A Schoonmaker POP Error: Categorizing Yourself
QuadNines
leads to costly errors at the poker tables.[1] Even worse, though, he
also suggests you apply the same method to categorize your own style
of play.
Rather than rate yourself by how loosely and aggressively you play,
Schoonmaker has you rate yourself by how loosely and aggressively you
play compared to others at the table.
The average player varies from game to game, and
the definition of the more extreme types should be
adjusted accordingly. For example, if about half
of the players in a game call on third street (in
stud) or before the flop (in hold 'em or Omaha),
then the average player (on looseness) is someone
who calls about half the time. If more or less
players call, then the average and all other
ratings must be adjusted upward or downward. (THE
PSYCHOLOGY OF POKER, 2000, pp. 78-79.)
Let's consider an extreme scenario, just to make the flaws of this
approach very obvious. Suppose you are in your usual game at the
local VFW, where all your opponents are granite rocks. Outside of the
big blind, nobody calls more than five percent of the time. Bets or
raises are rarer than a kind word about "them damn draft dodgers."
As the only exception, you see the flop with your big blind and ten
percent of your other hands. You also bet or raise about ten percent
of the time.
According to Schoonmaker, you're a maniac. You'll lose lots of money
"because poker rewards patience, discipline, and *selective*
aggression, while you are impatient, undisciplined, and
*promiscuously* aggressive." (P. 137.)
You're probably addicted to the action (p. 141), but if you can
change, you should calm down, tighten up, and reduce your aggression.
"Nothing will improve your game faster than tightening up." (P. 146.)
Being selectively aggressive, though, "is almost as important as
tightening up." (P. 146.)
Schoonmaker "does not claim to be an expert on poker theory or
strategy." (P. x.) With advice like this, I understand why.
Next week: "Life in a Two-Dimensional World."
-----------------
[1] See http://tinyurl.com/kaeb -- QuadNines, 11 Aug. 2003,
"Schoonmaker's POP Errors: Categorizing Opponents."
Gary Carson
70's and tried to apply it to poker. He spend a lot of effort trying
to do the translation and apparently spent no effort in trying to
determine whether the schema is even appropriate.
In analyzing management styles it is appropriate to define your styles
against a benchmark of a typical style in your organization. The
schema wasn't intended to be a guide for CEO's in steering their
companies culture, it was intended as a guide for middle managers in
fitting in with whatever the culture might be.
That's not the way to do it in a poker game. The whole book is based
on that false premise, it's worthless.
On 17 Aug 2003 12:25:21 -0700, Quad...@hotmail.com (QuadNines)
wrote:
AskRuss
read that.
I'm a little surprised Sklansky allowed himself to be associated with this
trash. Money is powerful motivator. Malmuth isn't surprising, as he
probably doesn't really understand it anyway.
AR.
> Schoonmaker took a schema that was used in management seminars in the
> 70's and tried to apply it to poker. He spend a lot of effort trying
> to do the translation and apparently spent no effort in trying to
> determine whether the schema is even appropriate.
>
> In analyzing management styles it is appropriate to define your styles
> against a benchmark of a typical style in your organization. The
> schema wasn't intended to be a guide for CEO's in steering their
> companies culture, it was intended as a guide for middle managers in
> fitting in with whatever the culture might be.
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
>That explains the idiocy. Thank you Mr. Carson, that's the first time
I've
>read that.
I recognize it from some seminar's I went to back when I was a
corporate dweeb, and I remember a HBR article about it.
That's what Schoonmaker's background is. His PhD isn't in psychology,
it's in in industrial psychology, also called organizational
psychology, sometimes called organizational behavior. Personnel and
managment training.
>
>I'm a little surprised Sklansky allowed himself to be associated with
this
>trash. Money is powerful motivator. Malmuth isn't surprising, as he
>probably doesn't really understand it anyway.
I'm sure Malmuth didn't understand it, and so long as it hyped other
2+2 books Malmuth would assume that it's top notch stuff.
Sklansky seems to be willing to sell his name to anything for fairly
low prices. Look at what happened to that computer game he sold his
name too -- the one that actually damaged some users computers.
QuadNines
>
> Schoonmaker took a schema that was used in management
> seminars in the 70's and tried to apply it to poker.
