anagnorisis

True that; you never know what a congressmen will do for attention or money after the money they bilked from another has already run dry.

And I have no clue as to ur exact mode for how you plan to monetize, and the ramification that'll arise off that. But I def believe you when you say you thought of some nifty ways.

Re: poker pros who use Twitter; a lot of their prop bets aren't necessarily financial, and just incredibly humorous and extreme otherwise, though i understand why you'd want to totally steer clear of any potential headaches right now. Idk, though, I'd still bet you could do something there and be as kosher as a Hebrew National.

Really awesome, regardless; ill def follow what happens and give it a go as a user.

Next version sounds perfectly planned. Be sweet to get some "highly" followed people using it till, then unleash v2.0 on their followers/observers. Perhaps Bill Simmons as your inaugural celeb user?

I'm a fan. Then again, i love gambling; then again, quite a few ppl do! :)

I could see this catching on, particularly, in sports circles. Old friends, current friends, etc...Watching sports, and the app being a way to legitimize the casual banter of "i bet...", while facilitating more of it.

I'd push it hard to sports forums/communities, and things like that.

Add in poker and gaming forums...Especially poker forums -- could see the app catching on like wildfire for the "high profile" pros who use Twitter, and the legions of their followers.

Totally in their wheelhouse every which way.

One thing I might add, off the top of my head, would be a way for people/observers...to wager on the wager, so to speak.

Love it. Brilliantly done article.

Growing up, the sage advice I remember most from my dad was "the law of sunken treasure" and the sunk cost fallacy.

The emotions that invariably underpin...every...thing are incredible. For better or worse, they certainly taint our otherwise rationale (sense of) judgment.

And being able to most clearly draw a distinction between latent emotion and more conscious rationale gives someone an enormous edge.

Wins and losses, and the perception and power of them, respectively is so strong, that despite almost always erroneous, is accepted as a fata compli of illogic and error by even the most seasoned and expert of gamblers.

Exactly,

And like i said, likely pretty poorly:

It's about the metrics, or lack there of. And what a critical distinction that makes in pro poker vs most any other business endeavor.

The irony, tho, is even within the "reality" you mention...of those we deem or see as "quiet and disciplined nerds" who look down on the "famous tv pros"...

An equally false sense of success and financial gains define them.

Empirically....and logically it makes the most sense too...the truest of winners in poker are those who come closest to treating it like a normal/more traditional business, with real metrics...and act and think as legitimate entrepreneurs running a business.

Yes. But no,

It's always about the money; the lifestyle is the way poker players show it off to the world, that is otherwise disconnected from their success...or occupation.

It's still not even about the money then. But ceaseless acquisition. Of what? The question and answer is virtually irrelevant, despite it being obviously money/chips, and the money/chips being important.

The "lifestyle game" perception is a facade. It's easy to digest, and it's what most articles that get written support as the reality.

Money is the prestige. And if there is a top, it's apocryphal.

ps...check out the mathematic models/programs that play out and distill "variance", the "long term", and 'luck' in poker..It's remarkable stuff.

The prob with..every..mainstream story on (e)poker is the unflinching marketing élan of the writers, and necessity to give a (stil truly) sub-terranean slice of life immediate resonance to the audience.

Not too encroach upon anyone's character or existence, let alone the actual people in the article...

Poker is an inexorable gambit; both in lifestyle (subjectively define by 'sanity', and career (objectively define buy debt and financial bottoming out.

Poker is a fairly pure, distilled hologram of the caprice/randomness, and skill/will that resides over living and life itself, and a stripped bare interplay of emotional and psychological alchemy that everyone has, and lives with.

The greatest poker success carries little to not weight, in terms of posterity. IMO, greatest difference between poker and "other jobs".

Even aject fail in other occupational pursuits almost always carries over some tangible good productive benefit for you and your career. Whether it's contacts, savings, reputation, experience itself.

Contra poker; even after enormous success, the above benefits are a double edged sword at best, where your experience and connections (ability to get back in) are as likely to be the underpinnings of cyclical, fixed failure.

