Killer Instinct Redux

[shipitfish]

I received this anonymous comment (made from the Commerce Casino in California) on my post about the "killer instinct". I began writing a comment response, but decided instead to make it a fresh journal entry. I'll have to wait a few days for the hand discussions follow-ups on my previous semi-bluffing post. Here's my response to my anonymous commenter at the Commerce:

What you've said is quite strange. You said that you "don't like giving free poker lessons", yet you post an illuminating comment in a journal which has the stated purpose of being didactic for both the author and his readers. Why post any information at all, unless maybe as an advertisement for your illustrious paid poker lessons? That seems unlikely, though, given that you posted anonymously. My readers can't even hire you if they want to; how would they find you?

Anyway, to address the non-meta content of your comment, my original journal entry on the subject of "killer instinct" was an attempt, in part, to flush out a bit what the killer instinct actually is. I do appreciate that you have shared some information about that (which was quite didactic, BTW -- thanks for the free lesson, presumably you just couldn't help yourself). The definition you've given (paraphrased) is: "'killer instinct' is showing no mercy when taking someone's money at the poker table". It is interesting for me to consider whether or not I've "shown no mercy"; I think I haven't. I had to look up the definition of mercy to be sure I was thinking of it right; it's defined as "compassionate treatment of the unfortunate". I've shown such compassion, but not in the obvious way.

I never soft-play even my closest friends. Indeed, that's true even to the point that nick_marden and I have used that very rule about not soft-playing as a tool to manipulate each other during game time (by tricking the other into believing that rule might not be in effect). We've gotten each other into unfortunate situations (i.e., trapped for whole stack with the worse hand), and we do take each other's money. Perhaps Nick and I show each other mercy by our willingness to drop our defenses when not playing and talk about what happened. That's showing compassion, I suppose, regarding the misfortune of another.

I don't think I'm the only one who plays hard but still shows mercy. Has someone every told you about a tough hand or a bad beat, and you've responded with "that sucks", or with some other sincere expression that misfortune? Well, then you did treated an unfortunate person compassionately. You showed mercy. Did you lose your killer instinct?

I think the most hard-hitting of the pros even do it. Have you ever seen those pros shake each other's hands after a tournament bust and tell the loser that he played a good game and got unlucky. These are the top players in the world -- showing mercy. In the articles they write (e.g., Mike Sexton's heart-felt albeit simplistic discussions of people he admires in Card Player), they show respect and honor for people who haven't necessarily run well in games. That's compassion for misfortune; that's mercy. Shouldn't they be playing their best "killer instinct" game and ruthlessly looking for opportunities to take more money from those who are down?

---

Alan Schoonmaker, the most prolific psychologist working in the area of poker, has written some about the psychological truths surrounding this issue. He seems to doubt that any players really are truly ruthless and have no mercy. He has pointed out that people don't really play poker only to win, even those that say they do. He wrote in Card Player recently about this concept. I think the subtext of Schoonmaker's point is that no psychologically healthy person is going to be extremely high on the ruthlessness scale. He adds, though, that "the more ruthless competitor has a huge edge". He probably believes, as I do, that such people could exist, but they are very rare and are likely to have deeper psychological problems. (Maybe Stu Unger was like that? Or Phil Hellmuth, who is utterly unable to see a world that is not centered completely around himself?)

But take a look at the more typical pros with the "killer instinct". Doyle Brunson, who is held up as the grandfather of ruthless, no-mercy poker, also invented the idea of poker pedagogy! Strong players who write to teach others how to play poker are showing "compassion" for the "unfortunate" less talented players.

Brunson admits it was a tough decision for him, but he doesn't regret it either. Heck, even I, a lowly recreational player, didn't need the "killer instinct" to struggle myself with that question when I started this journal. I came up with the same answer that the "killer instinct" pros did: sharing with other human beings is more important than the "ruthless edge".

