Poker is Good for You

[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.

[seemorenuts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I expect this article to become an important source in the struggle for legitimacy for poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is highly unlikely. Just about anything said in that article about poker could be said about chess or other games not played for money. People opposed to poker will not be swayed by logic.

The people who oppose poker do so because they want to impose their morality on others or because they think that people who gamble are too stupid to make their own decisions. You cannot reason with such people. The moralists are on a mission from God. The nanny-staters are equally irrational in their beliefs that they know better than you how you should live your life.

It is a well-articulated statement, but it is preaching to the choir, and will have zero impact on those mindlessly opposed to gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there is such a thing as a game not played for money. I have rarely been in a chess tournament where there weren't cash prizes involved. And the last I heard, the World Scrabble Championship had a first prize of $50,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

Contract Bridge, other forms of bridge, traditionally.
A wee bit less today? I dunno.

There are lots of reasons to oppose poker that have nothing to do with religion or morality.

Think of opportunity cost, and rival civilizations--technological races. Of course a free society is probably the most versatile, but excess hampers that once in a while--no grand scheme, no oversimplification--change is chaotic.

Picture yourself running a country like China.
There are pros and cons to letting people play poker, and that country (for the sake of our argument) has little to do with moralizing in the religious sense of the word.

[seemorenuts]

There's another issue that hasn't been addressed specifically.

There are some skills that poker can teach that are very difficult to come by using other methods.

An argument against ubiquitous poker in our culture is the idea that the valuable ideas need not be known by all citizens, just the rulers... lol.

This article touches on the idea tangentially (is that the right word here? Naah...)

http://mail.google.com/mail/?realattid=f...14d712dd4687206

[baggins]

ok article. not great, in my opinion, as far as content goes.

as far as a final published product with a clear purpose to address people outside of it's own community, i'm surprised at the spelling, grammar and punctuation errors.

you'd think it would have been edited.

[DrVanNostrin]

I liked the article a lot.

One assumption they made is that people have a desire to succeed and are willing to spend time and effort to do so. If you play poker with goal of getting good at it and are prepared to work to do so you'll gain what the article claims you will. As with everything, if you do a half assed job and just go through the motions you'll gain nothing.

I suppose they should have noted that mindlessly plopping yourself at a poker table won't do any of the things claimed.

[ QUOTE ]
Television has created a ridiculously inaccurate image of poker. After seeing famous players screaming and trash-talking, viewers naturally assume that such antics are normal. They are utterly mistaken. Television directors show these outbursts for "dramatic value," and a few players act stupidly to get on TV. You will see more outbursts in a half hour of television than in a month in a card room. Please remember that controlled people are often called "poker faced."

[/ QUOTE ]
I really liked this paragraph. It does annoy me how poker players are portrayed as stupid and obnoxous on TV. But if they were portrayed as quiet and nerdy I guess would be that much worse.

[Soncy]

First, let me say that I enjoyed reading the article and appreciate the idea of promoting poker as a game of skill, and furthermore, as having other positive attributes. However, I found many of the points to be pretty overstated if not borderline sophistry. Even though I enjoy poker and agree in theory with many of the points, I fear the one-sided-ness of the article may be a bit of a stumbling block for actually getting a point across to poker detractors. I’m going to poke a stick at a few things with which I had issues and also comment on ideas with which I wholeheartedly agree. Mostly what I continue to see is that each point should have a ‘could be’ instead of ‘is’. It’s all so dependent on the individual.

"POKER IS A GREAT TEACHER.
Poker teaches by rewarding desirable actions such as thinking logically and understanding other people and by punishing undesirable ones such as ignoring the odds and acting impulsively.2 "

I’m kind of annoyed that possibly the most important part of this passage as it applies to poker is a footnote which the reader may or may not bother to look up, given that to do so requires scrolling a mile down the page. “2 These rewards and punishments may not be instantaneous. It may take a while for things to average out.” …A fairly vital tidbit as far as poker being an educator is concerned. How many times have you made a correct decision as far as odds are concerned, and then been punished by the turn of the next card? The lessons that poker has to teach about being rewarded for making correct decisions occur over time. I truly believe that some individuals tend to be more in tune with what is happening right now, while others have a better ability to take a broader view and consider events past and future. The pupil is of paramount importance in determining whether poker is a good teacher or not. ‘Right now’ people are fun people—there is nothing wrong with them—all I’m saying is they will have a much harder job of learning poker lessons.

