Take a tour. Enjoy some free sample content.

How it works

Free Video: CLP Video No. 287: Home Game Bart Reviews His Splashy At $1-$3 Deep Part 2

Free Podcast: CLP Podcast No. 54: Time Warp And Turn Value
New to Crush Live Poker?

Under The Gun No. 112: Polarized Bets on Paired Boards

CLP_CraigCLP_Craig Posts: 777Administrator
edited November 2017 in Under the Gun podcast
Many tangents for Tuck this week before he looks at two polarizing situations from a 2-5-10 game in London

Episode posts at 2pm PT.



  • DrSpaceDrSpace Posts: 716Subscriber
    edited October 2017

    In response to your comments on online learning I will share some perspective. I am a scientist and professor at a university for twenty-two years. Problem solvers don’t come from watching online videos.

    To point, I have heard you repeat on many occasions the best way to improve at poker is to talk hands with folks that are proficient at and /or growing in poker. Indeed, folks like Ben Tollerene have commented that the coaching they received was invaluable and that they could never price their coaching at a sufficiently high rate that they are willing to coach – there is a human element to learning and especially to developing critical thinking that is essential.

    This anecdotal evidence reflects the realty that people learn in cooperative environments led by real humans. Sure, factual learning is fine from a web site – but as you perceptively identified this type of knowledge is devalued in the modern world. Lectures from leading professors are already online – it is almost unwatchable in my experience. I certainly don’t learn from watching them in an efficient manner. People don’t watch performances of plays recorded live for reasons I believe are similar even if great performers were cast.

    The Stanford study as you presented it is also consistent with extant evaluations of learning. Both large classes (e.g. 100+ students) and online classes are ineffective for most things worth learning at a university. In chemistry, where I am aware of the scientific literature on learning, this has been repeatedly and uncomfortably demonstrated. These large lectures are a rip off to students perpetuated by a flawed system. While the current system is far from perfect, it is still the envy of the world and attracts the best students and faculty from around the planet. And learning from human beings will never be inexpensive.

    Considering cost, public institution budgets have not changed much in the past two generations on a per student basis. What has happened is the costs have been shifted from the public to the individual. Consider that in the 1970’s mostly rich folk's kids went to college. Then the average student paid 20% of the cost. Today, with college more widely available the student pays about 80% of the cost as U.S. average. The burden has been shifted to the students. This is not a plot but the realities of political power and money.

    In the same time period, private elite school prices and endowments have skyrocketed. This is a result of the polarization in wealth of the country. 0.1% of the U.S. population has more wealth than the bottom 90% of population as of 2017. That is a large very wealthy group of folks bidding up prices and de facto making private school education an economic filter for class stratification. Why would you even consider sending your children to a private university except for the connections they might make? Public universities have faculties that are largely indistinguishable from private schools in the sense that the Tamp Bay Rays have pretty good baseball players even if they are not the Red Sox. Indeed, institutions like UCLA and Cal. Berkeley are world class in every respect. Also note, during this same time period of changing college cost burdens, the U.S. has become among the least economically mobile society among industrialized nations, perhaps that least if I recall correctly.

    Brian Space
Sign In or Register to comment.