, as even losing a 98% locked in to win hand is going to happen sooner or later. Their actions from an outside perspective, seeming to state that others should play like how they want them to and then perfectly, lose to them rather than for them to adjust and counter the plays styles of their opponents.

In conclusion, one feels the focus on strategy over tactics is definitely a more profitable and happy one. As if all one does in Poker would result in a more likely profit in the end, then it makes it easier to take the bad beats and plays dished out by Lady Luck and other players. For through adjustments to each opponent and the understanding that in the long run, if one's opponents puts their money in mathematically bad and wins, the money coming back anyway. Taking each lost as the opponent having paid for this unlikely win this one of a few rare times. 

Till next word...

  

Blood is thicker than water but water is more essential for life : A article on trust

Today's post would be on the issue of trust with the focus example on the phrase : "Blood is thicker than water." It will be discussed that the above phrase is not true and that trust is something that is earned through sincerity and interaction, not by association of blood or tradition of any sort. (Let the author preface first that he is not pointing out that he does not trust his own family but rather the discussion that family in itself is not a factor he bases trust on.)

Through one's miniscule 29 years on earth, on more than one occasion, the author has been told in many forms the line: "Who else could he trust over family." The argument being, connected by genes and blood, one has a less likely chance of being treated in a selfish manner by the relatives in question. One agreeing that there is logic behind such a rationale due to the invested interest of the bloodline prospering. This being said, one has also always felt and more strongly that through history, it has been proven on many occasions that blood relations is not a proven factor that has resulted in genuine altruistic help. The infighting between blood related princes from any country that has experienced a feudal system of government more than enough proof of said flaw in using family as a principle means of trust. 

To the author's own method of living, who one trusts is based on sincerity and interaction. The sincerity of the mind being all important as even if said person is not fully considered intelligent at least he has your best interest at heart. Which allows focus on the true problem at hand, as compared to if one was to implement a plan of someone one does not trust. It is like using a problem to solve another problem, you need defenses for both problems to be truly certain of the desired result. 

The second is interaction. Basically, trust being earned through consistent action that warrants or results in it. This is because for reasons unknown to oneself, another could easily have done something that you felt meant he/she is truly one to trust but in fact that person was acting in self interest. This resulting in a hole in one's mental and physical defenses that allows such a person to manipulate and use you to their own means of profit. The length of interaction being important as all selfish people are acting on direct or implied profit and sooner or later once that limit of non profit has been met, the selfish person will show their true colours.

In conclusion, in the author's life up to the date of this blog. He can say the only person that has achieved the above criteria and who he trusts over 85%/100% is only one and has a surname of Li. He was the inspiration of this blog and one feels he is truly worthy of mention for being a great friend to me. 

Till next word...

(This blog being about Logic, the author could not end such a post without stating that he believes all people are born selfish and thus a logical warning being that one should never trust another person fully at 100%. For a quick example, if you were a leader to a country and had a very trusted allied country beside yours. Most would agree that it would still be a bad idea to allow the allied country's army to enter your country without any kind of reason or defense.)

Contentment : Powered by memories and Kentucky Fried Chicken

The day the author felt true contentment was on a mildly sunny early afternoon. One had found himself returning to the outskirts of his living district, dressed plain in a oversized shirt, shorts and slippers. Fashionably accompanied only by his  unshaven chin and hair, hardly combed. The goal? One had woke up in the early morning to collect some tropical creams from the National Skin Center of Singapore but a much more meaningful and unexpected adventure was to take place that no one would ever know of other than the author and well, now you...

One was walking home and along the way had actually walked far enough that he had found himself in front of the local Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) outlet. The aromas of the fried culinary dishes and scientifically enhanced fries usually do not capture the author due to his stingy nature to spend on food if his fridge at home is still full but on this day, his resolve was weakened. The Gods had decided to leave a exceptionally full restaurant with a wide empty booth in plain sight, this stopped one in his tracks and in  a moment of action that seemed to be not of one's will, one found himself lining up behind 3 people. Life's most important question at the moment : "Do I want original or crispy?"