"Learning Depends Upon Feedback.
Rewards and punishments are valuable feedback. The faster and clearer the feedback is, the more rapidly you will learn."

Ha. You are playing no limit hold’em and go all in with your set of nines getting called by the guy with the gut shot straight draw who hits it on the river. You reload, limp in position against Mr. Gutshot and two other opponents, and catch an open ended straight flush draw with two overs to the board. Being a little gun shy you call Mr. Gutshot’s minimum bets to the river, getting great odds because the other two call along as well. You miss your monster draw and lose to Mr. Gutshot’s under pair to the board. Sometimes the punishment and rewards are neither fast nor clear. I reiterate the fact that the lessons of poker are found in an ongoing set of trials. Paying too much attention to instantaneous feedback in poker can be a very bad thing.

"Lessons Learned In One Situation Often Generalize To Other Situations.
If poker's lessons applied only to how to play games, we would not have written this article. But its lessons apply to virtually every aspect of life. For example, if you are impatient or illogical or can't analyze risks and rewards, you will lose at poker, and you will make many mistakes in business and personal relationships. If poker teaches you how to control your emotions, you will be much more effective almost everywhere."

Amen on this point. This principle is why teams do drills in practice. Work on a particular skill, and then apply it in a game situation. Unfortunately, drills do not always carry over with a one to one ratio, but still practice is practice.

"Young People Generally Learn More Quickly Than Older Ones."

I found this section to really be reaching. Not that good points weren’t made about young people constantly choosing to make risky and sometimes poor life decisions. Sure they do. They are the ultimate “right now” people. So naturally, I would tend to question their ability to easily learn the long term lessons that poker can offer. I don’t doubt that young people can play good poker. The game rewards aggression and fearlessness. But… “If it taught nothing else, poker would prevent some young people from making terrible mistakes.” Come on. I’m supposed to believe the patience to wait for some pocket queens, translates into the patience to wait for the right girl. I’m skeptical.

"POKER IMPROVES YOUR STUDY HABITS. "

Again some very good points were made, but this position is a reach. “Poker doesn't just develop study habits and other important qualities; it also increases the value people place on them.” Sure, poker can give someone a motive to study, but I contend that it is the more studious person ALREADY who actually does study to become better at poker. I’m not sure the people that are too short sighted to see that their football career will be ending after high school will be the best students of probability and the long term lessons poker has to offer.

"Winning increases their status and confidence and makes them much more likely to get dates and influence their peers." I can get behind increased confidence helping a person get dates and so forth. But the idea that winning at poker will increase ones status implies that society accepts poker wholeheartedly when one of the purposes of the article is dependent upon the premise that a portion of society, in fact, does not accept poker at all.

"Young people resist studying math, psychology, logic, risk-reward analysis, probability theory, and many other subjects they will need as adults because these subjects seem unrelated to their lives. … Poker quickly teaches them the value of these subjects."

I think I’ve covered the idea that poker lessons and quick learning do not belong in the same sentence. My sister, is a competent poker player (based mainly on her patience, I think), but when I try to talk about probability and odds with her, I end up wanting to pull my hair out. In response to me mentioning the percentages they post next to the cards on televised poker, she has said, “But they often change completely in the other guys favor on the next card.” One time I was griping about running poorly and joking about defying the laws of mathematics. She said something to the effect of maybe my percentages were off because other people weren’t folding when they should. {Throwing hands up.} Yes, there is value in all of the subjects mentioned. Whether or not that fact can be quickly learned is another issue entirely.

