Poker and the Art of War
t_pa...@my-deja.com
both miffed and amused to see "Tournament Poker and the Art of War" by
David Apostolico[1]. Back in the day, I wrote five articles
translating "The Art of War" into poker terms and published them on the
internet here[2].
I was a bit dismayed that my idea had been appropriated without even
the professional or academic courtesy of an attribution or
acknowledgement. I know for certain that Andy Bloch used to read this
newsgroup, and I know that he probably read my posts. There is a
difference between using an idea ("Hey, we should translate the Art of
War into poker terms") and publishing a work that seems entirely too
similar.
While I won't pursue any action on this, I just feel that it is of
fairly low class and ethics.
--------
References:
synthesist
I wonder whether he read these or simply arrived at the same idea himself.
FYI He has written another book called, " Machiavellian Poker Strategy"
Thank you
Syn
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Snoball
On Sep 26 2005 11:23 AM, t_pa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I was browsing the huge poker section at the local bookstore and was
> both miffed and amused to see "Tournament Poker and the Art of War" by
> David Apostolico[1]. Back in the day, I wrote five articles
> translating "The Art of War" into poker terms and published them on the
> internet here[2].
>
> I was a bit dismayed that my idea had been appropriated without even
> the professional or academic courtesy of an attribution or
> acknowledgement. I know for certain that Andy Bloch used to read this
> newsgroup, and I know that he probably read my posts. There is a
> difference between using an idea ("Hey, we should translate the Art of
> War into poker terms") and publishing a work that seems entirely too
> similar.
>
> While I won't pursue any action on this, I just feel that it is of
> fairly low class and ethics.
>
> --------
> References:
>
> [1]
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/081840647X/qid=1127745976/sr=8-
> 1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-3865044-1184041?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
>
> [2]
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/browse_thread/thread/dfd95e
>
> 90f0afa36b/f15a97d43e8f67d5?lnk=st&q=author:t_pascal@+%22art+of+war%22&rnum=
> 5#f15a97d43e8f67d5
> ---------
Is this book any good?
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
Aodhan
> I was browsing the huge poker section at the local bookstore and was
> both miffed and amused to see "Tournament Poker and the Art of War" by
> David Apostolico[1]. Back in the day, I wrote five articles
> translating "The Art of War" into poker terms and published them on the
> internet here[2].
> I was a bit dismayed that my idea had been appropriated without even
> the professional or academic courtesy of an attribution or
> acknowledgement. I know for certain that Andy Bloch used to read this
> newsgroup, and I know that he probably read my posts. There is a
> difference between using an idea ("Hey, we should translate the Art of
> War into poker terms") and publishing a work that seems entirely too
> similar.
If you translate the Art of War into poker terms, it will be similar no
matter who does it, since you are interpreting from the same base text.
And, who's to say that he didn't arrive at the idea and pursue it
independently?
As far as the foreword from Andy Bloch, he may have not remembered your
posts, or not considered them as being relevant. Often a foreword is also
written after the book is completed as well.
Aodhan
>
> While I won't pursue any action on this, I just feel that it is of
> fairly low class and ethics.
>
> --------
> References:
>
> [1]
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/081840647X/qid=1127745976/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-3865044-1184041?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
>
> [2]
>
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/browse_thread/thread/dfd95e90f0afa36b/f15a97d43e8f67d5?lnk=st&q=author:t_pascal@+%22art+of+war%22&rnum=5#f15a97d43e8f67d5
> ---------
--------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Tony Popejoy
I made the correlation and actually applied the information long before I ever
read anything that you wrote about it. i don't even think that I read your post
regarding the issue. My point is allot of pros have suggested that players read
the "Art of War" in order to improve your tournament game, long before you ever
posted anything on the subject. This isn't a concept that was foreign to most
when you posted it, or when this guy wrote a book on it . I might pick up the
book, but I think it's better to just read the "Art of War" and make it apply to
your own tournament game. I'm sure that this book is an unnecessary read.
Tony Popejoy
On Sep 26 2005 10:23 AM, t_pa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I was browsing the huge poker section at the local bookstore and was
> both miffed and amused to see "Tournament Poker and the Art of War" by
> David Apostolico[1]. Back in the day, I wrote five articles
> translating "The Art of War" into poker terms and published them on the
> internet here[2].
>
> I was a bit dismayed that my idea had been appropriated without even
> the professional or academic courtesy of an attribution or
> acknowledgement. I know for certain that Andy Bloch used to read this
> newsgroup, and I know that he probably read my posts. There is a
> difference between using an idea ("Hey, we should translate the Art of
> War into poker terms") and publishing a work that seems entirely too
> similar.
>
> While I won't pursue any action on this, I just feel that it is of
> fairly low class and ethics.
>
> --------
> References:
>
> [1]
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/081840647X/qid=1127745976/sr=8-
> 1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-3865044-1184041?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
>
> [2]
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/browse_thread/thread/dfd95e
>
> 90f0afa36b/f15a97d43e8f67d5?lnk=st&q=author:t_pascal@+%22art+of+war%22&rnum=
> 5#f15a97d43e8f67d5
> ---------
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Dragon Koi
the people reading the book should know the intellect behind the message has
a major flaw. don't let it slide.