> He spend a lot of effort trying to do the translation
> and apparently spent no effort in trying to determine
> whether the schema is even appropriate.
>
> In analyzing management styles it is appropriate to
> define your styles against a benchmark of a typical
> style in your organization. The schema wasn't
> intended to be a guide for CEO's in steering their
> companies culture, it was intended as a guide for
> middle managers in fitting in with whatever the
> culture might be.
>
> That's not the way to do it in a poker game. The
> whole book is based on that false premise, it's
> worthless.
Actually, not the *whole* book. Sometimes, Schoonmaker ignores his
own advice:
Loose-passive players (LPPs) are the easiest to
beat, and there are lots of them, particularly
in the smaller games. (P. 156.)
If you rate looseness and aggression relatively by comparing against
an average, then there should be about an equal number of
loose-passive, loose-aggressive, tight-passive, and tight-aggressive
players.
Gary Carson
>Actually, not the *whole* book. Sometimes, Schoonmaker ignores his
>own advice:
>
> Loose-passive players (LPPs) are the easiest to
> beat, and there are lots of them, particularly
> in the smaller games. (P. 156.)
>
>If you rate looseness and aggression relatively by comparing against
>an average, then there should be about an equal number of
>loose-passive, loose-aggressive, tight-passive, and tight-aggressive
>players.
Like most writers he gets characteristics of players and
characteristics of games confused.
It can be an aggresive game and still consist of mostly passive
players
Jeff Porten
single table is a bit silly -- even as a newbie player that didn't make
a whole lot of sense to me.
However, the rest of the book -- you know, all those pages outside of
that one point you're nitpicking? -- were *extremely* valuable to me as
a new player. His discussions about what makes a loose player a loose
player, and the motivations of my opponents at the table, were things
that I'm not sure I'd have picked up on my own, and certainly not as
quickly as I did having read the book.
People here are pretty quick to call a book garbage. I'd say POP is an
excellent 2nd or 3rd book for a new player.
Gary Carson
wrote:
>Agreed that Schoonmaker's discussion of comparing players only at a
>single table is a bit silly -- even as a newbie player that didn't
make
>a whole lot of sense to me.
>
>However, the rest of the book -- you know, all those pages outside of
>that one point you're nitpicking? -- were *extremely* valuable to me
as
>a new player. His discussions about what makes a loose player a
loose
>player,
Stop right there.
First of all, if you don't know what a loose player is then it kind of
makes it a waste of time to talk about what motivates them.
Secondly, the whole idea is based on a false premise. He assumes that
you have some "style" that is your playing style. That's absurd. No
good player has some rigid "style". Sometimes I play a lot of hands,
sometimes I don't. Sometimes I raise a lot, sometimes I don't. I
don't have a "style".
And, you shouldn't either.
> and the motivations of my opponents at the table, were things
>that I'm not sure I'd have picked up on my own, and certainly not as
>quickly as I did having read the book.
Here's what he says about the motivations of loose/aggresive players.
From p. 141
"LAP's just love action and some of them are literally addicted to it.
The term "addiction" means an uncontrollable, destructive, craving,
and that is exactly what they have. The thrill of gambling often
outweighs everything else: Judgement, strategic concepts, awareness
that a game is too tough, even their major responsibilities."
He goes on to talk about pathological behavior, leaving children
sleeping on the floor while the LAP gambles away the rent and food
money.
That's absurd. He doesn't have a similar passage about loose/passive
players, but I suspect that there are more compulsive gamblers among
the population of loose/passive players than amongh the ranks of
loose/aggresive players. Certainly you wouldn't call slot machine
addicts loose/aggresive players.
Most loose/aggresive players are very aware of strategic elements of
the game, that's what they're doing is trying to strategically
manipulate the action. They may lose money at it, but it's just
ignorant to think they don't know what they're doing.
There's nothing in that book that's worthwhile past a very superficial
view of a complex subject.
>
>People here are pretty quick to call a book garbage. I'd say POP is
an
>excellent 2nd or 3rd book for a new player.
>
It's a terrible book, gives a very false impression of the psychology
of gambling and poker.