Having too little time to decide, one had given into indecision and had ordered from a wholly underpaid young teenager one of both types of fried chicken along with a small 7UP and a upgraded cheese fries. With a meal that resembled a little piece of heaven and having his small tray of chilli sauce, careful not to take too much as that would be excess, one was pleasantly surprised that the wide booth was still available for one to occupy and afforded one a clear view of the people in the local square going about their business. Having seated oneself, one did a silent prayer to whichever God existed to his agnostic nature and went on to clear his palate with a big gulp of 7UP  and went on to take the first bite of his 2 piece chicken meal. The first bite came in a wave of ecstasy and nostalgia. One's frontal cortex burned with the memories of when one was a child, excited at the fact that back when the author was a  wee boy, MacDonalds and KFC had just opened in Singapore and to enjoy its meals was only on special family outings. Each bite of chicken and cheese with mayonnaise soaked fries was as enjoyable as any, a glowing pretentious food critic gives a dish in a five star restaurant. The whole time, one had no worries in the world due to a lack of media and enjoying nothing less than watching people young and old enjoy nothing more than a piece of fried chicken and what seemed like each others company, just like when one was a child before knowing the sins of the world.

The meal ended and the author went on to dump the remains of his tray into the bin and a addition of good feelings came when a staff member walked over and said thank you for the act of clearing the tray from the table. The feeling being so good, as on that day, we both did something that made someone else's day just a little bit better. Along the way home, one started to ask the question. What does contentment mean to me? Of which the answer came in quick succession. " It doesn't matter you Fucktard, just enjoy the moment God gave you for once."  Giving a quizzical look to no one in particular, one accepted it and walked home with no thoughts in one's head about worldly issues or problems but only a belly full of satisfaction, good feelings and a smile ear to ear.

Till next word...

Walking away: A efficient trait generalisation of Asian Philosophy

(The author's brief thoughts on generalisation is listed below today's main topic*)  The de facto generalisation of Western and Asian culture is that Western culture tends to stand up against what they feel is wrong and argue the idea into you till you agree and its Asian counterpart tends to just follow what is the status quo and goes with the majority. The important difference here is that the Asian philosopher (in generalisation) literally walks away from the disagreeing party rather than argue it. Confucius, Mencius, etc. wandering China rather than implanting themselves in one spot hostile to their teachings to preach being an example. This particular trait and its positive qualities will be the topic of discussion for this post.

The standard thought of today's world people is no doubt mostly Western and with a whole internet of information as 'evidence'. Anyone can literally argue any point and believe in its righteous nature. Thus in essence, one is going to meet more people in this current world that would be less likely to change an opinion even after a convincing discussion. And to that end, it can be argued that one might as well never had that discussion and just taken that time to do something more productive.

This being said. the author is not implying non discussion, rather he is taking a position of efficiency. For example, debating a point with someone who has already a biased position is equivalent to listening to a person who is complaining about a situation that has already past. The result equates to nothing achieved and nothing solved. Your presence is just there as a tool for this person to finish a sentence and feel better about their own person. The efficient thing to do, either talk about a way to improve/solve the problem, move on from it or just leave and not listen to the problem.

The world is not perfect though and sometimes people will argue with you, whether you like it or not. In some cases, even with hostility in mind or action. And it was after discussing about one such hostile argument with a friend that he pointed out a very Confucian idea and solution to the issue : Just walk away. It was not meant literally in all cases but for example, sometimes, just agreeing with a biased person and ending the conversation is better than continuing to discuss it with him/her as it leads to the same result. The person still ends up only believing in their own point of view. Confucius and the like knew this and with the knowledge that there was literally a world of people willing to discuss/teach/learn about their issues better, why then stop at a dead end of a biased argumentative person when there is so much better to be had by just taking a step beyond said person.

In conclusion, one's life is so limited and the truth is we all do not know for sure what happens to us after death, thus life should be spent as efficiently as possible. To give an example, with a time limit, would you rather use a sledgehammer to pound down a brick wall or use one's untrained fist.

Till next word...

*Mencius (Mengzi**) taught that a man who tries to gather all knowledge will end up knowing nothing. Thus it would be clear to say that sometimes a person is forced to make generalisations to make sense of a world he can never fully understand. This being said, when generalisation is used as a discussion point, the importance comes in the fact that the user knows he is generalising and takes that point into account. 

To be fair, there are those that prove such a generalisation wrong for today's post. Such as the life of Western philosopher Nietzsche***, leaving for a life of seclusion when others did not take to his philosophies well at the time. Thus the reason, generalisation is used in today's post is as a tool to help most get into the core idea of the post faster than if one was to write a long thesis length piece and thus certain liberties have to be taken.

**The link is to a animated list of Mencius core works (those with Book 1A, etc) told with English subtitles.

***A short documentary on Nietzsche's life and the application of his basic philosophy of hardship to everyday life.