41–50 of 66 posts
We just launched Fostrom [1], an IoT Cloud Platform designed for developers. I was wondering what else have others found effective in this space to do sales and outreach?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes I think possible. 1. sales aptitude assessment tools like Objective Management Group (the one I took) help you identify core weaknesses that are critical to understand and work on. 2. Recording your sales calls (assuming you're on the phone) and then asking AI to critique it and coach you, with the above assessment as context, could be very helpful. If you're disciplined I think the above approach may be a pretty…
I'd be careful sending raw audio to public APIs given the sensitive commercial info. A local pipeline with Whisper and Llama 3 is viable now and solves the privacy issue. It also keeps the long-term inference costs much lower.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The thought you can sit there like an automaton with a set strategy and win is false. This is provably false. You're absolutely right that GTO does not guarantee you'll win the maximum against a fish, but neither does exploitative play. In fact, exploitative play can't guarantee you anything, which is probably why old-school pro players are perennially going broke throughout their careers (that and bad bankroll man…
> This is provably false. Where is the proof? > You're absolutely right that GTO does not guarantee you'll win the maximum against a fish, but neither does exploitative play. In fact, exploitative play can't guarantee you anything, which is probably why old-school pro players are perennially going broke throughout their careers (that and bad bankroll management). I'm not arguing in favor of one or the other, I am jus…
von Neuman proved it for 2 players in his classic "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior": https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.215284/page/n3...
Nash proved it for n-players: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1063129/pdf/pnas015...
> "GTO" is only possible against perfect play to begin with
This is a very common misconception, probably because GTO is usually explained as the equilibrium reached by 2 perfect players. The key insight of GTO is that you do not adjust your strategy to what your opponent is doing. If you play the equilibrium strategy and they don't, you're guaranteed to make money.
> And I also never claimed exploitative strategies guarantee everything, for the same reason "GTO" doesn't either. It's a game of incomplete information.
I didn't say you did, I was just making my own independent argument as to why intuitive play is dangerous and people often end up deceiving themselves into thinking they're winning players.
> And, there are pros that have been winning for long amounts of time knowing zero about GTO theory.
Which is why I said that, IMO, 90% of pro players fundamentally misunderstand poker (and that's not even counting the losing players who think they're "pro").
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The thought you can sit there like an automaton with a set strategy and win is false. This is provably false. You're absolutely right that GTO does not guarantee you'll win the maximum against a fish, but neither does exploitative play. In fact, exploitative play can't guarantee you anything, which is probably why old-school pro players are perennially going broke throughout their careers (that and bad bankroll man…
> This is provably false. Where is the proof? > You're absolutely right that GTO does not guarantee you'll win the maximum against a fish, but neither does exploitative play. In fact, exploitative play can't guarantee you anything, which is probably why old-school pro players are perennially going broke throughout their careers (that and bad bankroll management). I'm not arguing in favor of one or the other, I am jus…
Anecdotally, in my poker playing days I had a lot of success by attacking quasi-optimal play this way. Optimality is contextual. You can engineer a context that motivates suboptimal decisions in fact, though it isn’t easy.
However, at the limit, this is really just attacking the cognitive facilities of your opponents rather than the math of the game. Someone that with a similar ability to manipulate large amounts of state mentally could nullify the advantage. It is meta-games all the way down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other than the basics, math is not going to help you win at poker over reading people. The shoot is shuffled after each round, you can’t card count your way to victory. Hand win probabilities are basic math that most poker player just learn instinctively because it’s not that complicated.
Your knowledge of the application of math to poker is very outdated, look up "GTO poker" on YouTube.
"1) it is highly scalable and you can easily send out thousands of emails per day, 2) it’s a fairly “democratic” form of outreach where you can achieve great outcomes with good offers sent to the right people, and 3) there’s no platform risk." From a European citizen point of view, this framing ignores a very real constraint: GDPR. In the EU, sending marketing emails is not just a growth tactic, it is regulated perso…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is provably false. Where is the proof? > You're absolutely right that GTO does not guarantee you'll win the maximum against a fish, but neither does exploitative play. In fact, exploitative play can't guarantee you anything, which is probably why old-school pro players are perennially going broke throughout their careers (that and bad bankroll management). I'm not arguing in favor of one or the other, I am jus…
There is an entire area of math about the uncertainty of decision correctness in incomplete information scenarios. One of the neat aspects of it is that all computable optimal decision makers are mechanically exploitable if you have a reasonably accurate model of their finiteness. In the case of human minds, that just means they are a lot like you. The exploits require iterated games and are cognitively difficult (yo…
I agree with your post but I'd just like to nitpick that this first phrase is not true, the equilibrium point is independent of what your opponent does. I'm pretty sure you know this as you then go on to describe not a context where the equilibrium changes but where it becomes hard for humans to find the equilibrium.
So we agree, it's just a small nitpick of how you worded.
A very good multiplier is doing both in a well-orchestrated way.
As a co-founder (tech background but haven't coded in a while), I got comfortable with sales best when I hired a sales coach. There are so many things to learn in sales and a coach is often the fastest way to assess your inherent weaknesses and address them head on. I paid $2k/mth about 10 yrs ago; at the time I felt scared to spend so much but once I realized it was an investment in me, and I put in the time to lear…