QuadNines
> Agreed that Schoonmaker's discussion of comparing
> players only at a single table is a bit silly --
> even as a newbie player that didn't make a whole
> lot of sense to me.
Yet that glaring error still managed to get by Schoonmaker, Malmuth
(the book's editor), and Sklansky (the book's "Strategy Consultant").
As far as I know, none of them has even acknowledged that it is a
mistake.
> However, the rest of the book -- you know, all
> those pages outside of that one point you're
> nitpicking? -- were *extremely* valuable to me
> as a new player.
First, I've only just begun. Do you believe the rest of the book is
free of mistakes? I will be discussing many other points in the weeks
to come. I've already revealed my next topic: "Life in a
Two-Dimensional World."
Second, disputing Schoonmaker's seriously flawed method of
categorizing players isn't something I consider to be "nitpicking."
What's your definition of "nitpicking?"
Two-thirds of his book is devoted to pigeonholing players and using
those labels to change your play. This categorization is the linchpin
upon which Schoonmaker bases his advice. If you miscategorize
players, then many of Schoonmaker's suggestions can be a "bit" silly.
(Others are erroneous even without miscategorization.)
> His discussions about what makes a loose player a
> loose player, and the motivations of my opponents
> at the table, were things that I'm not sure I'd
> have picked up on my own, and certainly not as
> quickly as I did having read the book.
Yes, it's good to point out that making money isn't he only reason
people play poker, especially at the lower limits. I believe Carson's
book also discusses motives--more succinctly and accurately than does
Schoonmaker. As Carson noted in his response to your post, some of
Schoonmaker's explanations of motives are a "bit" off.
> People here are pretty quick to call a book garbage.
> I'd say POP is an excellent 2nd or 3rd book for a new
> player.
Here's a little test of your objectivity. Even excellent poker books
contain mistakes. What would you say are the five most serious errors
in PSYCHOLOGY OF POKER?
Jeff Porten
> First of all, if you don't know what a loose player is then it kind of
> makes it a waste of time to talk about what motivates them.
Hell, Gary, I knew what a loose player was on page 5 of the first book I
read.
> Secondly, the whole idea is based on a false premise. He assumes that
> you have some "style" that is your playing style. That's absurd. No
> good player has some rigid "style". Sometimes I play a lot of hands,
> sometimes I don't. Sometimes I raise a lot, sometimes I don't. I
> don't have a "style".
Careful, Gary. You're running the risk of falling into the same trap
that Phil Hellmuth does in his book.
I'm a low-limit player; in the words of one of the tiltboys, 6-12 makes
my knees knock. Where I play poker, probably about 99% of the people I
play against are so rigid that you can categorize them in their first
five hands, and be accurate for the rest of the night.
What POP did for me is give me a good framework to put myself into the
shoes of that other player over there. Before I read it, I didn't have
that point of view; after I read it, I did. It improved my game. You
can say all you like about how there are other, better books out there
-- and sure, maybe there are, I haven't yet read ALL of them.
But I bought the book, my game got better, and I felt like I understood
the players better. Will I need to relearn this skill when I'm playing
20-40? Sure.
> And, you shouldn't either.
Now I'm kinda confused. Every poker book on the planet, including
yours, talks about tight-loose and passive-aggressive. Do you adjust
your game for game conditions? Yes. Do you modify your assessment of a
player based on his actions? Yes.
Is tight-loose passive-aggressive the first thing you look for when
you're analyzing a player? Absolutely. Sounds to me like you're
arguing against this here.
> "LAP's just love action and some of them are literally addicted to it....
> He goes on to talk about pathological behavior, leaving children
> sleeping on the floor while the LAP gambles away the rent and food
> money. That's absurd.
Maybe -- there's a lot of hyperbole in the book, and Schoonmaker even
says that he's talking about the far ends of the spectrum when he writes
that. But what I took away from that is that a loose-aggressive player
is the guy who has the felt covered within 30 seconds after hitting a
craps table. Tight and passive are boring for him. So therefore, the
style is alien to him.
Prior to reading that, as a VERY new player, I'd muck to just about any
3-bet without the nuts. After reading that, I realized that some guys
3-bet just because it's the equivalent of taking max odds for them. *I*
might need a hand to do that, but they don't. That was ridiculously
valuable.