My anonymous commenter hints that he holds that "ruthless edge" himself. Wouldn't the true killer not say a word upon reading the journal entry, and simply walk away thinking: "I hope these non-killers end up at my table (again?) so I can fleece them". Instead, he posts, indicating he won't give a tutorial without an edge (instructor's fees), but then gives us a lesson, helping us understand "killer instinct" better. If he does that, isn't he showing mercy, and thus lacking that very instinct he's defined? Surely he has more killer instinct than I do, but he's also a human who craves interaction and friendship just like the rest of us. I'd bet he wants to reconcile in his mind how the "killer instinct" that he holds with pride can be something that I post about with some disdain; indeed, he sought to point out that buying beers was crossing some sort of line. Anyway, I am glad for his comment, as it has certainly shown me that this "ruthless question" is one worthy of some deep consideration.

Comments

killer Instinct, skill and the "luck factor"

[reddogace.livejournal.com]

I used to play pool alot when I was in college. I was and still am very good. My friends and the entire campus viewed me as "the pool guy". When I entered the pool room, others in line would sigh and know once my turn came up that would be the last game they played - since it was winner stays on the table. I have a trophy case filled with first and second place trophies. Ok, enough stroking of my own ego here, I just wanted to give that as an introduction to my next points.

On weekends I used to go out with my friends to bars and hustle for money and beers with people who didn't know me. I would let my opponents win a few games, double the stakes and then take all there money. Is this killer instinct - to some maybe. Is this cheating - no. Maybe morally wrong to some. Some may consider this an example of killer instinct - I don't because of the huge "luck factor".

Like poker there is alot of "luck" in pool. In pool the balls can roll all sorts of different ways uncontrollably. But my skill keeps the luck factor from having a huge influence on the game. Just like poker, there is enough luck to consider poker as an "anyone can win" kind of game - a level playing field. But it's those who have enough skill to keep the luck in line who come out ahead in the long run - not those with killer instinct.

Skill will always dictate the winners vs losers. Killer instinct can be part of that and manipulated, alot like hustling pool. One may befriend a fellow poker player at the table so he does not reraise you every hand - is this skill, yes if done intentionally. If you in turn do not raise him back all the time to keep on good terms with him - is this not having killer instinct - no....It's skill.

meta-issues are where this comes in

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting point that makes me think of something else. Many of these questions about the "killer instinct" come up regarding meta-game issues. In your pool example, the question about whether or not you had the "killer instinct" related on how much you bet in each subsequent separate game. No one disagrees about whether or not you should play your best game doing it; the killer instinct and the ethical questions usually come into play related to meta-issues.

For example, in the poker situation, do you offer the drunk guy more drinks? Do you egg him on when he asks to increase the stakes? Do you use every edge you can get that aren't expressly forbidden in the rule book? Do you shoot angles?

These are all a level above the actual poker game, which I would define narrowly as a "series of hands played in a social context". No one questions that the "social context" is part of the game; the question is whether or not you skate the edges of the rules to bend that social context. It's a classic question between "ethical" and "illegal"?

I'm a terrible pool player, but I view changing your bet and playing style to extract the maximum as reasonable. It's similar to taking the worst of it in poker to project a loose table image to extract later successful value bets. And, as a non-pool-player, even I've known that classic hustle since I was 12 years old. It's hard to call something truly ethically objectionable when it's the obvious thing that everyone knows about and should be protected against.

Re: meta-issues are where this comes in

[(Anonymous)]

With "games" or sports like pool or poker that involve so much luck. I'd argue at least 40% for poker maybe a bit less for pool - the term killer instinct is hard to apply. It's almost an ethical issue regarding pushing the boundries. In a non-competitive format like ring-games I say go-for-it. In tournaments it's more questionable, but still acceptable. Like pool, poker was born with an aura of back-alley, hustle about about it. not many will argue the morality. On the green felt, in either sport, it's every man for himself.

ethical standards and "every man"

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

There should be no difference on the ethical standard in ring-games as opposed to tournaments. Some rule differences might be necessary due to format differences and for uniformity of geographically disparate events, but these rule differences shouldn't relate to the "killer" behavior that players exhibit.

As for "every man for himself" (and what about Jennifer Harman and Annie Duke in that, BTW?), I don't think that should mean "every person can do whatever they like to get ahead". Yes, the game came from back alleys. Old stories are told of guns being drawn to settle a bad beat. Obviously we've evolved from that; or, are you suggesting a regression?