"POKER TEACHES YOU TO FOCUS ON THE LONG TERM."

Well, it should, but here’s the thing. If LIFE can’t do it, do we really expect POKER to do it?

"Impatience is not the only cause for short-sightedness. Learning research proves that immediate rewards have much greater impact on people than delayed ones. For example, most American adults are overweight because the immediate pleasure of overeating is more powerful than its disastrous long-term effects such as heart attacks."

So you are telling me that the same people that overeat and risk heart attacks are going to be disciplined enough to play good hands in good spots at the poker table? That’s in between smoke breaks, right? I’m being facetious, but surely we are placing too much on poker’s shoulders saying it can help cure society’s ills by making players focus on long term results.

"Poker players quickly learn that a bad play can have good results and vice versa, but that making decisions with positive, long-term expectation (EV) is the key to success."

No. No they don’t. Well, maybe ‘poker players’ do. But people who play poker…not necessarily. My dad has been playing a lot longer than I have, and he knows people that have been playing poker badly for many years. Surely long enough to have learned from not being able to win making certain plays over and over. Poker COULD teach you to focus on the long term. Like most of these really good points…it depends on the person.

"POKER TEACHES YOU HOW TO HANDLE LOSSES. Poker teaches you how to cope with losses because they occur so frequently. "

Poker certainly does give you ample opportunity to have to cope with losses. Hands not holding up, draws with odds not getting there, having a really great second best hand at the river…it can all be very frustrating. Often you do the right thing and get punished by losing the hand. Sometimes you do exactly the right thing, lose the hand, and then, the winner berates you for your play. Frequently, you might have a session or tourney where you have to sit and watch one or two players being rewarded for very poor play, while you and others are constantly being punished for making correct plays. This aspect of poker is indeed so much like life. Often the conniving, dishonest, or ruthless prosper. There have been numerous times in my Bible study when I’ve read about such prosperity being temporary and ultimately leading to ruin, and my mind has been drawn to the obvious parallel in poker.

"POKER TEACHES YOU TO DEPERSONALIZE CONFLICT."

That is a big bite to chew. Granted, I am aware that I have vengeance issues, but I’m also pretty sure that I’m not alone. The desire for vengeance is so human nature. I can almost imagine God watching us floundering around in our selfishness and unforgiveness until he couldn’t stand it anymore and had to come show us how it’s done.

“Poker teaches you to depersonalize conflicts because it is based on impersonal conflict. The objective is to win each other's money, and everyone's money is the same.” I’m am going to try to hold onto that thought the next time some obnoxious player sucks out on me and then berates me for my play, but it will be hard. Usually it doesn’t even have to happen to me personally. If someone is misbehaving at the table, I want to watch him limp away broke. And if it’s by my hand, all the sweeter. Like I said, issues. I’ve been playing poker for a few years now and do not feel I’ve been taught to depersonalize conflict. Just to hunker down in the grass.

"The Chinese have a wonderful saying, "If you set out for revenge, dig two graves: one for him, and one for you." Poker teaches that principle to every open-minded player."

Finally, a much needed qualifier.

"POKER TEACHES YOU HOW TO APPLY PROBABILITY THEORY."

It can, but I’m telling you, some people just have a terribly difficult time grasping it. Even once you have it down pretty well, you have to go back to analyzing situations, especially in tournament poker. Your chip position, your opponents’ chips, placement and payout…there’s a lot to consider. I don’t mean to sell my fellow man short, but I think some of it is just beyond some people. To act like it’s a cut and dried thing that anyone can learn is surely inaccurate and misleading.

