About "Psychology of Poker" by Alan Schoonmaker

[Psy_Mike]

Oh Alan excuse my previous threads. As I mentioned I have yet to read your book, I only quickly scimmed through it when I got it and got stuck on that part. However all my points were made with consideration to todays poker world, which is why my take on the matter is not valid for the time that you wrote it.

I realised this yesterday and have asked for a deletion or locking of the thread since I don't want to spread negativity around the book without any real reason!

Take care Alan and the rest of you!

[jmgurgeh]

Just finished the book, a great read that I thought might benefit from a revised edition given the changing scope of the poker world. I can see how telling people that it's not very happy to be a professional poker player might be taken the way the OP stated it, but the way I took it was just that being a poker pro is not as glamorous as you think (probably a valuable reality check for some).

In any case, I thought that was an extremely minor point. I think the most valuable section of the book dealt with "thinking visibly," which is done to some degree in the other 2+2 books I've read (incl. Theory of Poker and SSH), but honestly I thought this section was way too short. Al, if you revise and publish a second edition, I hope you'll include a lot more examples of thinking visibly and hand reading. I think so far the best book for sheer number of walkthroughs is Hilger's Internet Texas Hold 'Em, but that's exclusively for online play and doesn't deal much with psychology other than general playing style reads. (And quite frankly, nobody deals much with situations where you're advised to be aggressive, and then you find aggression right back at you. Those hands are a hell of a lot harder to play.)

A few other topics I wondered about after I finished were general observations I've made online and in some live games. We've all been on the bad end of terrible plays that worked out, but I think the Loose-Passive section misses a crucial psychological idea that may be quite common to these players: They sometimes think they're making strong plays by calling. A little beyond the "keep you honest" attitude is one guy who called me (clear premium hand) down with Q8o, unimproved with no draw. I went to the history, saw what hand he had, and said "You called me down with Q-high?" He replied, "I wasn't going to let you buy it." In a live tournament once I pushed all-in with the nuts on an extremely dangerous board, and a player who played the board called me. I talked to him about it (one of my friends) and he said he did it as a bluff. That's right, he thought he was bluffing by calling. Though loose-passive players are described as compliant, I would often characterize them as (in their minds) uncompliant, and not willing to be pushed around by my bets and raises. Moreover, I see an awful lot of donkbets ("gaybets" if you like) from players who are otherwise passive. All of a sudden they choose horrible spots in which to bluff with a single bet that is almost certainly not going to get them the fold(s) they need to win, but this can be very frustrating to deal with, and is a huge break from their typical passive style.

If that all seems critical, I don't mean it to be. For a while I just couldn't figure out how some people were "naturally" good players and some (me) would be terrible without having read some decent literature first. After reading your book, I think those players are good at discerning general strategy of games by concentrating intently and thinking visibly, the latter being perhaps the most important concept (for me) in the entire book.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Mike,

There is no reason to delete or lock this thread. The issues you and others have raised (here and in other threads) are valid and relevant. I come from the academic tradition, and professors disagree with each other all the time. It's the way we all learn, and I am here to learn as well as to teach.

Regards,

Al

[Al Schoonmaker]

You wrote: "Then all of a sudden it feels that this last section was aimed to the complete beginner who just jumped off his couch after watching WPT on TV and saying to himself 'I'm going pro!'"

"Don't quit your day job" was written for VERY good players, not beginners. I can't count the number of very good players who have failed to make it as full-time pros.

I'm working now on "Should you quit your day job?" It will update my admittedly obsolete position. Here is a excerpt that will probably be somewhat edited before the article appears in our August magazine.

"Shortly before the poker explosion our Wednesday Poker Discussion Group asked two famous professionals, 'What are an excellent player’s chances of making it as a full time pro?' One said, 'Fifty to one,' and the other was more pessimistic, suggesting two hundred to one.

"Because the games are so soft now, those odds are less – for the short term – but they would still very high, perhaps twenty to one hundred to one. In other words, they and I still believe that 'you probably won’t make it.'”

Since I don't have their permission, I won't name those sources, but they are world famous and extremely well connected. They know the poker world exceptionally well, and they have seen hundreds of wannabe pros fail. Most of the ones who failed play very well, in exactly the same way that most wannabe professional athletes are talented.

But it takes more than just talent to make it as a full time pro. After it appears, I encourage you to comment on the article.

Again, thanks for opening up this subject.

Regards,

Al

[Beach-Whale]

Did they/you consider poker on the internet? Because with multitabling and bunuses and rakeback and low costs, I'd say it's VERY easy to go pro if you are an "excellent player." Of course, no one knows how things are going to be tomorrow, but today it's definitely very easy.

And if you don't agree, go talk to David. He has said that it's "no big deal."

[Beach-Whale]

[ QUOTE ]
If you look on page xi, "About Alan Schoonmaker," you will note that it says I have been a professor and researcher and have authored a number of books on industrial psychology. Various people on our forums know that I owned and operated an international consulting company and worked in 28 countries for the world's largest corporations. The annual sales of my clients exceed one trillion dollars. I most definitely have never even tried to be a poker pro, nor have I ever come close to losing any significant money. I have no idea why you felt a need to make such an absurd statement.


[/ QUOTE ]

In your professional opinion, what prompted you to write so much about what other things you have accomplished instead of simply just stating that you have never even tried to play poker professionaly?

Also, I'd listen more to someone who has been there and done that. Like Roy Cooke.

[pastabatman]

... because he was rebutting OP's:[ QUOTE ]
I just think he sounds like someone who has no sense of money management, started playing poker and built up his dreams of the big money, got addicted, couldn't handle the stress, and in the end lost all his money due to his horrible money management. Then he jumps off his poker career and rights a book instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Al Schoonmaker]

Pastabatman has already stated why I "digressed."

Roy Cooke is not at all positive about poker as a full time career. He is no longer a full time pro, and he has frequently stated that most wannabes don't make it.

Regards,

Al

[OrianasDaad]

Ahhh... *grunch*

[ QUOTE ]
I started browsing through it and found one section named "Don't quit your day job!". I read a few of his statements there which almost upset me. Here they are:

[/ QUOTE ]

Self confidence is important, but even more important than that is self-honesty, which is a central theme throughout the book. The right kind of self-confidence comes only through self-honesty.

And that's all I got to say about that.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'd listen more to someone who has been there and done that. Like Roy Cooke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of the mistakes you can make as an aspiring poker players (and they are legion) NOT listening to the advice of Dr. Al can be one of the most catastrophic: many of the fine 2+2 writers will tell you how to play better; few, except him, teach you how to live better.

While I recommend Theory of Poker and Small Stakes Hold 'em to new players immediately ... the third most should read (yes, even before Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players - if only because the advice there is mainly applicable in the games beyond $20-40) is Psychology of Poker.

Roy Cooke is fine, but he's no Dr. Al.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com
Barron's advice is fine ... but Barron is no Roy Cooke