Poker and Silence
Posted by Sam Grafton
Posted by
Sam Grafton
posted in
Poker Journals
Poker and Silence
Poker and Silence
The photo of Dan Colman standing sullen-faced behind a pile of fifteen million dollars seemed to provide a sad, strange coda to the poker boom years. The poker press were quick to contrast it with the images of a gleeful Antonio Esfandiari standing barefooted on his stack of cash just two years previously. For others it stands as an inversion of those images of Chris Moneymaker holding aloft his bracelet amid a heap of a million dollars in 2003. For poker fans and players the question it seemed to ask is have we really fallen so far? If this great game has made so many so rich and given such pleasure to so many why can the press can no longer coax a few words, or even a smile, from the man at the pinnacle of the game?
I wasn't at all shocked when I heard that the winner of One Drop had refused to give an interview. I didn't know much about Colman prior to the tournament but pros' enthusiasm for the long-exalted dogma of 'promoting the game' has been flagging for some time. There already existed plenty of pros I admired who refused or disliked giving interviews for reasons other than shyness, and it couldn't be too long until one of them won something big. It's just remarkable that the occasion of it happening was a million dollar buy-in event.
In my limited time playing the circuit I've always enjoyed giving interviews. The poker media's generosity if you are even slightly forthcoming is overwhelming. There can't be many forms of competition where talented writers expend so much energy on casting the participants in a positive light. Nonetheless at least in the present moment there exists a disconnect between the very talented, hard-working group of people whose job it is to promote the game and the similarly talented and hard-working group of individuals who play it.
I'd like to suggest that it comes as a result of the way in which the poker ecology is evolving and the context in which the current generation of pros have come to prominence. By making clearer the contours of the present poker landscape perhaps we can all move forward together.
Colman and the One Drop
Like most poker fans I watched the ESPN footage of the One Drop with great interest. The tournament culminates with a fascinating heads-up confrontation between Colman and Daniel Negreanu. Given the two players contrasting ages, playing styles and dispositions to the media it becomes a match-up replete with symbolism.
Colman is portrayed throughout the ESPN footage as the protean youth, callow and unprepared. Negreanu by contrast is depicted as the mature and respectable finished article. Negreanu even wears the Mike Sexton approved suit for the final table, whilst the audience is continually reminded of the casual nature of Colman's attire. The tale is framed as that of the young impostor verses the people's ambassador. This, though, is not a movie and it's Colman who will be triumphant. One can quite easily imagine the coverage including a comedic cutaway, as Colman wins the final hand, to a dozen producers and journalists flinging off their headsets in frustration.
The maturity of Colman's conduct and the brilliance of his play throughout the heads-up match belie the commentator's attempt to frame him as the immature youth. In my eyes the heads up match plays out symbolically not so much as a clash between the shallow internet wizard and the sophisticated ambassador, but as a match in which we witness the final death throes of the 'feel-player' in poker and the triumphant raising of the banner of Game Theory. Throughout the final Negreanu repeatedly bets rivers far too thinly and his undoing is a King high call down when he reaches the river with very close to the bottom of his range. At one point Colman even calls out Negreanu's exact hand on the river - the TV trick for which Negreanu himself became famous. Negreanu is a remarkable man who has served poker fantastically but this is Colman's hour and the line-up of pros whom ESPN deploys to subtly disparage Colman's silence can do nothing to take the shine off his victory.
Many were angered by Colman's refusal to do a winners interview but he offered the community a cogent and humble accounting of his choices on two-plus-two. He has done little since his win to suggest he's insincere or unthinking about his motivations not to promote the game. To have ambivalence about your place in the world, how you make your living and your own privilege seems like a marked sign of maturity. This, of course, being the very quality that Colman's detractors accuse him of lacking. What will be interesting is to see is if Colman's stance becomes a trend and how even the possibility of pros being uncooperative with the promotion of the game affects the status quo.
Poker Pros and the Media
Colman's silence caused such consternation throughout the poker industry because of the crucial and rarely acknowledged importance the visibility of poker success stories has for the poker economy. The visibility and indeed audibility of high-profile poker pros is essential to the poker industry because they act as living proof of the way that poker differs from other forms of gambling. The industry promulgates two rather contradictory narratives of how poker functions. The first centres on the idea that anyone can win a poker tournament. This is needed to encourage a constant influx of losing amateurs and enthusiasts that they too could claim a big pay-day. The second is that this is a game of skill where some players excel in a similar manner to great athletes. If poker tournament winners were just a random series of individuals the game would, of course, be no different to a lottery. This is something that few countries would be willing to sanction within their borders. So the second narrative, of which the poker-pro is the natural exemplar, is needed to emphasise the game's large skill component. It's because the poker pro is so central to pokers narrative of legitimacy that there were such strong reactions to Colman's silence amongst the game's stakeholders.
