PennStateHoops.com Discussion Forum

OT's GONE WILD!

Doesn’t mean he and [Coach Billy] Cunningham always saw eye to eye, though. Late in his career, Jones recalled Thursday, an out-of-position referee asked him during a game if he had touched a ball before it went out of bounds, one more indication of the manner in which Bobby, a man of great integrity, was viewed throughout the league.

He said he did not.

“And,” he added, “I had not touched it.”

The referee ruled accordingly.

A similar situation arose again two weeks later. This time a ball went out off Jones, and again the official hadn’t seen exactly what happened. One problem: The ball wound up in the hands of Cunningham, in front of the Sixers’ bench.

“The official comes up to me and says, ‘Did you touch it?’ ” Jones said.

Once again, Jones told the truth.

“I immediately started running away,” he said with a laugh, “because Billy starts stomping his feet and saying, ‘Bobby, that’s his job. Let him make the call.’ ”

Passing along simply for the prominence of the story, nothing particularly interesting in it beyond the fact in the headline and its obvious implications, IMO:

Please, Sir! May I have some more?

Gary Larson’s THE FAR SIDE Cartoon Coming Back
The Nerdist
by Michael Walsh
Sep 16 2019 • 10:06 AM

2 Likes

On one hand, you have to give Title IX some time to develop a pipeline… but it’s been 20+ years which should be long enough to see some change.
On the other hand, the role of AD at a power 5 school is much different that 20 years ago. It is MUCH more forward facing with Donors (the Majority of whom are concerned about football)
I wonder what the breakouts are for Female ADs at smaller schools where the dynamics are a little different.

Some may have noticed that I have taken a bit of a hit when it comes to commenting on here as of recent. Most if not all probably don’t know why. I am running for public office this year down in my local community and it does mean that I need to commit less time on PSU Basketball :frowning: . Anyways, if any of you live in Pennsylvania this year and are planning on attending the Penn State game against Maryland Eastern Shore then you know that it will occur on Nov. 5th, 2019.
AKA ELECTION DAY

Therefore so your vote counts this year in your local elections I wanted to include a link to the new ONLINE absentee ballot application! So you can apply for an absentee ballot for the Nov. 5th election and you’ll be able to vote and send in your ballot and get to the game in State College.

Good luck to all the local candidates and don’t forget to vote LOCAL!

https://www.pavoterservices.pa.gov/OnlineAbsenteeApplication/#/OnlineAbsentee

I once was lost but now am found…

4 Likes

Internet forums, explained:

A running theme throughout [Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier’s book The Enigma of Reason], is that in experimental settings and in “real life” human capacity for reason is not optimized for the pursuit of abstract truth. Mercier and Sperber suggest that this is because reason did not evolve for that end. Reasoning’s role is essentially a social one—at the level of the individual it is not about deciding what to do, but about justifying what we do.

What we decide to do is for the most part entirely intuitive. As Mercier and Sperber see it, our decisions are the products of mental subsystems as opaque to us as the mysterious mechanisms that classify what we see as “beautiful” or “ugly,” determine what we are doing as “boring” or “fun,” and judge what others are doing as “admirable” or “disgusting.” Although his brain will supply the child with reasons for why he likes to watch Star Wars, the teenager with reasons for why she favors purple eye-liner, and the lover with reasons for doting upon his beloved, these thoughts are not the actual cause of the behavior in question. They are justifications. They are seized upon and articulated by the brain not to make us aware of why we make our decisions, but to make it possible for us to justify and explain our behavior to others.

Sperber and Mercier confirm this general thesis through dozens of experiments and lots of clever thinking. They explore the implications of these ideas further (“wait,” you might ask, “what is happening then when someone else’s ideas changes our mind?”), but as they have limited relevance to the point I am going to make here, I will reserve their discussion for a different post. The main idea we are to run with here is this: to reason is to justify. Arguments, especially arguments over policy, are not about finding the truth. Both sides come with the truth already decided. In this context, reasoning and arguments are tools of persuasion. We reason to convince third parties that we are right.

That is the evolutionary utility of reasoning. It makes you sound heck of a lot more convincing than the guy who (more honestly) says, “I believe we should do this because it feels right.” The jerks who wander across the internet yelling “facts don’t care about your feelings” have missed the mark. We assemble facts and data precisely because of our feelings. Facts are byproducts of a quest to justify our feelings.

:grin:

2 Likes

A post was merged into an existing topic: NCAA Reform (Was: Union Yes)

There’s a really interesting cheating scandal that has hit poker. To briefly summarize, Mike Postle is a poker player who played at the Stones Casino in Sacramento, but only played on their livestream. It appears that he and at least one employee from the casino rigged the livestream so Postle would have access to it during the game. (Normally, these streams air on a 30 minute delay to prevent cheating, but Postle had access to the livestream as it was happening, so he could see everyone’s cards live). He played a variety of no-limit holdem games, mostly $1/$3, but sometimes played $5/$10 as well.

He obtained an unconscionably high win rate and won an unprecedented amount of money at these stakes. He posted 62/67 winning sessions since July 2018, a win rate of 92.5%, and was up anywhere from a range of $250k-$300k. To put in perspective how good he was, the average really good poker player will win approximately 10 big blinds per hour. So if you are playing $1/$3, with a $3 big blind, a really good player at these stakes would win $30 per hour. Postle was winning anywhere from 70-80 big blinds per hour over these streams.

There’s been a ton of internet sleuthing that has already occurred with Postle to investigate this by the poker community. Joe Ingram, a famous PLO player, appeared on the Ryen Russillo podcast to talk about the scandal too.

Philly Special

I don’t understand all the livestream stuff, but it looks like a classic case of a scam that worked so well, he just sucked money out so fast he couldn’t help but get caught. SOMEONE was going to notice.

When the whistle blower came forward, she was very much ridiculed by Stones employees and other local pro poker players in the Sacramento area. However, people started digging and figured out Postle’s win rate, which is really what caused more people to look into this. The whistle blower came forward because she had noticed that his play was very suspicious over time and he made a particularly absurd fold with top pair in one hand given the spot.

He just kept making the correct decision, whether it was bluffing to win a lot of money or calling light to win a lot of money. Even when he lost hands, he would still lose as small as he could (for instance there was a hand where he called with a rivered full house but his opponent had a better one, so he just called).

As far as the livestream stuff, it’s a bit more complicated and tough to share on here. Especially if you have no exposure to poker on TV, there’s a lot of factors at play in a stream. The general jist though is he somehow had access to the livestream as it was being recorded instead of when it was being aired, which gave him a huge advantage.

Some people theorized that he was too greedy, but I think it’s nearly impossible to optimize cheating in a spot like this. It basically requires him to make bad decisions while he’s cheating, which kinda defeats the whole point of cheating anyway.

IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News:
Ion the Prize: The 2019 Nobel Prize in Chemistry
The story of the lithium-ion battery tells much about the increasingly global nature of innovation