laurence.horn at YALE.EDU
Wed Apr 6 03:49:23 UTC 2005
At 12:05 AM -0400 4/4/05, RonButters at AOL.COM wrote:
>In a message dated 4/3/05 11:55:14 PM, zwicky at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>> NYT Book Review 4/3/05, p. 19, review by James McManus of two advice
>> books on poker playing:
>> The grain of Harrington's counsel is finer than that of most
>> pokeraticians'. [yes, the apostrophe was there.]
>> probably a recent invention. only two google hits (from the web,
>> rather than newsgroups).
>Surely this is a stunt word. Google has a web site for POKEROLOGIST and 78
>hits for POKEROLOGY, which is a much more likely way to go, it seems to me. No
>POKEROSOPHY or POKEROSOPHIST, however.
I could imagine a distinction between the "pokerologist" (a general
analyst of or commentator on the game, who would perhaps focus on
player psychology) vs. the "pokeratician" (which, with its
incorporation of the last part of "statistician" and a nod to
"sabermetrician", as in the modern stats-based baseball analysts
associated with SABR, would suggest a more statistically or formally
based analysis and eschew or mostly disregard the psychological
component). Norman Chad on the ESPN coverage of the WSOP would be an
example of the former, but the latter also exists.
More information about the Ads-l