The pros that the industry utilised to promote this vision of poker during the boom years were certainly a varied and charismatic bunch. If it was a golden time for a player building a bank-roll it was also I'm sure a golden period for TV producers and magazine editors looking for a character. These pros, we should also not forget, were lavishly remunerated for their visibility. If today's elite poker players are less willing to be shoe-horned into the role of 'E-dog,' or the 'Poker Brat' it has much to do with the extent they and their peers share in the money generated by poker. The generation that preceded the online players were invested in poker and the success of poker platforms in a very literal way. They were either effectively paid a wage by them through sponsorship, or in the case of Full Tilt they were actual shareholders in the company. When this is the case, of course you are naturally more willing to partake in the hype and excess that helps to either grow the game or a specific company.
With the exception of Negreanu, Esfandiari and a few others the generation of live players who emerged in the white heat of the poker boom has passed by the way side. Many failed to keep up with the game and the Full Tilt scandal disgraced others. The internet generation now has centre stage entirely cleared for themselves; the spotlight is theirs. However, there seems a great reluctance to make use of it. The reasons for this are manifold. Elite players' recalcitrance to the gaze of the media is at least partially to do with the lack sponsorship and perks that were the norm in the boom years as I've already outlined. The robberies and home invasion of Duhamel and Jorgensen as well as the hotel break-ins in Barcelona season ten spring immediately to mind as additional disincentives for a player to publicise his or her winnings. The prime factor I would venture though is the context in which the contemporary pro has built their bankroll.
The Modern Poker Pro
Society remains passively hostile to those of us who make our living from a game of cards. The contemporary poker player has to deal with the distrust of banks and landlords, the antipathy of friends and family and frequently a government who see your income as illegitimate but tax it anyway. These are challenges that the generation of Brunson or Hellmuth likely also faced. However, unlike previous generations of players, mine has also had to deal with corporations such as Full Tilt and UB where fellow pros enriched themselves on our rake, while demonstrating a criminal recklessness with our money and the community's trust. Those poker pros who are emerging into the spotlight today have overcome all of this and built their bankrolls without the benefits of rake-back, deposit bonuses and soft fields which eased the entry into poker six or seven years ago. Given these circumstances it's certainly understandable if they are happy to take their share of the money and are reluctant to do more.
I personally hope that our top pros do not follow Colman's lead and retreat from the spotlight. The game on the felt is a test of individual prowess but there is almost no poker player who rises to the top as an autodidact. The spread and evolution of the game's strategies is a remarkable tale that will likely never be told. Poker strategy has developed and advanced with such remarkable rapidity because of the strong friendships and alliances formed between players. Poker knowledge develops and mutates via huddled confabs at live events, over Skype and WhatsApp, friend helping friend; innovation and experimentation creating a tapestry of human connection that has crossed cultures and classes. It is this remarkable web of learning and self-improvement that binds players together as a fraternity.
I don't feel that those whose hard-work and good fortune takes them to the top owe the rest of us anything. However, I'd certainly rather the smartest and most talented members of my community use the opportunities they've won to play a role in moulding the future context in which we'll all play poker. We have, for instance, a lot better chance of gaining control of re-entry tournaments, or preventing the breach of the long maintained firewall between poker sites and other forms of gambling, if poker's elite players use their position as a means of amplifying the community's concerns. To completely abandon engagement and collaboration with the companies and organisations which will shape poker futures and retreat into silence is to risk seeing a game which has brought great opportunity to so many of our community turned into an empty table game.
One Drop Reprise
I'd like to conclude by returning briefly to the ESPN coverage of the One Drop. Perhaps the most gripping hand of the entire footage saw Scott Seiver bluffing Tobias Reinkemeier off pocket aces with six players remaining. The hand holds the spectator in thrall for a number of reasons beyond the huge stakes being played for. It's absorbing to watch the way in which Seiver manipulates the two players rapport to achieve his desired outcome. A tactic which makes Scott's showing of the bluff seem all the more cruel. What is most remarkable is that despite the intense scrutiny under which Reinkemeier places Seiver he seems at a complete loss at how to proceed. As Reinkemeier writhes in his chair we see a great player's mask slip away and his vulnerability laid bare. In this way viewers witness something that could be justifiably categorised as a great sporting moment - its drama transcending the mere intricacies of a specific game and revealing something human.