I once jokingly stated that “Poker is evil like Jarts are evil.” But all kidding aside, I actually stand by my statement. For those of you not familiar with Jarts, it’s a game of lawn darts where you try to toss large—rather stubby tipped, if I’m remembering correctly—darts into a plastic ring. I played it many times as a kid with nary an injury. However, following at least one fatality, the sale of Jarts was banned in the U.S. That’s right, you can purchase firearms…but the deadly Jart is a no-no. Anyway, the point is that surely hundreds of thousands have played Jarts without tragic incident, but yes, in the wrong hands, they apparently can be quite harmful…like rocks, swimming pools, automobiles, etc. I think poker can be a fun pastime for a lot of people…an occupation for some. For a few individuals it can certainly be harmful, but for some, many of the points made in the “Poker is good for you” article are surely true…it all depends on the person

[Sparks]

Although I have great respect for the authors, the article missed for me, and I do not think it will have the intended affect on the general public.

Poker is without a doubt a game of skill and getting that simple point across to non-players would be a great stride. But, the fact remains that poker is gambling, and that lone undeniable fact will make all the positive things about the game discussed in the article, moot to many who read it.

Having been in casinos playing poker since long before the boom, I've made estimates that perhaps 5% of players are winning players, and upwards of 30% are living sad gambling-addicted lives of misery in casinos.

This is reality, and the article does not address it. The general public who doesn't have a clue about poker probably thinks along those lines, and they're right. Because the article does not address all the potential negatives of poker, and they are significant, it will most likely lack credibility to the general public.

[Al Schoonmaker]

You wrote: "the fact remains that poker is gambling, and that lone undeniable fact will make all the positive things about the game discussed in the article, moot to many who read it."

You are correct that it will be moot to many, but it will influence SOME. How many? I don't know, but every bit helps. Most elections are won by fairly small margins. If we convert a small percentage of "undecided" and "neutral" to "pro," or a small percentage of "negative" to "neutral," it can have a HUGE impact. Please note that we don't expect to convert "negative" to "positive." We aimed at the middle because that is where elections are won. And elections determine which laws that are passed and the ways that they are interpreted and enforced.

You wrote:"upwards of 30% [of players] are living sad gambling-addicted lives of misery in casinos." Where did you get that number? Even the most severe critics of gambling claim the percentage of gamblers who are addicted ranges from 1.5 to 6.5. See, for example, Robert Goodman, "The Luck Business," P. 42. I must add that Goodman was the director of The United States Gambling Study (see page vii of that book), and the book is extremely anti-gambling.

Since your number is ridiculous, your claim that the general public thinks that way is absurd.

Al

[Sparks]

[ QUOTE ]
You wrote:"upwards of 30% [of players] are living sad gambling-addicted lives of misery in casinos." Where did you get that number? Even the most severe critics of gambling claim the percentage of gamblers who are addicted ranges from 1.5 to 6.5. See, for example, Robert Goodman, "The Luck Business," P. 42. I must add that Goodman was the director of The United States Gambling Study (see page vii of that book), and the book is extremely anti-gambling.

Since your number is ridiculous, your claim that the general public thinks that way is absurd.

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

My 30% number is certainly not based on any study or scientific data; it is just my impression based on my own observations and experience. Over 90% of the players in the casino I play at are losing players I would guess, and of those, many are what I would describe as consistent, significant losers. And of those significant losers, many are there at least 5 days a week, if not every day. THOSE are addicted gamblers. If you can't see that poker is addicting, and that many are in fact hopelessly addicted, then you are in denial.

A while back I considered quitting my job and playing casino poker full time. One of my house-player buddies talked me out of it, saying "Look around. How'd you like to have THESE people as the ones you see every day when going to work." He was making a point, and he was right. Presuming you've spent lots of time in poker rooms, you know what I'm talking about. Poker rooms are filled with people who are living miserable poker-addicted lives.

My estimate of 30% is a percentage of players in a poker room at any one time, which means if they are playing much more often then non-addicted "healthy" poker players, then they of course would make up a smaller overall percentage of poker players -- perhaps much smaller.

Big caveat: I play in Southern California which is nortorious for having disgraceful, rude, dealer-bashing players. And I can say that the first thing I notice when playing in Las Vegas is how civilized it is. Now that I think about it, that might put a quash on my whole argument.