Poker is Good for You

[Al Schoonmaker]

Your position is contrary to the fundamental assumption of ALL education: Lessons learned in one place are applied to other places.

If that assumption is not made, then there is no reason to go to school.

Regards,

Al

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget that poker can be addictive and is an addiction to many people. This is a big reason why 'they' want to ban poker

[/ QUOTE ]

Banning something because it can be addictive to a small number of people is silly.

Should alcohol be banned because some people choose to misuse it/abuse it?

And why would it be a better idea to ban poker than cigarettes, which are also addictive, but cost many people their lives and not just some poker chips?

[lemondropmmm]

While I love the intent and content, the fact I come from a family of teachers means the key point and title of this article bothers me considerably. Poker actually teaches you nothing.

You can use poker as a great learning tool, but in itself it teaches nothing. Like how baseball is supposed to teach teamwork. Barry Bonds is the proof baseball did not teach it at all.

The person has to want to learn. Poker is a tool, not a teacher.

[Al Schoonmaker]

You wrote: "it is preaching to the choir, and will have zero impact on those mindlessly opposed to gambling."

First, as Mason clearly said in his Publisher's Note, this article is not addressed to you. It is addressed to the general public.

Second, it may not convince some people who are "mindlessly opposed." By definition, someone who is "mindless" is immune to logic. But it will have some impact on a few of the people who dislike poker, but don’t understand it. We also hope that it will have substantial impact on the most important group, the people who don’t have strong opinions either way.

A central principle of political science is that most elections are won in the center. Some people will always vote this way, and some people will always vote the other way, no matter what you say or do. Their minds are often made up before the campaign begins.

So smart politicians aim for the center. They spend their time and money trying to appeal to the “undecided” voters. The party or candidate who wins their votes wins most elections. They are the people we hope to reach, and we would appreciate the help of anyone who is worried about poker’s future.

Regards,

Al

[jason1990]

There seem to be several negative reactions to this article throughout the forums. It may be that those who react positively are less likely to comment. So let me post my thoughts in an attempt to balance the negativity.

I thought this was an excellent article. (Typos should be fixed, though.) I actually sat down to write an article with this exact same theme two years ago. I got busy with other things and never finished it. The present article is substantially better than anything I could have come up with.

At its core, poker is just a game. It is a recreational competition between human beings. I believe such games, of all forms, are important for us as a people, because they provide an environment in which we can learn important lessons that can be carried over into the more serious competitions that constitute our life. Poker can teach us some very unique lessons that most other games cannot. For example, in poker it is possible to make all the right decisions and still have negative results in the short run. This phenomenon is so obviously ubiquitous in life in general, and yet many people are unable to deal with it properly. In life, we tend to think in terms of the following dichotomy: either a situation is governed by chance, or it is governed by our decisions. In the former case, it hardly matters what we do. In the latter case, it is important for us to make the right decisions. In poker, we see that this is a false dichotomy. In the short run, chance is the ruler. It is the dominant force in dictating the immediate outcome of things. And yet it is the farthest thing from the truth to say that our decisions hardly matter. In fact, it is just the opposite. Habitual bad decisions will ruin us. A successful poker player must constantly have his eye on the long run and be ever vigilant against bad habits whose effects may not be seen for a long time. Many people would benefit greatly from learning this lesson and carrying it over into the broader range of activities in their life.

I play poker in order to strive toward mastering the game. My goal is to constantly learn and improve. Not only do I strive toward mastering the strategy of the game, but I also strive toward mastering myself and my emotions. The lessons I learn as I travel this path are extremely important to me in other areas of my life.

I realize, however, that I am probably in the minority. Most people here, it seems, view poker and their reasons for playing poker very differently. Here are some quotes:

[ QUOTE ]
Quote 1: Telling the world that poker is good for you is just BS. Poker is only good for those that can win.

[/ QUOTE ]
This poster clearly does not agree with me that the goal of playing poker is to strive toward mastering the game and mastering yourself. Perhaps for this poster, the goal of poker is simply to make a lot of money.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote 2: In it's simplest form -- the goal [of poker] is to prey on the weak. Is that ok?

