"Poker, Gaming, and Life" review

[roGER]

Hello everyone,

Here's a review of David's book that I posted on Amazon.com a while back. But of course its a 2+2 book available here!

This is what I wrote:

Precise as Always

Reviewer: roGER from Hole, Mass.

Among serious amateurs, semi-professional and professional players, David Sklansky is THE author to read.

"Poker, Gaming and Life" is collection of articles that have appeared in "Card Player" and similar specialist magazines during the 1990s. The bulk of them are on poker, and reading them one is reminded that Sklansky almost invented the serious, logical, and carefully reasoned approach to the game based on statistics and probablity. An entire generation of winning players has been the result, changing poker forever.

Sklansky isn't a great writer, and his style suffers from too much passive voice. But every essay is well thought out, and his conclusions hard to dispute. Since the pieces are almost all short, this book is somewhat easier to read than his full length treatments of specific games.

The last section finds the author in a more relaxed mood, as he tries to apply some of the mathematical and statistical principles of poker to more general "life" topics.

One small criticism - some of the articles and examples apply to games that were once common in public cardrooms, but for one reason or another have all but disappeared now. For a younger player unfamiliar with Jacks or better draw poker, or Razz, this can be a little confusing.

Its hard to imagine any David Sklansky book that won't improve your poker - this one, although not essential, should provide some thoughtful and informative reading.

- roGER

[Andy B]

Sklansky also uses Razz and Jacks-or-better in TOP. There are some concepts that apply to all games that are best illustrated in Razz. I've never played Razz, but I don't find such examples confusing in the least.

The passive voice is frequently preferable for technical writing.

[roGER]

Thanks for the comments, Andy B.

You're a better man than I understanding Razz although I've never played the game, and have about 4 hours 7 card stud experience, which probably doesn't help matters!

As for technical writing, I've been a technical writer since 1986, and the first thing you learn is to NEVER use the passive voice! Where did you read or learn otherwise?

- roGER

[John Cole]

Hi Roger,

Let me give you one well known example for appropriate use of the passive voice. You wish to draw attention to what was done to whom rather than who did what: "President Kennedy was killed today by Lee Harvey Oswald." This sentence focuses the reader's attention where it belongs. Of course, as you well know, the passive also allows writers, or in this case speakers, to evade the truth. Reagan on Iran-Contra: "Mistakes were made."

I believe, along with you, that tech writing would be much easier to reader if writers avoided the passive voice.

John

[Zeno]

"The passive voice is frequently preferable for technical writing. "

Why?

I frequently review and edit technical reports. Using the passive voice is wimpy writing and makes mushy reading. That is my opinion, others may differ.

-Zeno

[David Sklansky]

What the hell does passive voice mean.

[Howard Burroughs]

"What the hell does passive voice mean."

*************************



"Active And Passive Voice:

In the past, many engineers stressed that the passive voice should be used in writing. However, this trend is changing. Some instructors, publications and industries now accept the active voice in written documents. To differentiate between the two, consider the following:

1) I used the electric identifier to solve the problem.


2) The electric identifier was used to solve the problem.



The first sentence is in active voice. It stresses who completed the work, "I." The second sentence is in the passive voice. It stresses the work completed, "The electric identifier was used."


Typically, if you use a first person pronoun (I, we) you are writing in active voice. Always be sure you know which voice you should use in your writing."

**************************

I'm not sure where the above quotes are from but I hope they help.



Hey John Cole, is active & passive the same as 1st & 3rd person narrative? They sound the same to this poker enthusiast. TIA

Happy pokering

Howard

[Andy B]

The example that springs to mind is the medical studies that I used to wade through at one of the menial jobs that drove me back to school. As far as I can recall, they were all written in the passive voice...."the animals were then sacrificed and their remains examined grossly"....stuff like that. As John points out, the passive voice does tend to deflect responsibility, which you might want to do if you were grossly examining animals' remains. I also think that the passive voice fosters the illusion of objectivity. Anyway, the last person to tell me that the passive voice is often preferable in technical documents was my dad, who has written a few zillion technical reports in his day but is also past 60, so he might be a little on the "old school" side. I finished engineering school in 2000, and we were taught so little about writing that it disturbed me. When I was a music major in the 1980s, I was always encouraged to use an active voice.

Sklansky's use of the passive voice is probably not the worst aspect of his writing.

[roGER]

Hello David,

Your simple question opens up a huge vista of English usage!

At its most basic, in English we have two choices of verb use, the active voice and passive voice. Both voices are grammatically correct, but in most cases the active voice is more direct, easier to understand, and easier to read. As a pro writer with a strong lazy streak, the active voice also uses fewer words, which means I don't have to type as much! This has some financial benefits when my work is translated, as most translation agencies charge by the word, and in a 100 page technical manual, a few words saved on every sentence soon adds up.

The most important advantage of the active voice is comprehension. Numerous studies show that most people understand active voice passages better than passive voice ones. They are also prepared to read longer because the language and construction are easier.

OK, so much for all that, here are some examples:

ACTIVE VOICE:

"David Sklansky played a pair of eights in late position."

(Word count = 10)

PASSIVE VOICE:

"A pair of eights was played by David Sklansky in late position."

(Word count = 12)

Notice that there is nothing wrong with these sentences, but the active sentence is shorter and easier to understand.

Here's an example from your essay "A Simple Technique" which is found in the "Poker, Gaming and Life" collection I reviewed...

PASSIVE VOICE:

"In this essay, I will show you..."

ACTIVE VOICE:

"In this essay, I show you..."

As you see, this is a minor change, but chopping the "will" out of the sentence doesn't change its meaning in any way, but we've lost a word, and the effect is a more active, punchy style.

Rather than go on and on I suggest you follow some of these links for extensive examples and discussion of the active/passive voice:

http://www.english-zone.com/verbs/pssvchrt.html

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handou...g_actpass.html

http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/passive.htm

http://www.english-zone.com/verbs/1passive.html

There's more to this tek riting skam than meets the eye isn't there?!?

Caretake,

- roGER

[Your Mom]

Rog-

I don't understand how adding the word "will" makes it passive voice. Seems to me it just changes the tense to future. "I" is still performing the action of "show". "I" is just doing the action in the future. Explain this to me please.