Acknowledgments from Professor, Banker,,,, -- Is Sklansky for Real?

[David Sklansky]

"When it comes to David Sklansky, Mr. Craig writes "Even though I gave his son Mat the proverbial shirt off my back"

I have no idea what that was referring to. I return favors. I also give free interviews if I think they will not be wasted. Had I realized what Mr. Craig would turn out I would have helped him.

[freekobe]

[ QUOTE ]
"When it comes to David Sklansky, Mr. Craig writes "Even though I gave his son Mat the proverbial shirt off my back"

I have no idea what that was referring to. I return favors. I also give free interviews if I think they will not be wasted. Had I realized what Mr. Craig would turn out I would have helped him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate David responding in this way. Indeed, Mr. Craig has turned out quite a book.

My point was this: I likened Mr. Craig's request of Mr. Sklanksy to a reporter calling a source for information. Would David tell USA Today, the NY Times, or even his local newspaper, that he would respond only "for big bucks?" Maybe he would. But that would be bizarre.

I think Mason's response is legitimate, but perhaps a bit paranoid. Maybe I'm too trusting, I don't know. That could be a fault of mine. I just know I wouldn't have responded like that to someone in the same industry as me, particularly given the long list of others who helped on the project.

[freekobe]

[ QUOTE ]
So you think it's terrible that Sklansky wouldn't give this guy some free analysis. These comments would be included in a book that's not a 2+2 book. This is really dumb.

Maybe I should call up D Sklansky and ask him to analyze some of my hands for free. Then I could write a book called Winners Guide to Theory of Internet Holdem for Advanced Players and Winners

by me,
WITH EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM DAVID SKLANSKY

I'm thinking it would sell well. Hey David, I'm sending you those via PM right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this analogy was remotely close to what happened, I'd address it, but it's obviously nowhere close to what Craig was asking of Sklansky.

Craig wanted a comment from someone who is a noted poker authority to add to his already impressive list of sources.

I am not disputing that David was within his rights to say no. But to say no because he needs "BIG BUCKS" is not right.

At some point along the way, Mr. Sklansky must've gotten some help from someone to get to where he is. It wasn't just brains and talent alone. If Mr. Sklansky had simply said, "I can't do this because a) I don't have the time; or b) I would rather not promote non twoplustwo books; or c) something other than what he said," I don't think it would be an issue.

In the end, I'm just some guy posting on the Internet whom David doesn't know from Adam. That's not to say he'll never know me. I just think a common courtesy toward someone trying to write a book about poker was certainly within the realm of possibilities here.

Does David get a million requests? Maybe. I have no idea. But I think it's a lot easier to be polite about a request than to be arrogant.

[Derek in NYC]

Mason, why dont you just say it: David is a dick. It's his right to be that way, but it doesn't change that he is what he is.

[LittleOldLady]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"When it comes to David Sklansky, Mr. Craig writes "Even though I gave his son Mat the proverbial shirt off my back"

I have no idea what that was referring to. I return favors. I also give free interviews if I think they will not be wasted. Had I realized what Mr. Craig would turn out I would have helped him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate David responding in this way. Indeed, Mr. Craig has turned out quite a book.

My point was this: I likened Mr. Craig's request of Mr. Sklanksy to a reporter calling a source for information. Would David tell USA Today, the NY Times, or even his local newspaper, that he would respond only "for big bucks?" Maybe he would. But that would be bizarre.

I think Mason's response is legitimate, but perhaps a bit paranoid. Maybe I'm too trusting, I don't know. That could be a fault of mine. I just know I wouldn't have responded like that to someone in the same industry as me, particularly given the long list of others who helped on the project.

[/ QUOTE ]

An analogy, of course, never proves anything, and your analogy is particularly inapt. One of the major taboos of respectable journalists (i.e., not the tabloids) is checkbook journalism. No one would refuse to grant the NYT an interview simply because he would not be paid. People know that the NYT doesn't pay, period. People can and do refuse to speak with newspapers and broadcast journalists for a variety of reasons, and the most the journalists say about it is that so-and-so did not return their calls, indicating that an effort was made to get so-and-so's side of the story.

David Sklansky makes his living selling poker advice, and my guess is that these days, given the demand for good poker advice, he is living comfortably. He is under no obligation to give away for free what he is trying to sell. He might have done so if he had chosen, and apparently he would have done so had Mr. Craig been clearer and more persuasive about his project. All I know about this is what I have read in this thread, but I have read many acknowledgment pages and have been acknowledged myself in many books (sometimes I think I live my life in other people's acknowledgments), and I have never before seen anyone called out for not helping (especially when that person had no conceivable obligation to help).

David says that he doesn't know what Craig did for Mat, and of course I don't either. But assuming that Craig did help Mat, then Mat might be indebted, but I don't see how that obligates David. I have a son. He has been helped and mentored (in very significant ways), and I would expect him to reciprocate if the occasion arose. But would that obligate me? Not necessarily, in my view.