[/ QUOTE ]
This poster does not agree with me, either. He believes the goal is not only to make a lot of money, but to make it from weak people in a predatory fashion.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote 3: Pokerstars plans to start a school to teach the fish. I think this is the worst possible idea, educate the fish....nice. They say on the website they are going to have forums, blogs, rankings, lessons from pros, videos, etc. Greg Raymer, Barry Greenstein, Joe hachem, etc are going to be teaching it.

I e-mailed them saying how bad i think the idea is and how much im agaisnt them teaching the fish.I hope everyone will too.

[/ QUOTE ]
For this poster, learning to master the game is important, but it is not the goal. It is simply a means toward the goal, which is to make a lot of money. To further the true goal (making money), we should in fact try to prevent others from learning about the game. Many people replied to this poster and disagreed, saying that Stars' school is not a bad idea. However, most of them argued that the school will not really teach people the game, but instead teach them only enough to give them a false sense of security. Therefore, the pool of losers will not be lessened, and we can continue to make a lot of money.

Sklansky and Schoonmaker have said that their article is not intended for the 2+2 readership. But I think it should be. Granted, many 2+2 members, in the course of their study, have learned the lessons described in the article. But many, perhaps most, do not focus enough on the intrinsic value of these lessons. These lessons are what poker is all about. It is not about preying on the weak, or making lots of money, unless you choose to make it about that.

From Dead Poets Society:
[ QUOTE ]
Now, devotees may argue that one sport or game is inherently better than another. For me, sport is actually a chance for us to have other human beings push us to excel.

[/ QUOTE ]

[jackflashdrive]

I thought about writing an article along these lines. I'm glad I didn't, because my article would not have been anywhere near this good.

[Poker Clif]

[ 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 agree with the first part of your argument, not so much with the second part. Don't forget that poker can be addictive and is an addiction to many people. This is a big reason why 'they' want to ban poker and unfortunately Sklansky's doesn't say anything about this in his article.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the article, footnote number one:

1 We assume, of course, that you will not become obsessed with poker or play for higher stakes than you can afford.

[JackCase]

[ QUOTE ]

So smart politicians aim for the center. They spend their time and money trying to appeal to the “undecided” voters. The party or candidate who wins their votes wins most elections. They are the people we hope to reach, and we would appreciate the help of anyone who is worried about poker’s future.

Regards,

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

The people in the center on this issue do not care enough about it to do anything. If they are currently vaguely against poker and logical arguments change their minds so that they are vaguely in favor of legalizing it, nothing has changed enough to make it happen. The center is still going to be ruled by inertia, and any action will be spurred by the extremes, where people do care enough one way or another to do something.

My own view is that online poker will be legalized in this country, and that the impetus will be economics. One option is that the Feds will see that prohibition is unenforceable and will opt to regulate and tax it. Another option is that some party of interest with sufficient resources will challenge the Feds in court and win.

A scenario for the second case would be a state legalizing online poker and offering to serve any US player. Any number of states would love to have some big internet poker sites as part of their tax base. Few states actually ban playing online, and most experts believe that the federal wire act does not apply to poker. But it will take a definitive court case to settle the issue.

None of the scenarios discussed above would be affected by changing anyone's mind with logical arguments about the non-economic benefits of poker. Frankly, I believe that even a disinterested reader with an open mind would dismiss this article as self-serving and as failing to address the core reason for playing poker: to try to win money. (That was my general impression of the article, and I am 100% behind the intent.)

[MrX5000]

[ QUOTE ]
While I love the intent and content, the fact I come from a family of teachers means the key point and title of this article bothers me considerably. Poker actually teaches you nothing.

You can use poker as a great learning tool, but in itself it teaches nothing. Like how baseball is supposed to teach teamwork. Barry Bonds is the proof baseball did not teach it at all.

The person has to want to learn. Poker is a tool, not a teacher.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree that it doesn't teach you things you can apply other places. Poker is about risk and investment, reading people, and making predictions based on an unlimited amount of variables.

The difference between a good poker player and a great one is the ability to coordinate as many variables as possible and as quickly and convincingly as possible.

The problem that you're alluding to is not related to poker itself but the competition factor that's involved in any sport.

[Poker Clif]

[ 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.