Have other books said this? Yes, not quite in the same way. Is this
the best possible way in the multiverse of presenting this information?
Probably not. Was it useful for me? Yes.
> He doesn't have a similar passage about loose/passive
> players, but I suspect that there are more compulsive gamblers among
> the population of loose/passive players than amongh the ranks of
> loose/aggresive players. Certainly you wouldn't call slot machine
> addicts loose/aggresive players.
You need to spend more time at the slot machines. I can definitely
think of styles of play there that are on the loose-tight
passive-aggressive scale, although of course in this case, it has no
effect on the game. Compare the player who bets one nickel at a time
all day, versus the player who maxes the machine with 180 credits after
a win.
> Most loose/aggresive players are very aware of strategic elements of
> the game, that's what they're doing is trying to strategically
> manipulate the action. They may lose money at it, but it's just
> ignorant to think they don't know what they're doing.
Maybe at your level of play, not mine. And I think it's safe to say
that MOST poker players, by sheer numbers, are low-limit players.
> There's nothing in that book that's worthwhile past a very superficial
> view of a complex subject.
Sure, maybe it is Psych 101. But there's a reason why all freshmen have
to take 101 before they can attend grad school.
Best,
Jeff
Jeff Porten
> Yet that glaring error still managed to get by Schoonmaker, Malmuth
> (the book's editor), and Sklansky (the book's "Strategy Consultant").
> As far as I know, none of them has even acknowledged that it is a
> mistake.
Quad, my book has errors. They slipped by me, they slipped by the
editor, and in at least one case, the editor inserted the error and I
didn't take it out of the galleys.
Yes, it bugs hell out of me to see poorly-edited work, mine or others.
On the other hand, you don't see the other editing in the book that made
it better -- good editing is transparent. I don't expect perfection,
and I don't allow a lack of perfection to dissuade me from what I might
find useful.
> First, I've only just begun. Do you believe the rest of the book is
> free of mistakes? I will be discussing many other points in the weeks
> to come. I've already revealed my next topic: "Life in a
> Two-Dimensional World."
Christ. The nature of the game is that people can disagree on the right
play 90% of the time. So I take with a grain of salt when I hear
someone say that "this book is full of (conceptual) errors."
> Two-thirds of his book is devoted to pigeonholing players and using
> those labels to change your play. This categorization is the linchpin
> upon which Schoonmaker bases his advice. If you miscategorize
> players, then many of Schoonmaker's suggestions can be a "bit" silly.
> (Others are erroneous even without miscategorization.)
Saying this for, what, the fourth time? The book taught me the first
steps in thinking like my opponent. You want to say that the book is
*really* about categorization and rigid play? Fine. No wonder I think
more of the book than you do.
> Yes, it's good to point out that making money isn't he only reason
> people play poker, especially at the lower limits. I believe Carson's
> book also discusses motives--more succinctly and accurately than does
> Schoonmaker. As Carson noted in his response to your post, some of
> Schoonmaker's explanations of motives are a "bit" off.
Yes, but neither Carson's book nor that post existed when I picked up POP.
Look -- of *course* you keep on reading and picking up new information.
We're all here talking about poker, aren't we? And maybe the next
time I read POP I'll say, "Damn, I can see what QuadNines is talking
about."
But for the new players just coming to the game, I'm still thinking the
first books to read are Lee Jones and Schoonmaker. Gary covers a hell
of a lot more detail, and any Sklansky/Malmuth is going to give you a
stack of numbers, and both are very likely to go flying over the head of
a first time player. (And God help anyone who reads Phil in the first
six months.)
I'm not saying that Jones and POP are the holy gospel. They're not.
They might even be wrong in cases. They're merely useful.
> Here's a little test of your objectivity. Even excellent poker books
> contain mistakes. What would you say are the five most serious errors
> in PSYCHOLOGY OF POKER?
Oh, for christ's sake. Take some valium, will you?
