Alan Schoonmaker's Opinion For My Next Book

[David Sklansky]

I'm starting a new thread on this because I would like to hear comments specifically about Dr.Schoonmaker's thoughts. He is having computer problems or he would have posted this himself. The subject matter is explained in the thread "What book should I write next?" I want to add that the algebra book I had in mind would be too simplistic to be appropriate for a textbook. It's purpose would be mainly to keep math challenged kids from flunking. Adults could use it as a refresher and precoscious younger children might like it as well. But it wouldn't replace the official text:

"David,

I’ll comment on all four.

WHAT POKER TEACHES US

As you know, I am fascinated by this subject, believe that poker can teach
many useful lessons, and have written about it. However, I’m unsure of the
commercial prospects. A literary agent told me that she had great
difficulty getting a publisher for a similar book by a moderately well-known
poker author.

ALGEBRA FOR TEN YEAR OLDS (And those who think like them).

You did not describe your approach in your post, but we did discuss it
recently. I believe that your basic premise is brilliant pedagogically, but
commercially unattractive. The people who buy it would get a great book, but
hardly anyone will buy it (unless you find a new way to market it).

The educational establishment is EXTRAORDINARILY resistant to change. For
example, lectures became obsolete when the printing press was invented five
centuries ago, but they are still the primary instructional method.

Teachers and administrators are EXTREMELY opposed to anything that improves
performance or even allows it to be measured. The teachers’ unions were the
most vociferous opponents of the proficiency tests, and they absolutely
insist that teachers’ compensation should be based on non-performance
criteria. In fact, they have fought against nearly every attempt to improve
American students’ abysmal performance on tests of math, science, etc.

Textbooks are purchased by bureaucracies, and the decisions have almost
nothing to do with how well a book teaches. It is an extremely centralized
and politicized process, which is completely different from the way 2+2 has
sold books.

You would therefore have to find a new way to sell books, and that is not
your own or Mason’s expertise. Nor do either of you want to worry about new
ways to market and distribute books. In other words, stick to what you both
do well, writing and publishing gambling books.

50 POKER HANDS THAT REALLY TEACH YOU SOMETHING

Although I’m sure you could do an outstanding job with this book, I can’t
imagine poker players agreeing that there is only one way to play a hand.
Just look at our forums. Some debates about hands have five or more
positions.

None-the-less, I am sure that this book would be a commercial and pedagogic
success. Poker players LOVE to discuss hands. In fact, I doubt that you
should try to write THE definitive answer to how a hand should be played.
Instead, say this hand can be played in (say) three ways. Then give the pros
and cons of each way.

That approach would stimulate discussions on our forums, and those
discussions create active learning. By chance, my next series of “Card
Player” articles is on “Learning Efficiently,” and it stresses the
importance of active learning.

Because you would select the right hands and lay out the pros and cons of
various approaches, the forum discussions would be much better structured
than usual. People would be able to see that Charlie is making this mistake,
but Susie is making a different one. That helps people to understand how
their own thinking processes are flawed.

A SIMPLE GUIDE TO "THE THEORY OF POKER"

TOP is the greatest poker book ever written, and a simplified version of it
would be a HUGE seller. There are literally millions of potential readers.
They know they need to understand more theory, but TOP is too difficult for
them. I think it’s the one you should write.

Not only should you simplify the text, you should also add a number of
tests. These tests should measure:
• The understanding of theory
• The ability to apply it to problems

The “Answers” should comment on the significance of various errors and tell
readers what to do to correct them. For example, if someone chooses answer
A, it means he doesn’t fully understand Concept X and should read specific
pages.

I hope my comments are usual.

Regards,

Al"

[gwhiz_612]

[ QUOTE ]
TOP is the greatest poker book ever written, and a simplified version of it
would be a HUGE seller. There are literally millions of potential readers.
They know they need to understand more theory, but TOP is too difficult for
them. I think it’s the one you should write.