I am frequently called by various pollsters. I always ask if I will be paid for my input. If not, I refuse to answer. The information the pollee provides is valuable--some client is paying mightily for it. Why should I provide a portion of that information for free? If I am not paid for my time and knowledge/opinion, I don't expend either. Several times I have been asked to be a Nielsen "family." Nielsen sends a very token amount of money with their request. Those ratings are immensely valuable; they drive the entire television industry. And I am supposed to screw around with a zillion journal entries for a week--for a buck?!

Just as I wouldn't supply my person-on-the-street opinion about tv for free (essentially), I wouldn't think it out of line for a professional to decline to provide his stock in trade for free if that was his choice.

LOL

[NoRiverRats]

I am somewhat sympathetic to some of the thoughts in freekobes post. There is no doubt that David Sklansky (and Mason Malmuth for that matter) are huge names in poker - indeed I have many of their excellent books. And as poker has boomed, I assume so has their business and sales. But lets be honest, if you don't follow poker, Sklansky and Malmuth are not household names, even if you are new to poker as many of my friends are, they don't have a clue as to the signifcance of those names.

Like anyone with new found celebrity (many in the poker world fall into this category) the demands for time increase exponentially. I have no doubt this is the case with Sklansky and Malmuth. However, it is important also to remember that the poker boom, and demands for time also come with a huge upside in terms of $$.

So, given;
1) Poker is booming
2) Sklansky is not a household name
3) The boom means bucks to great poker authors like Sklansky

Why not do the bloody interview for the book - which will likely appeal to a much broader audience than a typical Sklansky book and bring him, two plus two and Mason, a broader audience for their poker expertise and ultimately, more $$.

I think David made a mistake here and saying in hindsight that he would have helped out had he know how it would turn out misses the point. I would have become a brillant poker author had I known that it would become this popular. Then I would do interviews with the world to let them know of my brilliance. Then I would....oh forget it, I am off to buy some lottery tickets...

[freekobe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"When it comes to David Sklansky, Mr. Craig writes "Even though I gave his son Mat the proverbial shirt off my back"

I have no idea what that was referring to. I return favors. I also give free interviews if I think they will not be wasted. Had I realized what Mr. Craig would turn out I would have helped him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate David responding in this way. Indeed, Mr. Craig has turned out quite a book.

My point was this: I likened Mr. Craig's request of Mr. Sklanksy to a reporter calling a source for information. Would David tell USA Today, the NY Times, or even his local newspaper, that he would respond only "for big bucks?" Maybe he would. But that would be bizarre.

I think Mason's response is legitimate, but perhaps a bit paranoid. Maybe I'm too trusting, I don't know. That could be a fault of mine. I just know I wouldn't have responded like that to someone in the same industry as me, particularly given the long list of others who helped on the project.

[/ QUOTE ]

An analogy, of course, never proves anything, and your analogy is particularly inapt. One of the major taboos of respectable journalists (i.e., not the tabloids) is checkbook journalism. No one would refuse to grant the NYT an interview simply because he would not be paid. People know that the NYT doesn't pay, period. People can and do refuse to speak with newspapers and broadcast journalists for a variety of reasons, and the most the journalists say about it is that so-and-so did not return their calls, indicating that an effort was made to get so-and-so's side of the story.



[/ QUOTE ]

You, of course, are missing my point.

Why does David feel inclined to respond this way? That's what I'm questioning.

It is also unclear why you think the analogy is inappropriate.

In the end, maybe I'm nit-picking. I can accept that. I'm just saying, being arrogant and responding "BIG BUCKS" is a lot harder than responding politely.

You are misinterpreting my opinion, either because you don't read carefully or because you missed it. Sklansky may believe that BIG BUCKS is the way to approach anything related to poker. That's fine. Of course he can say that. I am arguing that in the end, this arrogant and condescending approach may very well come back to bite him.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
particularly given the long list of others who helped on the project.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is crazy. Suppose someone I never heard of, and this exact thing has happened many times, contacts me and among other things claims to have a long list of others helping him. Am I suppose to believe that and then spend many hours of my time going over his manuscript?

You need to understand that if we were to start helping all these people who want to come out with a poker book of some sort, the word would get out that we are willing to do this, the requests would mushroom, and we wouldn't have time for anything else or get anything worthwhile done.

Best wishes,
Mason

[maryfield48]

Totally agree with you MicroBob. Craig's comments were way out of line. And then at the end say he was within his rights - if you believe that why mention the whole thing?

Completely ungracious.

[andyfox]

Seems to me David's email response to Mr. Craig had a bit of tongue-in-cheek to it. I too questioned David's response, on this forum, when I first read about it, and the explanation given (I think my Mason), that they get so many requests for this type of thing and that they couldn't therefore respond to all of them, made sense (and still does) to me.

David's response to Daniel Negreanu's post in the $4.5 million thread on the WPT forum shows why Mr. Craig and the rest of us are worse off for David having not pariticipated: David simply thinks of ways of looking at things that others don't. A book about Andy Beal would have indeed been richer (pun intended) with David's input. But, as Mr. Craig pointed out, David was certainly under no obligation to do so.

BTW, the book, IMO, is very entertaining and breezily written, a good read.