"Mark Zuckerberg truly believes that Facebook’s mission – to make the world more open and connected – is the biggest and most important in Silicon Valley."
open and connected. and definitely more like Las Vegas...
Facebook Is The Ant; Zynga Is The Grasshopper
21–25 of 25 posts
Re: Facebook Is The Ant; Zynga Is The Grasshopper
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not to mention the last guy that had Zuckerbeg's "zeal" and lived in a humble house died recently, and was known for being an unbearable dick to his employees. The article cites several examples of CEOs with similar "zeal", none of whom are dead, and none of whom are known for being unbearable dicks.
I think he is referring to Steve Jobs.
Except that Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg are not the only people in the world who have zeal.
Re: Facebook Is The Ant; Zynga Is The Grasshopper
#23"A great poker player demonstrates commitment by going “All In”." This is a minor point, but given I live with a very serious poker player, I've started to twitch about poker misunderstandings. Going all-in is not a rare event - at least not in no-limit Holdem, which is the game most people think of as "poker". Nor is it limited to the "great" poker players - in fact, it's one of the more basic and more common strate…
I read it just as a sort of throw away line in the article. But you're right, going all in isn't rare. In tournament play when your stack size is below certain thresholds & you're in certain positions relative to the blinds [1] going all in is the proper play to make 100% of the time, so it's quite common. For cash games, which most people are less familiar with, going all in is still generally based more in math tha…
But his point wasn't about the rarity of the action; commitment doesn't have to be rare. It does have to be demonstrated and that demonstration is a meaningful gesture that signals other players. That's his point: that commitment needs to be seen.
Re: Facebook Is The Ant; Zynga Is The Grasshopper
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read it just as a sort of throw away line in the article. But you're right, going all in isn't rare. In tournament play when your stack size is below certain thresholds & you're in certain positions relative to the blinds [1] going all in is the proper play to make 100% of the time, so it's quite common. For cash games, which most people are less familiar with, going all in is still generally based more in math tha…
But his point wasn't about the rarity of the action; commitment doesn't have to be rare. It does have to be demonstrated and that demonstration is a meaningful gesture that signals other players. That's his point: that commitment needs to be seen .
I guess the bit that made me twitch was the "great poker players do X". It's true, great poker players do indeed go all in to demonstrate, amongst other things, commitment to a hand (well, ish. Actually it's more to reduce the value of the pot for other players. Amongst other reasons. Sort of.) - but so do good poker players, average poker players, and crap poker players who've read about 2/3 of a short book on no limit (the latter would be me).
Given that the point of the statement was to compare how Mark Pinkus could be great, rather than average or crap, that rather undermines the whole rhetorical point.
Re: Facebook Is The Ant; Zynga Is The Grasshopper
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read it just as a sort of throw away line in the article. But you're right, going all in isn't rare. In tournament play when your stack size is below certain thresholds & you're in certain positions relative to the blinds [1] going all in is the proper play to make 100% of the time, so it's quite common. For cash games, which most people are less familiar with, going all in is still generally based more in math tha…
But his point wasn't about the rarity of the action; commitment doesn't have to be rare. It does have to be demonstrated and that demonstration is a meaningful gesture that signals other players. That's his point: that commitment needs to be seen .
Good point - I was equating the rarity of the action w/ it being a genuine demonstration. The demonstration of showing such commitment by going "all in", at least in poker, isn't really meaningful. It's a function of math and happens all the time. But, poker on ESPN for example, makes it into a dramatic event for their viewers. My favorite is when they would have the "all-in" moments brought to you by X sponsor.