Killer Instinct Redux

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.