<t_pa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1127748182.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Lasych
are very dissimilar. The obvious difference being the "Tournament" book
deals specifically with tournaments. Besides the obvious issues, there
is suprisingly little overlapping information. Your posts convert the
language of Sun Tzu to fit specifically into poker. The "Tournament"
book interprets the actual words of Sun Tzu and discusses how they
apply to poker. This may seem minor, but in actuality, it creates a
much different work than what you posted.
Nor can you assert that you came up with the idea of equating poker and
Sun Tzu. This was done well before your posts. In 2001, Cardplayer
magazine ran an article discussing how the Art of War could enhance a
poker player's game. Maybe you should give Cardplayer attribution or
acknowledgement.(Run a google search and you will find it.)
While this should not be taken as legal advice, I do not believe you
have a leg to stand on.
I did however enjoy reading your posts.
Lau_syd
Aodhan
> It is plagiarism. You should pursue this with the publisher, at least. Also,
> the people reading the book should know the intellect behind the message has
> a major flaw. don't let it slide.
Oh please. At least learn to use the word correctly. Plagiarism is the
DIRECT copying of a work and passing it off as your own. If I take an
essay you wrote, and restate the exact same conclusions in different
words, it is now my own creation and not plagiarized.
Also, (Although I have not read all the old postings), unless the OP
stated that these were copyrighted material, they are in the public domain
and freely accessible/reproducible. If you wish to protect a copyright,
you'd have to write Google to remove them from the deja archies. (Which
can be and has been done on this NG before.)
Aodhan
____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Super Steamer
On Sep 26 2005 3:46 PM, Aodhan wrote:
> On Sep 26 2005 1:04 PM, Dragon Koi wrote:
>
> > It is plagiarism. You should pursue this with the publisher, at least. Also,
> >
> > the people reading the book should know the intellect behind the message has
> >
> > a major flaw. don't let it slide.
>
> Oh please. At least learn to use the word correctly. Plagiarism is the
> DIRECT copying of a work and passing it off as your own. If I take an
> essay you wrote, and restate the exact same conclusions in different
> words, it is now my own creation and not plagiarized.
>
> Also, (Although I have not read all the old postings), unless the OP
> stated that these were copyrighted material, they are in the public domain
> and freely accessible/reproducible. If you wish to protect a copyright,
> you'd have to write Google to remove them from the deja archies. (Which
> can be and has been done on this NG before.)
>
> Aodhan
I do not believe this is true, it is still the original posters copyright. It
does not disappear just because it is in the archives.
Steam
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
jgm
"Snoball" <snoba...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1127755954$624...@recpoker.com...
> Is this book any good?
No. It's shit. You would probably get more just reading T Pascals archived
posts on the subject. Or reading the art of war and doing your own thinking.
t_pa...@my-deja.com
Lasych wrote:
> Actually, he owes you nothing. The "Tournament" book and your posts
> are very dissimilar. The obvious difference being the "Tournament" book
> deals specifically with tournaments. Besides the obvious issues, there
> is suprisingly little overlapping information. Your posts convert the
> language of Sun Tzu to fit specifically into poker. The "Tournament"
> book interprets the actual words of Sun Tzu and discusses how they
> apply to poker. This may seem minor, but in actuality, it creates a
> much different work than what you posted.
>
between an idea and a published work. I do not claim the idea (in
fact, I was inspired by other posts). I do claim the published work.
Narrowing the focus to "tournament poker" is not enough to escape an
ethical lapse here. In fact, I did have tournament play in mind but
did not specifically mention the word "tournament". Indeed, I do not
specifically limit my published work to "cash games" or "holdem" or
"stud", for example.
Regarding the format of the book, I have read many reviews and
personally agree that the way he handled the quotes by Sun Tzu were
repetitive, rocky, and quite dry. I could presumably go through a
line-by-line analysis and point out the extreme similarities, but
unfortunately, I won't buy the book to support the author. In any
case, I wouldn't be objective. I'll let others decide.
> Nor can you assert that you came up with the idea of equating poker and
> Sun Tzu. This was done well before your posts. In 2001, Cardplayer
> magazine ran an article discussing how the Art of War could enhance a
> poker player's game. Maybe you should give Cardplayer attribution or
> acknowledgement.(Run a google search and you will find it.)
>
As I stated, I do not claim the idea as my own. I claim the published
work and its intellectual contents.
> While this should not be taken as legal advice, I do not believe you
> have a leg to stand on.
>
I agree that I probably do not have a legal standing, and if I do the
damages would be miniscule. I am not even accusing anyone of anything
wrong (yet). Consider, however:
1. A published work on the internet is still a published, copyrighted
work. A book in the library is not automatically "public domain"
2. I wrote these articles almost two years ago to the day. If David,
his publisher or editor can provide reasonable evidence that he started
the work previous to my articles, I will conceed. He should also
provide some reasonable explanation for the similarity in concepts and
ideas published.
