article is pretty crappy


takes it from the development of the individual perspective, but overlooks a few key things

-At what costs?
-What about the path not taken?

There are other methods to learn all of these lessons that don't have the negative personal and societal costs. The alternative to playing poker is not nothing. There is a chunk of time that very well could involve activities that improve a person in all those ways and then some.


For a fun exercise....swith reality television with poker in the article and its main points. I know I could contsruct the exact same argument for reality tv.

You are overlooking the gratuitous sex of reality TV, a socially redeeming aspect which is definitely lacking in poker.

Mason, Dynasty, et al:

Please make a sticky for this forum, post this article as a locked thread and include it in the sticky.

If this article scrolls, the purpose of it is defeated.

Poker is good for me because if it wasn't for poker, there would be little other resources for making a living wage. For a small amount of money, relative to college, I am able to earn what a trained office professional is able to learn.

As a professional, I am riddled with addiction. This is the healthiest way that I am able to outlet my addictions.

There is very little that I can say to a casual player of why I play. Many casual players do not care, nor take the pride to learn much in their daily lives. Most Americans do not care to read, persue good music, or appreciate art. In a society that still believes that the proper path to education is schooling, this article is going to ring as contradictory.

Most people do not take the time to analyze and reflect upon lessons in life and strategy in life. The average person never read Carnegie, always seeks out employment, and has children long before they are ready. They take the lives that they have now and eat off the plates that are served for them. Trying to talk to people like they are going to improve to some sort of professional executive thinker is not going to work.

I took many dives in my life that where poorly calculated, and even now, I do not believe that knowing how to play poker would have changed anything in my life. I have always been good at games of strategy. Saying that applying this to my life sound like a bunch of BS to me, even.

If people really want to change their lives, and learn, we all need to have experiences. An actor in Orlando is going to quickly figure out that there is no future in Disney World. They will go to LA or NY and fail, fail, fail, and with experience, succeed. I am not convinced that playing poker is going to help this person.

So what happens if all of a sudden I cannot play on-line? I am not going to quit playing poker. I will adjust to the conditions. I will go back to playing in a real casino. No big worry there. Howard Stern was fined over and over again. Did he quit? No, he went where he could express himself and now earns more money than he used to. Did poker teach him this? No. Life taught him this. That he was shrewed enough and thoughtful enough to pull off his success is a reflection of the spark that drove him to succeed in the first place.

Poker will never teach the attributes to learn it.

I think that the biggest test is to say that anyone can learn to become successful at this game, that I can teach anyone to be a winning player by plugging in these attributes. This is outrageous. This forum itself is a testament to how many players are busted out and can't figure out how to beat the game, even after reading 15 books, playing for hours, doing the math, and studying the threads. Many people may be collapsing "as the palm trees are on the horizon." Poker is a ruthless game to win at. Only a select few can say they can beat it. Out of these few, a handful can say that they have mastered all the attributes to truly succeed at it. I would never take the time to teach anyone from scratch. Many people simply don't have the interest to learn something like math. And why would they want to learn for some game anyways.

To be successful at poker means that you must have most of the attributes mentioned in the essay. Attributes that will serve you well in other aspects of your life. If you don't have them already you have to learn them if you want to win. Furthermore this necessity to learn them becomes pretty obvious fairly quickly to any intelligent aspiring player or student of the game. A game that is unrivaled in as far as the sheer number of different attributes that are in fact required.

The above summary of our essay contains information that is not well known to non players.

All the rest is details.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

What's the current URL of this article? It is no longer at http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/c...maker0907.html 'cause it's no longer the current edition.

Poker is gambling right? Then let me ask you this, is baseball gambling?

Baseball is on Tv every single night of the week and kids are taught at a young age to play baseball. They are gambling their youth spending countless hours and days on the diamond hoping to some day make money playing the game they love.

How come when the owner of a baseball franchise signs a free agent that has .310 batting avg for 5mil a year is it not considered gambling? There is no guarantee this player will maintain the same numbers. There is not even a guarantee he will make it out of spring training without a season ending injury.

Just as in poker you can play the best hand the proper way but there is no guarantee on the following cards.

It takes skill to play poker just as it does baseball. In poker at least you control the amount your willing to risk. In baseball you have to pay the standard even if you wish you could risk less. It is what it is.

Poker is a sport. You want to call it gambling? You mid as well call Baseball, Football and Basketball gambling. Is it because those sports are more physical? Why dont you ask the guy that caught a black eye for sucking out on the river if he feels poker can be a physical game.

The fact that all of these games need a degree of mental ability should make them all legal and not considered gambling.

To me this is one of the very few post in this forum that deserve to be read.

It makes me laugh how the most of players are afraid of the potentially dangerous fact of a poker school. It shows how them think, and this is the very reason poker is so cool: because the most of its people have crap in his head, but specially the ones who think they are beating the game.

I think a valuable upgrade to the forums would be a new feature that puts a big flashing sign in red lettering "This was an old thread that was bumped just recently"

that article came across as transparent propaganda. anyone who believes any piece of it would be a simple soul who probably couldn't be bothered to vote anyways.

to win the hearts of the swinging voters you need to touch the things that they swing on, like hospitals, law and order, taxes...

if i was cynical i would say that such an intellectually shoddy piece of work was written to encourage newcomers to 2p2 to sign up through 2p2 to poker sites.

http://digg.com/other_sports/Why_Poker_is_Good

Dynasty Edit: Old articles of the 2+2 Magazine are removed from the site after three months and all rights returned to the author.

If you want an article, you should contact the author.

I think that i'd agree that poker is a game of skill and not just "gambling," but calling it a sport is a little bit of a stretch.

chess is sport, right?

Poker reflects the character of those who play the game. It is neither good or bad, it simply reveals who you are dealing with.

valenvan

The magazine articles posted online deserve a longer shelf life. Three months is not enough time.

valenvan