I'm expressing my opinion about a book in which I have no stake
whatsoever, to a group of total strangers. Therefore, everything I say
is 100% objective. You want to debate why my opinion is a load of crap,
fine, I'll humor you for a little while so long as I find the discussion
valuable. You feel like changing this into the ad hominem attacks that
waste so much bandwidth elsewhere on RGP ("Jeff can't possibly be
objective about this because..."), and this discussion immediately
becomes presumptively useless for both writer and reader.
Stipulated that POP has mistakes, okay? I even agreed with you on a
mistake that stood out in my mind months after reading the book.
Listing top five errors so you can then cherry-pick why *my* errors
aren't the *right* errors? Hell, what a friggin' waste of time that
would be.
Gary Carson
of it. Almost everyone gets a lot out of the first poker book they
read, no matter what the book is.
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:13:23 -0400, Jeff Porten <r...@plenarcast.com>
wrote:
>QuadNines wrote:
Gary Carson
>
>Now I'm kinda confused. Every poker book on the planet, including
>yours, talks about tight-loose and passive-aggressive.
That's the way I catogorize games. I extand that to a couple of other
dimensions in catogorizing players.
Do you adjust
>your game for game conditions? Yes. Do you modify your assessment
of a
>player based on his actions? Yes.
>
>Is tight-loose passive-aggressive the first thing you look for when
>you're analyzing a player? Absolutely. Sounds to me like you're
>arguing against this here.
It might be the first thing I learn, but it's not the first thing I
look for. What I look for is how tricky they are and how tenious they
are (I call that strong as in strong/weak in the book).
Even passive players bluff too much, when they do bluff too much they
bluff way more than they value bet. If you follow Schoonmakers schema
then you'll be assuming a player who seldom bets isn't bluffing when
they do bet -- that can be a costly missevaluation.
Schoonmaker's schema would make a nice long article, maybe 4,000
words. It's way too superficial for a book length coverage.
>
>> "LAP's just love action and some of them are literally addicted to
it....
>> He goes on to talk about pathological behavior, leaving children
>> sleeping on the floor while the LAP gambles away the rent and food
>> money. That's absurd.
>
>Prior to reading that, as a VERY new player, I'd muck to just about
any
>3-bet without the nuts. After reading that, I realized that some
guys
>3-bet just because it's the equivalent of taking max odds for them.
*I*
>might need a hand to do that, but they don't. That was ridiculously
>valuable.
>
I'm sure that was valuable. It's wrong, but I do agree that it's much
more useful than nothing. Most very aggresive players three bet as a
way to take control, it's a strategic act, it's not just a bet.
Shoonmaker would suggest they don't act strategically at all.
>
>> He doesn't have a similar passage about loose/passive
>> players, but I suspect that there are more compulsive gamblers
among
>> the population of loose/passive players than amongh the ranks of
>> loose/aggresive players. Certainly you wouldn't call slot machine
>> addicts loose/aggresive players.
>
>You need to spend more time at the slot machines. I can definitely
>think of styles of play there that are on the loose-tight
>passive-aggressive scale, although of course in this case, it has no
>effect on the game. Compare the player who bets one nickel at a time
>all day, versus the player who maxes the machine with 180 credits
after
>a win.
Some compulsive gambers think they can control outcomes, some think
they have no control at all, it's completely luck. Slot gamblers,
whether they bet aggresively or not, tend to have that passive belief
that it's all completely luck. Not all, some do think they can
control the outcomes (by picking a lucky machine or something).
In poker, those who think they can control random outcomes tend to
play aggresively, those who think it's all luck tend to play pasively.
Shoonmaker completely ignores this significant difference between
passive and aggresive poker players. The reason he does is that there
wasn't anything in that management styles schema he stole it from that
translated.
>
>> Most loose/aggresive players are very aware of strategic elements
of
>> the game, that's what they're doing is trying to strategically
>> manipulate the action. They may lose money at it, but it's just
>> ignorant to think they don't know what they're doing.
>
>Maybe at your level of play, not mine. And I think it's safe to say
>that MOST poker players, by sheer numbers, are low-limit players.
I play a lot of 1488 holdem.
QuadNines
>
> QuadNines wrote:
>
>> Yet that glaring error still managed to get by
>> Schoonmaker, Malmuth (the book's editor), and
>> Sklansky (the book's "Strategy Consultant").
