Facebook Is The Ant; Zynga Is The Grasshopper | Hacker News Reader

Facebook Is The Ant; Zynga Is The Grasshopper

techcrunch.com

51 pointskunle22 comments

"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 strategies, otherwise known as "shoving", to intimidate others out of a pot or for half a dozen reasons.

I know there are probably a lot of people on HN with more poker knowledge than me, so I'll shut up now (and wait for the inevitable discovery, possibly from my SO, that I've got the entire concept backward) - but it just irked me.

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 than "commitment" or being a man. If the way you've played a hand gives you a certain range, you can estimate what bet sizes your opponent thinks he can profitably call. Beyond the psychology, going all in is just a means to make your opponent commit a math error, that long-term would be an unprofitable course of action.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-ratio -though this is a very generic explanation that doesn't go into position.

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.

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.

I think this is a neat article, but guilty of over-analysis.

Perhaps Zuck takes his mission too seriously, and Pincus doesn't take his seriously enough. Or perhaps Pincus is smart enough to cash out while he can.

Either way, entrepreneurs approach business differently from each other. Nothing extraordinary about that.

Actually, the proper metaphor is that Zynga is Facebook's tapeworm.

And yet Mark Pincus is a multi-millionaire and a massive Valley success story. 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.

It's usually a big can of worms to judge an entrepreneur by anything other than his success. Besides -- what is so wrong about Pincus wanting to get rich?

> 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.

We judge an entrepreneur by what he has built. You can get rich by "extracting rents" or you can get rich by building something that makes the world so much better that people fall all over themselves trying to give you money for it.

It's a big can of worms to judge anyone for any reason. However I am comfortable judging Pincus because I think Zynga is a flaming pile of shit that feeds off human weakness and is a blight on humanity. The fact that he would try to steal back shares from his employees is just the cherry on top.

really "a can of worms to judge by anything but success"? What about the Samwer brothers or some of gates dubious tactics? The Samwers just rip ideas to get rich, and I think we can agree there is a bit of a difference in an entrepreneur like Jobs who was innovative and pushed his field to new levels and one like gates who built a monopoly by rather unethical means...

You're also assuming the metric for success = money, which while that may be your barometer for success, you should be wary about assuming that's other people's metrics as well.

Q: What's better than being a multimillionaire?

A: Not being Mark Pincus.

If the stories of how bad zynga is to its employees keep pouring out, "Stop being a pincus" might even become mainstream.

As a portmanteau of "pink phallus", maybe?

He could run as a certain abrasive ex-Senator's Veep. "Get Santorum on your Pincus in 2016." I say this as one who desperately wanted to see this ex-Senator win the Republican nomination (I dislike the Republican Party that much at this point) and choose Boehner as his running mate.

Nothing is wrong with wanting to get rich. But there's a lot wrong with wanting to get rich no matter how it harms other people.

Also, I'm not sure I'd call him a Valley success story. Zynga is company number 4. The last three all made him some money without going anywhere. Like the article's author, I think Zynga is on the same path to long-term irrelevance.

Few in the Valley look back on the wreckage of Bubble 1.0 and think of those companies as success stories, however much they enriched their founders.

If you're referring to Jobs as the last guy that had "Zuck's zeal", you need to get to get a reality check.

Jobs built multiple multi-billion dollar companies that redefined innovation. He (and his team) created the personal computer market, transformed it again 20 years later, transformed telecom 'overnight' while slaying RIM and Nokia with one swoop, and in many regards — introduced new childhood memories that will not be forgotten for decades, like Snow White's glass slipper. The MySpace abomination barely left a wrinkle in history's culture.

I'm not one to hate on entrepreneurs but Zuck has a long way to go. I feel like there needs to be a history book for new entrepreneurs who think the glorified web startup guys are Gods among men. Most of the Gods aren't socializing at this weeks Startup FunFunFun HappyHour Fest 5000.

"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...

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19162971

The fundamentals of Facebook’s business – even when it was working perfectly – are to ensure a steady stream of new users (often via M&A), to grease the user acquisition machine via advertising on just about everywhere, and to incent users to rope in their friends. This strategy depends on playing with copious amounts of capital to buy companies, ads, and promotions.

And this - "Facebook’s mission – to make the world more open and connected" is just hilarious (forgive me Louis :) ).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com