At best, it's a totoal unknown; emoyrically, it's pretty obvious.

And either way, poker is devoid of true metrics...in the same way -- IMHO -- other businesses get/should be hinged upon.

Ironic, since poker is all about a scoreboard and 'statistics'. But the living and breathing reality of metrics is a seperate (undomesticated) species from standard business metrics.

One more thing, hopefully more concrete (I'm reticent to be too specific since I know/knew a lot of the actual ppl involved),

The luck of poker, applied to people otherwise talented and able, is most profound in the beginnings of their poker experience, most often at adolescent ages where an underlying emotional caprice and aversion (or tolerance..) to risk is extremely strong.

Majority of the "long"term winners, had remarkably pain-free beginnings, when their emotional and psychological poker fortress got created. Still, many dropped out of school after losing/borrowings appreciable sums, to persevere.

Pointedly, of the latter...most were in financial umbrella's of school and family, and insulated from the psycholigical tumult n emotional traumas that define any poker career.

This got too long n fumbling, but personal experience/a vacuum of time on the treadmill/and a general interest necessitated.

Even better argument for communism, no?

Judging between potential problems....I think the most apparent one is the op-ed writer missed a dose of Xanax, or missed a deadline and needed to churn something out.

He's imbuing way too much meaning in this.

40M views..The numeric is extraordinary, but that's it. What % of these views carries the face time of 2minutes? 1minutes of someone's life? How about 10seconds of someone's randomized procrastination or ennui schedule?

Contrast with the % that isn't the 10s Population...and what % are young, pre-adolescent girls (or boys)?

Putting probable numbers on these figures, and a real problem may be revealing itself in the writer's thinking while trying to harangue society:

an emotional aversion and resistance to the progressive openness of communication.

Fwiw, i watched her entire video...but i just liked the beat?

<<<<insta transitioning to new internet dating business model.

Mortal Kombat meets e-Harmony.

Fight for your matches, win your dates. Love is war.

The target market seems motley, yet distinct(ly desperate).

Ok...someone needs to do an Internet video spoof off this.

The refutation to Ted would be to spend some quality time at the Bellagio poker room.

Then again, Ted's likely just referencing people who at least have shreds of sanity in them.

The issue is a non-issue, but still legitimate and interesting.

Stress, poor decisions, emotional tumult, and being flung into life itself are inexorable, and as unavoidable as breathing when you have a pulse.

Money is tangible, and as far as tangible things go..May well be at the top of the food chain.

In day to day life, and superficial observation of others, the tangible is our primary prism of experience and thought. It's not that this issue isn't "real".

The mind is so complex and our emotions so strong, we're (benignly) selfish and self-consumed to the point that day to day living and observation is done through the "tangible", as our primary prism of experience and thought.

Money/wealth takes on significance. It simply is significant. And always will he for those with and without.

But if we admit the ubiquitous behavioral pattern of our selves (as applicable to money as seeing an ultra good looking person walk down the street; or someone walk around with a 145 scored IQ test on their shirt..), we aren't dealing with wealth and money, per say.

A deeper but likely impossible study would be having the recording of therapy sessions with these people; and then juxtaposed with therapy sessions of non-SuperRich.

Dollars to donuts that those who are 'happy' and Super Rich bear striking resemblance, and actual distinct cross overs, to those 'happy' and not Super Rich. The converse being true for those 'unhappy' and all in between.

Perhaps there is a tipping pt in both poor/rich directions, at certain extreme ends; but in these instances, what are we dealing with, aside from the perks or poisons of 'luck' in a distilled form, that is life's ace up the sleeve and trump card.

And when it's just as possible to meet your wife while getting a latte, or choke on the biscotti you get with it...luck shouldn't be taken for granted, either.

Cliff Notes: when I am Super-Rich and still neurotic, i will simply blame myself, and move on in finding a year or two respite while penning an epic book and psycho-behavorial study on the rich and poor, vis a vis therapy sessions.