>> As far as I know, none of them has even
>> acknowledged that it is a mistake.
>
> Quad, my book has errors. They slipped by me,
> they slipped by the editor, and in at least one
> case, the editor inserted the error and I didn't
> take it out of the galleys.
At least you acknowledge the errors. Malmuth, on the other hand,
claims everything he publishes "is absolutely correct." Humans are
fallible, and books will contain errors. Unlike Malmuth, I've never
suggested otherwise.
You think it's "nitpicking" to point out the errors in Schoonmaker's
method of categorizing players. I'm still unsure how you define
"nitpick."
I cannot force you to see the error from my perspective, of course.
From my point of view, though, a reader who miscategorizes someone as
loose-aggressive probably will not benefit (and could lose a lot of
chips) from following Schoonmaker's advice on how to play against
loose-aggressive players. The concept seems so obvious to me that I
have difficulty understanding how it escapes you.
Since the bulk of his book explains how to pigeonhole players and how
to take advantage of those tags, Schoonmaker's seriously flawed method
of categorization rises to a level far above "nitpicking." That's
just my opinion. To each, their own.
> Yes, it bugs hell out of me to see poorly-edited
> work, mine or others. On the other hand, you
> don't see the other editing in the book that made
> it better -- good editing is transparent.
We'll probably never know for sure how well Malmuth edited the book,
but we can make an educated guess. In HOLD 薦M POKER FOR ADVANCED
PLAYERS (1999, p. 9), Malmuth offered excuses for his poor writing and
editing skills. PSYCHOLOGY OF POKER came out a year later. I'm
guessing Malmuth's command of the English language didn't improve
significantly. If Malmuth is a good editor, then Schoonmaker's
original manuscript must have been one butt-ugly beast (and Malmuth
must have been under serious time constraints).
> I don't expect perfection, and I don't allow a
> lack of perfection to dissuade me from what I
> might find useful.
I take the same approach. On the other hand, I don't ignore serious
errors. It's not healthy for my bankroll.
>>> However, the rest of the book -- you know,
>>> all those pages outside of that one point
>>> you're nitpicking? -- were *extremely*
>>> valuable to me as a new player.
>>> ...
>>> I'd say POP is an excellent 2nd or 3rd book
>>> for a new player.
>>
>> Here's a little test of your objectivity. Even
>> excellent poker books contain mistakes. What
>> would you say are the five most serious errors
>> in PSYCHOLOGY OF POKER?
>
> Oh, for christ's sake. Take some valium, will you?
>
> I'm expressing my opinion about a book in which
> I have no stake whatsoever, to a group of total
> strangers. Therefore, everything I say is 100%
> objective.
Do you really believe that?
> You want to debate why my opinion is a load of
> crap, fine, I'll humor you for a little while so
> long as I find the discussion valuable.
If you believe POP has only one "nitpicky" error, then I disagree with
your opinion. That doesn't mean your opinion is crap. It just means
we disagree. Please take a few deep, relaxing breaths.
> Stipulated that POP has mistakes, okay? I even
> agreed with you on a mistake that stood out in
> my mind months after reading the book.
Would that be the mistake you said was "nitpicking?"
> Listing top five errors so you can then
> cherry-pick why *my* errors aren't the *right*
> errors?
No, I'm just trying to get a handle on what you consider "serious"
errors versus "nitpicking." You seem to think all the POP errors are
grammatical or "nitpicks." You don't seem to have a particularly
objective view of the book.
If it makes you uncomfortable, then don't make the list. I didn't
really expect that you would.
Jeff Porten
> If POP was the first poker book you read, then yes you got a lot out
> of it. Almost everyone gets a lot out of the first poker book they
> read, no matter what the book is.
Third, after Lee Jones and HEFAP.
Gary Carson
>>
>> I'm expressing my opinion about a book in which
>> I have no stake whatsoever, to a group of total
>> strangers. Therefore, everything I say is 100%
>> objective.
>
>Do you really believe that?
>
There is a tendency for people to think, "I bought it, so it must have
been worthwhile else I woudn't have bought it". Psychologists have a
name for this tendency, but I forget what they call it.
So, you do have a stake, it's a psychological stake.
