I’ve been writing these articles for more than 20 years and sometimes need to draw inspiration from all sorts of different places. Today’s inspiration comes from square dancing — but the subject matter will soon shift to gambling successfully.
The square dance callers (the people who stand up in front of the dancers and tell them what to do) in Las Vegas are probably adequate. Nothing special. It’s rare when one of our callers is paid to call somewhere else. At big conventions, when dancers from several states come together and dance to the best callers, our callers are never among those asked.
Periodically, however, we “import” callers from elsewhere for a dance or two. Recently, before the virus shut things down, Michael Kellogg (my favorite caller — but opinions vary), who’s based in Southern California, came to town to call a Friday night general dance and a Saturday afternoon advanced dance.
At the advanced dance, we had 22 dancers show up. Since it takes eight dancers (four couples) to make a square, we had two squares while six dancers sat out for eight minutes. We then rotated and another six dancers sat out. Then we all took a 10-minute break.
Kellogg needed to teach several calls simply because the Las Vegas callers don’t do a good job of covering all the possible calls at a given level. I knew 95% of what he was teaching — which put me among the better dancers. Some of the dancers knew less than 50%.
When it was Bonnie’s and my turn to sit out, we pulled up chairs near the floor and paid attention to what Kellogg was teaching. This guy clearly had something to say. I never knew if he’d say something I didn’t know until I actually heard it. So, I listened to everything. I am undoubtedly one of the most knowledgeable dancers locally, but still I hung on every word because I wished to become better.
When other dancers had to sit out for eight minutes, most of them went into another room to chat — about whatever. They would only put up with so much learning during the day. If they weren’t physically dancing, they couldn’t see the value of trying to learn something. They couldn’t see the value of refreshing their knowledge to brush up on something that they might have forgotten — or never known.
Let’s switch to video poker now. Many players are like these square dancers. They study a little. Get to 98% accuracy. And then stop studying. They want to win. Some even practice on computer software occasionally. But until they demonstrate a willingness to continue to study, they will likely never be winning players.
Clint Black sings in a song that, “Love isn’t something that we find, it’s something that we do.” The same goes with winning at gambling. You don’t get to a winning level and then stop thinking about it. The practice and study must be a career-long commitment if mastery of this is your goal.
I signed up recently at masterclass.com, which I’ll write more about later, where a whole lot of famous people give a course about the subject they know best. I’ve taken six of the courses so far (which average about 15 hours each), and EVERY ONE talks about how getting good is a lifetime commitment. You have to practice, practice, practice.
I accept that hard work is the price at being excellent at something. I’m always surprised at those who think “wishing it were so” can take the place of working at it.
It doesn’t seem like such a complicated concept, but perhaps it is to many people.
Never miss another post
This reminds me of piano lessons. I wanted to play, but when it didn’t come easy I wasn’t willing to do the hard work. I regret giving up on it just because it didn’t come easy.
Thanks Bob and Candy…….yawn
I think in many cases you need to consider that people have different goals and reasons for engaging in any activity, and these goals and reasons can be equally logical and valid to your own. I imagine that most people enjoy your square dances as a means of socializing. They probably don’t care so much about being expert square dancers so much as being able to meet with friends and perhaps make new friends in a social activity, i.e. dancing. The “Advanced Level” dancers might want to know a few more tricks than the “Beginner Level” dancers, but they are still probably primarily there to socialize rather than to enjoy dancing as a Platonic Ideal. Therefore, the optimal amount of study they should put into learning square dancing is merely enough so that they personally feel comfortable engaging in the activity. If they are presented with the opportunity to learn more, they will compare the effort needed to learn more against simply chatting with friends and socializing that way. Other people might not want to go to the dances at all, but are brought by their significant others. For these people, the optimal effort to learn is weighed against how much learning more will please their significant other. For one couple, the wife might simply be happy to be spending time out with her husband. For this person who didn’t want to be there in the first place, his optimal effort for learning is 0%. Going a step further, he might find it optimal to try to change their outings to something they both might enjoy, since his wife’s happiness is actually dependent solely or primarily on simply going out and engaging in some kind of activity together, rather than square dancing specifically. For another couple, the husband might be extremely competitive and anything less than maximum effort on the part of his wife will be met with disappointment. For her, she will have to evaluate how much pleasing her husband in this activity means to her, and weigh that against how onerous a task trying her hardest to learn square dancing will be.
Likewise, people have different goals with video poker. Consider for example, a Texas Holdem player that uses video poker as a supplement in order to obtain cheap hotel rooms while he travels on the poker tournament circuit. At a certain point, he will evaluate the time and effort needed to learn, say, penalty cards in video poker, and he may decide that it would make more monetary sense to instead use his time on a poker training site or running hands in equilab. Another person might only play extremely strong VP promotions that come up a few times a year at most. Is studying to be computer-perfect really optimal for this person? Probably not, but if he just sticks to very strong promos, he can still be a winning VP player.
Perfect is often the enemy of good. It’s only inherently optimal to go for 100% effort if there are no other plus-EV opportunities available to you. Real winners evaluate all their options and pick the one that makes the most sense for their particular situation.
Unfortunately, “Good is the enemy of better.” Many people are only interested in being good enough and don’t want to work hard enough to be better. If they were better poker players, they would win more. If they were better dancers they would have more fun. Being in a square of better dancers with an great caller is a real high.
I think this may partly just be a difference in generational cultural values. I don’t know your exact age, obviously, but based on the typical demographics of square dancers and your speech patterns (as well as probably the overall demographics of this site), I would assume you to be older than myself, probably a Baby Boomer. I think that your generation celebrated hard work, in and of itself, as a virtue. My generation places a premium on efficiency. Yes, a poker player who studies more will win more. But if the time spent studying poker could also be applied into an endeavor that will earn a greater return, then it would not be optimal to study poker.
Another assumption you make is that if a dancer becomes better he or she would have more fun. I think this is an unwarranted assumption. Many people enjoy doing things at which they are bad. An increase in skill for them does not necessarily lead to a commensurate rise in enjoyment. Perhaps for other dancers who enjoy being surrounded by highly skilled practitioners, this would be so, and so it would be behoove them to find a group that takes dancing seriously.
Square Dancing? I gotta go get drunk, yikes, you’ve all gone daft
Dancer is a dancer
I assume Dennis and James are the two standing in the other room.
I think some of you are arguing the very point the article is articulating.
I teach statistical analysis. I have students who are happy with a “C” from the start and are up-front telling me they have no more commitment than that. I have those happy with a “B”. Then you have the students happy to earn a 90.00 and will not work any harder because they see that as wasted time because it is an “A” and can’t get any higher. Then you have those that want as close to a 100% as possible.
The issue is with those who put in a “C” effort and are surprised when they get a “C”. The ones who say “but I studied all night”, when they did nothing much for the three weeks prior. As in life, cramming for your visit to Vegas does not work. You get what you put into it. If you are happy with that, great. Just don’t expect an “A” return on “C” effort.
I read all the comments and the last one by Mark Cronk hit it on the head.
You get what you put into it! Applies to everything in your life including marriage, children, religion, fitness and the list doesn’t stop there.
hi there friend,, i had similar thoughts… until i took a class… holy cow… after 8 months of once a week class.. i was ready to go to my first dance..no perfection.. just having fun..but trying to be a better dancer,, by the way.. im still trying to be a Better Dancer And Gambler TOO.. Conclusion… Practice makes perfect..
Ha!
Anthony gets off a good one from time to time.
Dennis and James are ones not stone-bored participating in square dancing.
VP is fun and profitable for me – the perfect hobby.