I also didn’t downvote but the first bullet point comes across really badly, and that’s speaking as someone who’s had considerably more success in poker than sport. My guess is that the downvotes are because of that.
Like Mischa, I think it’s easily read as cringy and self congratulatory i.e.
“thanks for trying but I’m not sure you’re smart enough to join our cause.”
If I’d wanted to make that point, I’d probably have gone for something like:
> (probably as the third point) “however, I think that outreach to sportspeople might be much harder than to poker pros. Some EA ideas are quite counterintuitive, and there’s a lot of very similar reasoning in poker/EA, while in general I wouldn’t expect pro sports people to be as familiar with things like expected value reasoning”.
I also didn’t downvote but the first bullet point comes across really badly, and that’s speaking as someone who’s had considerably more success in poker than sport. My guess is that the downvotes are because of that.
Is the offensive part that intelligence might be useful, or that poker players might be more intelligent?
Like Mischa, I think it’s easily read as cringy and self congratulatory i.e.
“thanks for trying but I’m not sure you’re smart enough to join our cause.”
If I’d wanted to make that point, I’d probably have gone for something like:
> (probably as the third point) “however, I think that outreach to sportspeople might be much harder than to poker pros. Some EA ideas are quite counterintuitive, and there’s a lot of very similar reasoning in poker/EA, while in general I wouldn’t expect pro sports people to be as familiar with things like expected value reasoning”.