More Objections to My Blog

Hi Everybody,

Since I’ve been publishing for over forty years, I’m used to public criticism by people who misconstrue what I’ve written. Here are two examples of reactions to my first blog about the indictments.

1. A friend sent an email to our discussion group which included the following sentence: “I wholeheartedly do not think that bending over and taking it with a smile on my face is the only reasonable response.”

2. In the “Comments” area below the blog Cold Harbor wrote: “So let me get this straight- your advice is don’t write or call our leaders in Congress because we might piss them off? That we should do nothing but sit and hope that better people get voted into office in the next election? Sorry, but that is not a logical approach. That is a passive, wishy washy, let’s hope it all works out someday approach. Until the millions of poker players finally voice their outrage over their rights being trampled upon, nothing will change. Instead you will allow the moral police to keep winning because they are not afraid to be activists. If there ever was a time to speak up, it is now.”

Both critics are expressing anger, not trying to solve their own problem. And they are certainly putting words into my mouth. I challenge you to find anything I’ve written recommending that we bend over, take it, and smile. In fact, the very first words of my blog were, “The DOJ’s indictments were an abomination.”

I’m as angry as most of my friends, but the worse a situation is, the more important it becomes to stay cool and rational. People who let their anger control their actions make expensive mistakes.

I certainly did not say that we shouldn’t write to Congress because it might piss them off. I just said that writing, etc. would not have the results we would like to see, at least not for a very long time.

If you think that pressure from us will work quickly, I have a prop bet for you. I’ll bet any amount up to $10,000 that the DOJ will not allow Americans to play at Poker Stars or Full Tilt in 2011. All the money has to be put into a safe escrow account. If you seriously think letters etc. will work, here’s your chance to make an easy $10K. This offer expires in 48 hours.

All I recommend is that you analyze the situation dispassionately and then take the actions which are most likely to produce favorable results. That’s what sensible poker players always do. Let me quote from that blog:

“Instrumental actions are taken to cause a specific result. For example, before raising, you should know which result you want and why raising is likely to produce it: You may want to thin the field, build the pot, or get a free card. If you don’t know the result you want or are unlikely to get that result, don’t raise.”

I’ve added italics to the last sentence because it’s the critical one. Bending over, taking it, and smiling will obviously not have the result anyone wants. Neither will writing and calling our leaders in Congress, at least not within a few months. And, if you’re dependent upon your poker income, you need money now.

Let me continue the poker analogy, but deal with only one purpose of raising in a limit game: You have a vulnerable hand and want to thin the field. If you believe that the players behind you will almost certainly cold-call your raise on the flop, don’t raise. Call the bet, see whether the turn is favorable, and then raise if you think some players may fold to two large bets.

Many people don’t seriously think about what a raise will accomplish. They just raise, get called, get rivered, and then whine, “I can’t protect my hand against these idiots.”
You’ve heard it again and again. You may have even said it yourself. The doofus who made that dumb raise blamed his opponents for not doing what he wanted them to do, but – if he had analyzed the situation more intelligently – he would have played the hand differently.

We’ve just been dealt some terrible cards. The natural reaction is to complain about them, but that reaction conflicts with everything we know about poker. We have to play the cards we’re dealt as well as we can. So the question we all have to answer is: Which course of action will have the highest EV?

I must also point out that you can’t choose the best alternative if you delude yourself about the probabilities of your action’s effects. If, for example, you don’t study the players well enough to know that they are likely to cold-call your flop bet, you can’t make an intelligent decision about whether and when to raise.

The same point about realistic analysis certainly applies to this situation. Some people believe that letters, phone calls, etc. will cause the system to give us what we want. They are letting their hopes distort their perceptions. Again, I’m reminded of my Berkeley student days.

In the sixties demonstrations by Berkeley’s students were like football pep rallies. They were fun, and we wanted to believe that we were accomplishing something. Pep rallies supposedly “pump up” the team, and demonstrations supposedly helped our causes, and we had many wonderful causes.

I remember a demo against the restaurants in Oakland’s Jack London Square. We insisted that they had to do something. I can’t remember what it was, but it was certainly something “good.” We were idealistic and naive.

We were walking back and forth, carrying our signs, chanting our slogans. One of the leaders made a speech. He pointed to the restaurants and said, “We’re winning. They can’t take much more of this pressure.”

We roared their approval and went back to marching around.

But I suddenly realized that the speaker was obviously wrong. The restaurants were packed, and the customers were watching us with amused looks on their faces. Despite our idealistic desires, we were helping the restaurants’ owners. We were providing unpaid entertainment, pulling in customers for them.

I think that was my last demonstration. Why waste my time and energy when the result was exactly the opposite of what we were trying to achieve?

The same principle applies to our current situation. Obama, The Attorney General, and Congress are not going to yield to us, no matter how many letters and phone calls we make. And the more we rant, rave, or even threaten, the more we reinforce the negative stereotypes about poker players, thereby helping our enemies.

We should therefore take two steps:
1. Dispassionately assess all of our alternatives. What can we do, and what are the probabilities that each course of action will produce the results we want?
2. Pick the alternative that offers the highest EV (desirability times probability)

Learning how to adjust to B&M games may not produce the result you’d like, but that result will probably better than any other one you can reasonably expect.