[daveT]

I did think about this article a ton last night. It is very well written. And I hope that this article is well circulated and published in every important newspaper.

The main concern I have with it is that it does not address the "Mickey Mouse Syndrome" attached to poker: that people may want to watch, but not be. Why is it after so many years on TV poker is played more, but not gaining any respect?

The article runs akin to an actor spending a week in boot camp and saying that they now feel they understand what war is about. No, they have a taste of it, they can now better empathize with the people in battle, because they have stood witness to the emotions attached to looking forward to war.

The whole point of Carnegie's book is that we have to try and look at the perspective of the other people, in this case, the people that don't care either way, or those that don't play, and don't understand. We have to do our best to not argue with people logically because we will come across as presumptuous and superior, alienating any chance of a logical discussion. All the things you have written have been explained, especially to the nay saying politicians. They simply close their ears and say yak yak yak.

So, what is the emotional stance that these people are not understanding? There is proof that professionals exist. Turn on the TV. Go to the casino lock boxes. I assume the politicians can attain statistics about what people do for a living, or at least get the category.

Why does Avery Cardoza sell so well? Is it because his books are sold at the casino store? Surely not, since 2p2 books are there as well. Because the table games are more popular? Yes, statistically speaking, this is very true. But the main reason why his company does so well is because he writes: "You can EASILY beat this or that game using my EASY strategies. Beating Black Jack is EASY with my EASY NON-COUNTING system." He writes what people want to hear. I understand this most of his books are geared toward the casual player.

With the popularity of poker and Vegas booming, why aren't people taking gambling and poker more seriously? Why do they feel that they will be the lucky ones to destroy the casino coffers. Emotionally, they are attached to the stories of such and such striking gold.

I DO appreciate this article. Collectively, we have tried to pass poker legislation using cold logic and failed in the courts because, even with all the math to back it up, some people simply will not see the proof. When the some of the most educated people in the world can't see this, how can we expect NASCAR Bob to understand?

For us to be able to fight, we must address the concerns of the people that are not involved. Forgetting the people that are staunchly anti, it is important to address the addiction because honesty goes a long way to opening up discussion. Is gambling inherently ethical. Saying that Nixon financed his campaign isn't really a good argument, or that the fate of Hiroshima may have been decided over a poker game. Logic dictates that many of our past presidents were effective strategists, and perhaps poker sharpened those attributes, but, emotionally, people are not to proud of politicians right now.

Corruption seems to be a huge factor that needs to be addressed. I know people who play poker casually. They tell me they are good at it, though I could ask one question and they wouldn't be able to answer it accurately: "What are pot odds?" or come up with any classic situation and ask them what they would do. Invariably, they will answer wrong. These people do not believe that poker can be beaten.

I have been accused of cheating. Not the classic way of say holding out cards (most people have no idea what it is), but in the way of not being honest, or taking advantage of suckers. Am I bound to be honest with everyone? Am I supposed to tell everyone that they have no edge against me? This has been the largest arguing point I have had with anyone. I don't see how I am taking advantage of other players when the same information I have is attainable. I never thought of a good argument for this.

On addiction, I bluntly tell any one that I am addicted. This helps calm down their emotions, and ends that part of the argument, which is why I opened my last post with this statement.

David Sklansky and Al Shoonmaker are taking on a very difficult fight.