Not only should you simplify the text, you should also add a number of
tests. These tests should measure:
• The understanding of theory
• The ability to apply it to problems

The “Answers” should comment on the significance of various errors and tell
readers what to do to correct them. For example, if someone chooses answer
A, it means he doesn’t fully understand Concept X and should read specific
pages.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
50 POKER HANDS THAT REALLY TEACH YOU SOMETHING

Although I’m sure you could do an outstanding job with this book, I can’t imagine poker players agreeing that there is only one way to play a hand. Just look at our forums. Some debates about hands have five or more positions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without having thought about the others much, this quote springs into my eye so I can comment on it easily.

The discussions on the 2+2 board about David Sklansky hands suffer from one major problem: David will hardly ever post his solution and if he does, there won't be any explanation. People are used to this "do you see why?" or "I let others elaborate"-stuff and it has already become a running gag.

This is why I think that this book could fill a huge gap.

Nevertheless, since I have made it a rule for myself to read everything written by David, I am looking forward to any of these books and I hope that all of them get written sooner or later.

[David Sklansky]

The questions I post on this forum are usually a lot more debatable than the ones I have in mind for the book.

[tipperdog]

Dr. Al is basically right about the books. But this statement:
[ QUOTE ]

Teachers and administrators are EXTREMELY opposed to anything that improves
performance or even allows it to be measured

[/ QUOTE ]

is patently absurd. I've worked extensively in the education space and wholehartedly agree with the gist of his concerns about entrenched bureaucracies (including teachers unions). But to say that teachers and admins oppose increasing performance is deeply insulting to educators and is just plain nuts.

It would be more accurate to say that entrenched bureaucracies are highly resistant to change, and this will be a major obstacle to implementing your pedagogical approach and selling your book.

He is correct that marketing a textbook is a vastly different enterprise than marketing a poker book. Hence, you would need a different marketing strategy. If you were seriously interested in this, you should pitch your idea to a major textbook publisher and see what they think.

[D.L.M.]

I think a new Theory of poker would be a great idea and lots of people would show interest.
You would need to rivise it into limit and no limit concepts, and perhaps you can now explain the differences in theory between the two betting structures. That book would sell.

[icetonez]

[ QUOTE ]
He is correct that marketing a textbook is a vastly different enterprise than marketing a poker book. Hence, you would need a different marketing strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggested to David on instant messenger that he approach a large tutoring service like Sylvan Learning Center to not only sell the book as part of their services, but to patent and sell the method for all of their tutors to use. I believe that would make him a lot more money and help a lot of struggling students.

[El Diablo]

David,

"stick to what you both do well, writing and publishing gambling books."

I think that's a pretty lame attitude.

[jfk]

[ QUOTE ]
TOP is the greatest poker book ever written, and a simplified version of it would be a HUGE seller. There are literally millions of potential readers. They know they need to understand more theory, but TOP is too difficult for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Might it be possible that the opposite is true? Might not an expanded version be more attractive to the potential poker readers out there?

To take it a step further, might an expanded, 21st Century edition TOP be a great opportunity to bring in someone like Bill Robertie as a co-author.

Sklansky is an acknowledged guru of theory, but the nature of the writing and editing in TOP is what makes the material difficult, not the theory itself.

HOH was a huge success in part due to its accessibility. The writing and clarity of presentation was on par with the information provided. If a new edition of TOP were to be written to the same standards there'd be no need for simplification. The nature of the way games have changed would invite a lot of new material.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
A SIMPLE GUIDE TO "THE THEORY OF POKER"

TOP is the greatest poker book ever written, and a simplified version of it
would be a HUGE seller. There are literally millions of potential readers.
They know they need to understand more theory, but TOP is too difficult for
them. I think it’s the one you should write.

Not only should you simplify the text, you should also add a number of
tests. These tests should measure:
• The understanding of theory
• The ability to apply it to problems

The “Answers” should comment on the significance of various errors and tell
readers what to do to correct them. For example, if someone chooses answer
A, it means he doesn’t fully understand Concept X and should read specific
pages.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this, but that's why I don't want you to write it. If you only want to sell books and make money (which I would completely understand, and which I would probably want in your position), then this book is almost certainly the best choice. However, I don't think that anyone NEEDS this book. If they do not understand the concepts as presented in the original TOP, then they will never be a world-class (or even extremely good) player.