Schoonmaker's POP Errors: Categorizing Opponents
QuadNines
already has noted the problem I discuss here, but it's important
enough to deserve further discussion.
Suppose you are playing low-limit hold'em with your usual crowd--a
wild and crazy bunch. Abe is your calmest opponent, seeing about 60
percent of the flops and aggressively betting/raising 70 percent of
the time. Everyone else is even more maniacal.
You opt to play KhQh from middle position, and eight of you see the
flop come JhTc7h. Seven stay to see the turn deliver the 8h, giving
you a king-high flush.
There's a bet in front, you raise, and Abe reraises. The pot is big.
What should you do?
Schoonmaker attempts to identify four types of extreme players:
loose-aggressive, loose-passive, tight-passive, and tight-aggressive.
If you can pigeon-hole someone into one of these four categories, then
Schoonmaker offers advice on how to play against them.
Rather than judge players by how loosely and aggressively they play,
Schoonmaker has you judge them by how loosely and aggressively they
play compared to others at the table. There's a difference, and it's
huge.
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. (Pp.
78-79.)
*Compare people to your usual game, not to
some idea of how they "should" play.* If,
for example, about half of the players see
the flop in your hold 'em game, someone who
sees about half the flops would be rated "5"
[average] on the loose/tight dimension. You
might think that only three people should see
the flop, but you have to adjust to the
players in your own game, not in some ideal
one. (P. 82.)
Abe calls pre-flop with 60 percent of his hands, but everyone at his
table (except you) calls with even more. Zon calls pre-flop with 20
percent of her hands, but everyone in her games calls less frequently.
Schoonmaker would label Abe as tight and Zon as loose. But who is
more likely to beat a king-high flush on the turn? Given that she saw
the flop, Zon is more likely to have an ace-high flush.
Yet Schoonmaker claims Abe is the opponent to fear. If you encounter
a reraise from this type of player, Schoonmaker advises you to "fold
anything below a near lock (and it probably isn't good enough). For
example, if you raise in hold 'em with a king high flush, and a rock
reraises, you're almost certainly dead." (Pp. 212-213.)
I'm not entirely surprised that Schoonmaker made this serious
conceptual error. He "does not claim to be an expert on poker theory
or strategy." (P. x.)
Nor am I shocked that Malmuth (as the book's editor) missed this
blatent mistake. Malmuth isn't the sharpest nail in the board (see
http://tinyurl.com/jn6w ).
But I am curious how this obvious conceptual error escaped Sklansky's
detection. Sklansky, after all, received prominent billing as the
book's "Strategy Consultant."
Lovable Lurkers
> Schoonmaker's PSYCHOLOGY OF POKER has many, many errors. Carson
> already has noted the problem I discuss here, but it's important
> enough to deserve further discussion.
Those who can, do
Those who can't teach
Those who can't do and can't teach become critics
QuadNines
You seem to have a rather black-and-white view of the world.
Personally, I prefer the full-color view.
Gary Carson
>But I am curious how this obvious conceptual error escaped Sklansky's
>detection. Sklansky, after all, received prominent billing as the
>book's "Strategy Consultant."
Sklansky rents out his name. That doesn't mean he actually read the
book.
Lovable Lurkers
> > Those who can't teach
> >
> > Those who can't do and can't teach become critics
>
> You seem to have a rather black-and-white view of the world.
> Personally, I prefer the full-color view.
No, just a view that your posts criticizing other peoples' work is not
value added and a mostly mean-spirited activity. The tone of
superiority you take when breaking down poker writers' theories is
offensive to me and I would assume many others, which explains the
lack of true content dialogue following this post. Ordinarily, a post
debating the way to categorize your looseness as compared to your
opponents would be interesting fodder for discussion.
Please announce when your next book is published - you seem to have a
keen poker mind, and it would be better used to create rather than
critique.
QuadNines
>>> Those who can, do
>>> Those who can't teach
>>>
>>> Those who can't do and can't teach become critics
>>
>> You seem to have a rather black-and-white view of the
>> world. Personally, I prefer the full-color view.
>
> No, just a view that your posts criticizing other
> peoples' work is not value added and a mostly
> mean-spirited activity.
If you really believe that, then what do you think about people who
criticize people for criticizing? In any case, thank you for your
input. Please be assured that I'll give it all due consideration.
Some people equate criticism with negativity. I don't, and I'm
delighted by the useful information I often gain from criticism. I
feel the scientific method has a lot going for it. To each, their
own.
Or, maybe you don't like the particular way I criticize. That's okay,
too. My threads' subject lines usually indicate what they are about,
so reasonably intelligent people shouldn't have much trouble ignoring
my critical posts, if they wish.
> The tone of superiority you take when breaking down
> poker writers' theories is offensive to me and I
> would assume many others, . . .
Perhaps many of those others don't bother reading my posts. If my
tone truly offends you, then you might want to consider this approach.
> . . . which explains the lack of true content
> dialogue following this post.
No, that's just one possible explanation. Are you sure you aren't
seeing the world in black-and-white? Another possible explanation is
that Schoonmaker's method of judging looseness and aggression is so
silly that nobody cares to defend it.
JTAutry
news:e7d584c3.03081...@posting.google.com...
>
> No, just a view that your posts criticizing other peoples' work is not
> value added
If QuadNines' posts have done nothing else, they've caused me to read with a
more critical eye than previously. To me, that's value added.
JT