As a poker fan I'm in awe of the elite players that create these remarkable moments and grateful that the media is there to convey them to myself and a wider audience. As pros, though, we have to be aware that if we vacate the stage as soon as the actions done the void left behind is filled with a narrative that we have no hand in shaping. We shouldn't quickly forget that the space left by Colman's silence was filled by a thousand images of a unsmiling young man looking almost contemptuous of the giant pile of cash he had just won. If pros themselves don't set poker's agenda then others will do it for us, often to our and our community's detriment.
Loading 46 Comments...
I actually think what Colman is doing for poker is great. When he won the One Drop, he could have done two things - give a standard interview or refuse to speak. Guess which one attracts more mainstream attention?
People who are different to the norm get the most attention. Thats why the most popular poker players are the vocal and jovial guys like Negreanu and Esfandiari and then Ivey, who is the exact opposite of the two as far as personalities go. I have an analogy with sports - one of the most popular F1 drivers in history is Kimi Raikkonen. A quiet and an incredibly talented, guy. Doesnt care about the media at all (in fact he openly hates them), gives the most careless interviews ever and never really celebrates his victories, not even on the podium. Always has the "alright lets get this over with" face on. And yet, the fans love him.
And what does it have to do with Colman? Since Ivey started taking media more seriously, realized how good giving interviews is for his training site and is no longer an enigma, his "spot" in the poker community is now vacant. And I think Colman is exactly what we need - an aloof young good looking (no homo) guy, who´s insanely good at poker and has had some massive success both live and online.
Just btw - I was having a beer with my best friend the other day, with whom I almost never speak about poker (besides the usual "how is it going" and the occasional bad beat story from his xbox poker). All of a sudden, he started talking about this young kid he saw on TV who won millions and looked sad and refused to speak to anybody. He was genuinely interested in who this guy was, why did he react the way he did and wanted to know more about his life/career. I kinda doubt he would get this much attention from a basically non-poker person as my friend if he just said "I feel great, its a dream come true. Thank you mom."
an aloof young good looking (no homo) guy? why is no homo better then homo? just annoying commentary by you ondra in 1 perfect tread
Id' take a young, good looking homo poster boy any day. They dress well, you know. :-)
Haha, you clearly misunderstand what it meant. Why I said it was to create a joke, by saying that I think he is good looking, and adding "no homo" as in "Im no homo". Not that Im homofobic or anything, I just think its funny. For more info: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/no-homo
It's an old joke/meme of popular masculine hetero-culture to follow any mention of the positive appearance of a member of the same sex with "no homo" or "pause". Increasingly these jokes are being recognized as offensive, even if the intent was unoffensive, and are falling out of favor in popular culture. It's obviously unnecessary to make it clear that you aren't actually attracted to a member of the same sex, as nobody should care if you are in the context of the comments.
I realize that Ondra was just making a joke, and I don't believe there was any intent to offend in his post. I'm sure I've made more offensive jokes on forums before. That being said, we'd all probably be better off if we at least considered whether or not we're offending someone before typing a throwaway joke like "no homo".
@themightyjim to be totally honest I didnt think anyone would be offended by whats clearly a joke, but if anyone did get offended then I apologize.
It's very decent of you to offer up a sincere apology. I only posted to clarify for those that might not understand the phrase, since it was distracting from an otherwise interesting post.
FWIW I agree that having players like Colman representing poker certainly won't be a bad thing. It might not be good for the long term health of the economy if most winners shunned any attention. But the poker world already has plenty of attention-mongers, and a self-conscious winner who shuns some of the traditional traps of the "baller" lifestyle might bring more thoughtful attention to the game and many of it's participants.
sorry i first snap tilt :) then think twice :D <3
Colman doesn't want to promote poker, so he takes all the money from poker players in the world. That is a good strategy.
Good thread Sam! Some food for thought here.
Thanks for writing this Sam....what you have said in the above "article" is very important, imo, especially for pros and aspiring pros.
Well written.