3. If a copyright is not defended in a reasonable manner and timeframe
by the owner, then it can lapse. I am defending my copyright and
staking my claim to it.
> I did however enjoy reading your posts.
>
Thank you.
John Harkness
>I was browsing the huge poker section at the local bookstore and was
>both miffed and amused to see "Tournament Poker and the Art of War" by
>David Apostolico[1]. Back in the day, I wrote five articles
>translating "The Art of War" into poker terms and published them on the
>internet here[2].
>
>I was a bit dismayed that my idea had been appropriated without even
>the professional or academic courtesy of an attribution or
>acknowledgement. I know for certain that Andy Bloch used to read this
>newsgroup, and I know that he probably read my posts. There is a
>difference between using an idea ("Hey, we should translate the Art of
>War into poker terms") and publishing a work that seems entirely too
>similar.
>
>While I won't pursue any action on this, I just feel that it is of
>fairly low class and ethics.
>
Why not. If he stole from you, you should get paid.
John Harkness
John Harkness
wrote:
>On Sep 26 2005 1:04 PM, Dragon Koi wrote:
>
>> It is plagiarism. You should pursue this with the publisher, at least. Also,
>> the people reading the book should know the intellect behind the message has
>> a major flaw. don't let it slide.
>
>Oh please. At least learn to use the word correctly. Plagiarism is the
>DIRECT copying of a work and passing it off as your own. If I take an
>essay you wrote, and restate the exact same conclusions in different
>words, it is now my own creation and not plagiarized.
>
>Also, (Although I have not read all the old postings), unless the OP
>stated that these were copyrighted material, they are in the public domain
>and freely accessible/reproducible. If you wish to protect a copyright,
>you'd have to write Google to remove them from the deja archies. (Which
>can be and has been done on this NG before.)
>
Completely incorrect.
You do not give up your copyright by leaving it posted in Google.
John Harkness
Rich Shipley
You can't copyright an idea. If he copied text or wrote something that
was so similar as to be derivative, it would be actionable. Just writing
something with the same premise as something else is not stealing.
Rich
Dragon Koi
www.m-w.com :
transitive senses : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as
one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive senses : to commit literary theft : present as new and original
an idea or product derived from an existing source.
I started in the publishing business as a photojournalist and later owned 2
newspapers and a magazine. I some experience with the subject including
closing down a publishers paper for plagiarizing William Safire's work
"Aodhan" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:1cam03x...@recgroups.com...
Michael Sullivan
> On Sep 26 2005 1:04 PM, Dragon Koi wrote:
>
> > It is plagiarism. You should pursue this with the publisher, at least. Also,
> > the people reading the book should know the intellect behind the message has
> > a major flaw. don't let it slide.
>
> Oh please. At least learn to use the word correctly. Plagiarism is the
> DIRECT copying of a work and passing it off as your own. If I take an
> essay you wrote, and restate the exact same conclusions in different
> words, it is now my own creation and not plagiarized.
It depends on how much rework is done, and how similar your structure
and conclusions are to the original text. If significant chunks of what
you write can be construed as a paraphrasing of the other work, it would
definitely be a copyright violation, even if no single sentence was
directly copied.
Simply using the same general idea (getting poker insight from the Art
of War) would not be a copyright violation because you can't copyright
an idea, but if too many of the specific ideas and translation decisions
were essentially the same, it could be one.
> Also, (Although I have not read all the old postings), unless the OP
> stated that these were copyrighted material, they are in the public domain
> and freely accessible/reproducible. If you wish to protect a copyright,
> you'd have to write Google to remove them from the deja archies. (Which
> can be and has been done on this NG before.)
This is completely false. Copyright applies the moment something is
fixed in a medium. Making something freely accessible (by putting it on
a website or on usenet) does NOT put it in the public domain. It would
be difficult to impossible to pursue damages for certain types of
non-commercial sharing that you could be construed to have implicitly
permitted by posting to usenet (i.e. forwarding your post to a bunch of
friends or a mailing list, archiving and reposting to the same or
similar groups a year later, etc.), but even those things are strictly
copyright violations.
Repackaging your work commercially would not just be a copyright
violation, but a clearly actionable one, because it becomes easy to
quantify money damages.
Whether this is a violation has *nothing* to do with what form the
original post took, only with the extent to which the new work is
derivative, as opposed to just being in the same idea space.
Michael
Peg Smith
(Michael Sullivan) wrote:
>> Also, (Although I have not read all the old postings), unless the OP
>> stated that these were copyrighted material, they are in the public domain
>> and freely accessible/reproducible. If you wish to protect a copyright,
>> you'd have to write Google to remove them from the deja archies. (Which
>> can be and has been done on this NG before.)
>
>This is completely false.
I see that Aodhan's copyright knowledge is as extensive as his tax
knowledge.
Peg