Unknown
You are the most anal asshole in the history of posting. Shutup and
go away.
Vince lepore
> >
>
> There is a tendency for people to think, "I bought it, so it must have
> been worthwhile else I woudn't have bought it". Psychologists have a
> name for this tendency, but I forget what they call it.
>
I thought the tendency was "I wrote it, so it must be right". It's
called Carsonism.
Vince
Jeff Porten
QuadNines wrote:
> At least you acknowledge the errors. Malmuth, on the other hand,
> claims everything he publishes "is absolutely correct." Humans are
> fallible, and books will contain errors. Unlike Malmuth, I've never
> suggested otherwise.
And yet when Malmuth says that he's not the greatest writer in the
world, you take him apart for that. Looks to me like he's between a
rock and a hard place with you.
> You think it's "nitpicking" to point out the errors in Schoonmaker's
> method of categorizing players. I'm still unsure how you define
> "nitpick."
Damn, do I wish I hadn't used that word.
Okay, let's try to summarize. You are expressing a point of view that
can easily be interpreted by someone who hasn't read the book as saying
the book is total garbage. I replied that you were accurate about one
or two flaws you mentioned, yet I don't believe the book is total
garbage; in fact, I found it quite valuable.
Fair enough?
> I cannot force you to see the error from my perspective, of course.
> From my point of view, though, a reader who miscategorizes someone as
> loose-aggressive probably will not benefit (and could lose a lot of
> chips) from following Schoonmaker's advice on how to play against
> loose-aggressive players. The concept seems so obvious to me that I
> have difficulty understanding how it escapes you.
What seems to escape you is that I haven't exactly memorized the book
and not everything the man said is burned into my brain like God handing
down the Ten Commandments. I do recall that the book has 7 or 8
sections, one of which is on loose aggressive players, so your focus on
that doesn't necessarily make the entire rest of the book worthless.
As to what POP says about playing against the maniac, I don't recall
going bankrupt after reading the book, so it couldn't have been that
damaging. But you could possibly hypothesize that that's because I read
other things that gave me better ideas, or maybe I'm just innately
brilliant at poker and the creeping rot of POP didn't infect me. Since
I don't have hand histories from my B&M play that's cross-indexed with
exactly what I read at what time, it's impossible for me to say for sure.
>>I'm expressing my opinion about a book in which
>>I have no stake whatsoever, to a group of total
>>strangers. Therefore, everything I say is 100%
>>objective.
>
> Do you really believe that?
I utterly fail to see any possible reason that intersects with this
universe that might cause me to be biased about the book. Your
hypothesis, please?
> If you believe POP has only one "nitpicky" error, then I disagree with
> your opinion. That doesn't mean your opinion is crap. It just means
> we disagree. Please take a few deep, relaxing breaths.
Allow me to rephrase. Your opinion of the book takes on the
characteristics of a sweeping denunciation which is out of context from
the points you have expressed in contradiction to the book. Better?
> No, I'm just trying to get a handle on what you consider "serious"
> errors versus "nitpicking." You seem to think all the POP errors are
> grammatical or "nitpicks." You don't seem to have a particularly
> objective view of the book.
Again, I fail to see how a reader of a work can fail to be objective
about it, if the reader has no financial ties to the publisher, familial
ties to the author, or if his loved ones aren't being dangled over a pit
of razor blades by those who do.
> If it makes you uncomfortable, then don't make the list. I didn't
> really expect that you would.
It doesn't make me uncomfortable, it just seems to be a total waste of
time. Granting that a large percentage of time spent in RGP falls into
the "waste of time" category, let me refine that by saying that it seems
to be a wholly unenjoyable waste of time.
How does this sound? Next time I get around to rereading the book,
since all of my poker books are in my reread cycle, if I have a great
urge to procrastinate, I'll post some errors then. Satisfied?
Jeff Porten
> There is a tendency for people to think, "I bought it, so it must have
> been worthwhile else I woudn't have bought it". Psychologists have a
> name for this tendency, but I forget what they call it.
>
> So, you do have a stake, it's a psychological stake.
Hooo boy. Yes, it's true, I don't have a poker book I regret buying.
This is because I enjoy reading about poker.