Very well written, and great point of view. I especially agree with this line: "As pros, though, we have to be aware that if we vacate the stage as soon as the actions done the void left behind is filled with a narrative that we have no hand in shaping."
Excellent post, and lots of food for thought. What irks me most about the whole debacle is how media just whips together a "plot" for the event and sticks to it. Negreanu is comfortable in his role, but that doesn't mean Colman should feel any obligation to play his.
And I am glad he didn't. Watching him rip through the One Drop, and seeing Negreanu disintegrate HU, made my jaw drop to the floor. It was Greatness. Pity media doesn't recognize it, but we do. :-)
A stunning post, thanks for sharing this.
Poker, especially in live tournaments, has way too much variance for anyone to ever care. It would have been ridiculous for Coleman to stand up there and act like he was some sort of star or stud bc he won the One-Drop. He was on the right end of good variance. In any situation where you could be arguably the best in the world and go years without winning a tournament (which is the norm in live tourney poker) then I would say.... WHO CARES? If I was him I would be jaded too about the celebration and ESPN trying to make it like poker is a sport or something where people out competed one another. Its a joke. Perhaps if people played HU for the whole year 200k hands or something then you could begin to appreciate what someone accomplished. I respect Coleman for providing a real response...a true response.
Great article. However, it does not at all address the main point Colman was trying to make by declining to give an interview, according to his 2+2 post... That poker has a darker side and that net, poker players are losers financially and emotionally.
Poker is a zero sum game, so after rake, the poker playing community must overall lose money. Television shows or the wider poker press never mention this. One sees leaderboards in total tournament prize winnings, but have you ever come across net winnings? Subtract all non-cashing entry fees over the years (yet alone including travel expenses), and I doubt more than 15 percent of players are net positive.
What percentage of online or live players in cash games are winners? I have no idea but I would estimate 10% at best. So where is the poker press or glamorisation of those 90% of losers? Perhaps the vast majority enjoy their poker experience and view their losses as a cost of entertainment like any other. But what about the small minority of players who have gone broke and ruined their life from poker gambling losses?
Professional poker players may view themselves as entertainers. Perhaps though, digging deeper, on reflectional, pros are vultures that exploit weakness to "grind" money from "fish". Have you ever thought about how disgusting those two terms are at heart?
To me, like his game theory beautiful poker playing, Colman is being totally logical. He plays, enjoys, and benefits from exploiting the game but sees no upside in advertising poker.
Aside from the financial aspects, Colman made an incredibly insightful point in his 2+2 post... Poker is not a constructive use of time. Pro or amateur, a large minority become addicted and absorbed by what is in essence just a card game. Hours upon hours of your life may be passed away sitting huddled around a poker table surrounded by a majority of other men or sitting solitary clicking a mouse button. This is time spent away from family and friends or time taken away from spending or doing or creating anything productive.
I was a poker pro back in the day and enjoyed the game immensely. However, there was always an angst in the forefront of my mind that playing poker for a living, even if successful, was not the right way to spend a life.
After a winning session against a poor player but a successful businessman, we had dinner together. I will never forget what he told me, "James, there are no winners in poker. The losers lose and the winners, if they are smart enough to make a living playing poker, could make infinitely more in other endeavours in life."
I am not so puritanical as to criticize anyone that wants to gamble with their own money and I still enjoy playing at relatively high stakes as a hobby, but I totally agree with Colman, who has no interest in essentially helping advertise gambling and promoting onlike poker sites via the television networks.
Grafton's article makes very valid points but does not at all address the more negative sides to poker that Colman did not want to promote. He made his point ingeniously via his silence after scaling the peak of the game. Colman, unwillingly has become a poker role model.
This comment irks me a little, and I would like to add some thoughts.
What is the right way to spend a life? Who decides, if not the person living it? Did you feel uncomfortable living a life off the beaten path? Then that life was not for you. But can you say that being a poker professional is not the right way to spend a life? No, you can not.
Life is many things. How we get our money is a big part of it, but that is not what defines us, or what defines the quality of our lives. How much we contribute to society, likewise. I did not sign a contract when I was born about obligations in such matters.
We are free to live our lives as we wish, as long as we adhere to some simple rules. And we are free to seek happiness where we can find it, and make good lives for ourselves. For most people this means predictable, stable and secure lives, and for many it also means traditional lives, as in, marriage and children.
