A Letter to Dr. Schoonmaker

*I finally had a day off from work where I wasn't ridiculously busy. So in honor of the increasing likelihood of an early return to the felt, I attempted to catch up on my poker reading. A lot was good including an article by Ray Cooke about disturbing the fish tank and Poker and Finance part 2 from Two plus Two. However, one article rubbed the wrong way. Surprisingly it was from an author I respect and have discussed here previously.*

Dear Dr. Schoonmaker,

I was disappointed in your latest article. After I read it, I looked back to discover what I did to deserve such a scolding. But as I have been out of the game for almost six months, I failed to unearth any crime.

Then I went back and reread your article. You ask if I play better than respected authors and if I am smarter than them. But instead of waiting for my response, you tell me that I'm not. Do you think you know how smart I am because your PhD outweighs my B.S.? Have you played poker with me before and know how good of a grinder I am?

You apparently feel that all of us amateur and semi-pro players are just emotional idiots. We don't want to play like robots. We want to be creative. We want our own style. I agree wholeheartedly with you despite the negative connotation you added to these statements. In order to be great players, world-class players, we can't be robots and we can't just play the odds. We have to factor in intuition also, which is something robots don't possess. In order to be the best, we have to be creative. Once we stop creating, stop advancing, someone else will pass us and we will fall a step behind. And unless we are exact clones of Harrington, Malmuth, Hellmuth, etc., none of their systems will perfectly fit us. You yourself state that we should "select a system that fits you" meaning us. Thus we need our OWN system because we are all unique. Even if our system only differs 1% from another person's, it is still our own.

You provide two other points that point out the faults in your poorly thought berating. You state we modify systems because "most human behavior is comfort-driven rather than effectiveness-driven." To this I say that the drive to be effective stems from the drive to be comfortable. People are effective so they can feel comfort that comes from the self-satisfaction of doing a job well or they are effective so that they can make more money and live with greater comfort. In nature, reproduction is #1, survival is #2, and comfort is #3. Everything else including effectiveness is just a means to accomplish #'s 1, 2 and 3 better.

Then you go on to state that "Poker playing and thinking has continuously evolved." Um, in case you haven't noticed, we are living in a poker renaissance. The game is still evolving. Yesterday's books are just that. We have to modify, adapt, and evolve to keep up. We need this in order to be effective.

Now I have a few questions to ask you, Dr. Schoonmaker.

1) Are you a good poker player? You certainly write like you are a great one and can tell the rest of us what to do because of it. Yet I've never heard of you playing any tournaments or any underground internet rumors about the cash games you're involved in. I only know who you are because you've written a book and created a conveniently profitable niche during the poker boom. Am I just not listening hard enough or do you not play poker? Or is it even worse and you are a bad poker player?

2) You realize that your article is a clear-cut example of disturbing-the-fish tilt that we all abhor so much right? You do realize that? In Ray Cooke's excellent article, he lists 5 reasons to not give your opponents grief. Let's go over the first two.

A) "The worst play in poker is to do anything that might drive a live one from the game."

Your berating made me and probably other readers that are a little sensitive about their fishiness want to stop reading your articles. Through your scolding, you are driving us away.

B) "The second-worst play in poker is to educate your opponents to play better."

I'm going to ignore the fact that for a living you write articles whose sole goal is to educate your opponents to play better (assuming you do in fact play at least a little). However, you are unwittingly educating your opponents about your own vulnerabilities. Clearly you are more than a little touchy about people questioning existing systems and attempting to modify it. If you are so touchy about other's books, how do you feel when people question yours? What would it take to put you on tilt? Criticism of a passage you have written? Arguing that the goal of poker is to make our lives better not to win money? Or perhaps we don't have to question anything and just mention your publications. Then we could let you think about them and stew and put yourself on tilt? See how much info you just gave away?



Since you have taken it upon yourself to act like a parent and treat us like children, I hope you do what all good parents do: Pay attention to our response so that in the future you can do a better job helping us. You don't want us to grow into rebellious teenagers and tune you out. Without the poker world reading you works, would you be able to make as much money as effectively so that you could continue to live comfortably?



Sincerely, with hopes your next publication is better,

Billy Engelke