But I had a cheeseburger for dinner the other night, and the bun was
stale. I purchased a bottle of soda from the soda machine, and it came
out warm. Oddly enough, both of these also cost me money, yet I
recognized that they brought me no closer to nirvana.
Gary Carson
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:44:17 -0400, Jeff Porten <r...@plenarcast.com>
wrote:
>Gary Carson wrote:
Piers Shepperson
> view of a complex subject.
>
That was about my opinion as well.
He made a small number of reasonable but pritty obvious points at the
start and then proceded to repeat them ad nausea. The content would
have made a reasonable short magazine artical.
QuadNines
>
> Okay, let's try to summarize. You are expressing a
> point of view that can easily be interpreted by
> someone who hasn't read the book as saying the book
> is total garbage.
I explained why Schoonmaker's method of classifying players is a
serious conceputal error. I guess some might misconstrue that as
"saying the book is total garbage," but I suspect their numbers are
few.
> I replied that you were accurate about one or two
> flaws you mentioned,...
To date, I've only discussed one or two flaws. We agree Schoonmaker's
classification method is flawed. We disagree about whether it rises
above the level of "nitpicking." I've explained why I think the
mistake is serious. You haven't explained your "nitpicking"
description. But that's okay.
> ...yet I don't believe the book is total garbage;...
We agree on that as well. I even mentioned his good point about money
not being everyone's sole motive for playing poker.
> ...in fact, I found it quite valuable.
Your original characterization was:
However, the rest of the book -- you know, all
those pages outside of that one point you're
nitpicking? -- were *extremely* valuable to me
as a new player.
I think many other pages also contain serious errors that are worth
pointing out, especially to new players. Please don't misinterpet me.
I'm not claiming everyone will be worse off from reading PSYCHOLOGY
OF POKER (not even every new player).
> As to what POP says about playing against the
> maniac, I don't recall going bankrupt after
> reading the book, so it couldn't have been that
> damaging.
Did you learn your logic from Malmuth?
You might want to reread my post. I explained how Schoonmaker's
classification method *could* cause readers to incorrectly pigeonhole
opponents in certain situations (which I described). I didn't say
Schoonmaker's error always results in incorrect categorizations.
Besides, if you recognize Schoonmaker's mistake, you probably don't
use his flawed method.
> Your opinion of the book takes on the
> characteristics of a sweeping denunciation which
> is out of context from the points you have
> expressed in contradiction to the book.
I haven't expressed my opinion of the whole book. If you misinterpet
me, then I suppose you can make my opinion to be anything you want.
Perhaps you simply misattributed Carson's "it's a terrible book"
comment. Perhaps you like to build scarecrows and "straw men."
FJM@DM
it is probably worth reading. How bitter is Gary Carson that he
hasn't been published by two plus two? I am not a Sklansky disciple,
but even I can see that this book has good information for anyone that
plays through the middle limits.
You don't have a style Gary? Johnnie Chan has a style. Are you so
fucking arrogant that you think that you are always perfectly adapting
to ganme conditions.. Be honest to everyone on this forum, throught
the mid limitsthere is definitely a winning style and games are pretty
similar. learning to play optimaly with SLIGHT modifications is the
key to beating these games, and having a good all around knowledge of
the type of players you are likely to face is crucial.
I shouldn't expect much from someone who answered my reasonably well
thought out post on playing wired aces by snipping about eight words
from my post and responding to only them. Those of us who have a real
education can quickly mark you as a Sophist. Keep criticizing. I am
sure you can keep beating the 8-16. Keep attacking the weak parts of
everyones posts. Thats's the equivalent of attacking the monkeys who
play through 10-20.
FJM
Gary Carson
>The incredibly mean spirited response to this book makes me think
that
>it is probably worth reading. How bitter is Gary Carson that he
>hasn't been published by two plus two?
Gee, that was always my lifes goal, and then I forgot to submit
anything to them and that caused me to fail at the only thing I wanted
to accomplish in my life. I'm just bitter and hateful and an awful
person because of it.
Jeff Porten
> Maybe you could work on the meaning of the word tendency
Maybe you could work on the meaning of the word "sarcasm", and the
phrase "excessive ad hominem aggression to defend a minor argument".