For some of us, happiness means very different things. The freedom to spend our time as we wish. The freedom to not have to get up in the morning to go to jobs we are indifferent towards, or that we might even dislike. The freedom to not getting told what to do. The freedom to live out our days, unmarried and childless and light on our feet, if that is what we choose.
And the freedom to make our income playing a game that we love, and in the process hang with some pretty awesome and brilliant people. :-)
What about the "What are you contributing to society" issue? Irrelevant. We all try to grab us some monies, whatever our profession. How you get yours and how I get mine does not matter, as long as we both stay within the confines of the law. Apart from that, my main contribution to society is to not be a dick. Which is more than can be said about many people in "nicer" and more "valuable" professions than the one I have chosen.
So when we both are law-abiding and not dicks, we are fine and dandy, ethically. Then we can turn our attentions to things that really matter. As in, how do we make our lives happy and good and worh living. How to do that is up to ourselves. I like mine. :-)
Thanks for the reply. Very articulate. - My article addresses the media's and the community's reaction to Coleman's 'silence.' Your absolutely right that it doesn't address head on his stated reasons for not promoting the game. Nor does it attempt answer the question of whether poker is a 'dark-game.'
One can quite easily imagine an article that breaks down by numbers how many people actually lose on Stars, how many win and how much the company profits. It would certainly be a useful thing for all pros and recreational players to be more aware of.
"There are no real winners in poker". One of the times when you should look at the messenger as well as the message. I bet its a different opinion if your friend was successful at both poker and business.
"If they're smart enough to make a living playing poker, could infinitely make more in other endeavors of life". Again, rather presumptuous. Making money is not just about being smart. Poker is one of the times it's likely true because consistently outsmarting the competition is likely to be correlated with your level of success. There are a lot of smart people in dead end jobs.
"Right way to spend a life". A lot of this is about your reasons for getting into poker in the first place. Same goes for just about any other profession. We could all dwell on the dark side of any given profession and never do anything. Some poker player get successful and move on to other things. Others truly enjoy doing what they are doing and can't see themselves doing anything else.
Truth is, its all personal and is not peculiar to poker. That's the reason why Colman's behavior is not terrible. He maintained a certain psychology and perception to the game framed from previous experiences and that is responsible in part for his success. Expecting him to ditch his beliefs and act in a certain way is rather shortsighted.
I admire the way you've lived life from the last time we crossed paths over 10 years ago at the Vic, but I feel the need to rebut you when it comes to the advice offered by the allegedly sage businessman.
Firstly, I think there is no merit at all to the idea that there are no winners in poker. While it is correct to realize that monetary success does not equal happiness, fulfillment, or self worth...for some people poker is the best pathway to these goals. It is rare of course, but so is becoming successful at any other aspect of life.
I also think it is a bunch of poppycock and a loser (at least at some facet) projecting on you his localized perspective of life. The fact is that you won. Not only that, you won big. You had no better use of your time at that period of your life, and it could be argued you wouldn't have been successful afterwards at anything else had you not gained the experience in professional gambling despite being from a good family. You made the correct choice to quit for your life (in my opinion), but that doesn't mean other people are blessed with as many options as you were. You are projecting your pathway of success onto others here just like that businessman who lost. Perhaps you internalized some faulty logic from him even though you turned out a winner.
Most winning players I remain friends with (I don't associate with either losing poker players or life losers) came from similar backgrounds. Broken family, Jewish, previously competitive at a high level in another sport, and gifted at instinctual game theory (they learn unsolved things fast). Every single person of this group who found poker with me was handicapped in life compared to you in at least one way. It could be social class, criminal record, physical, emotional, or situational, but everyone had a wall that poker allowed them to overcome. It is of course possible some of them could make more money doing other things, but people choose the path of least resistance that gives them the greatest chance of success in life. Your life fortunately afforded you more branches and the cognizance to be aware of those branches, but I guarantee you that it was the path of least resistance just like everyone else who is still making a living playing poker.
My personal story found me at a 3rd rate university in a freshman business class at 17 years old with a bunch of losers except for the assistant professor from Russia. I had a meeting with him one day because I was frustrated with how unchallenged I felt by everything. He was secretly a successful himself from hard work trading, but nobody in the class was smart enough to realize this guy knew what he was talking about. He was only teaching at the school so he could earn his doctorate and be credentialed enough to run a fund in the US. Nobody else ever came by his office except to whine. He didn't need to work at all, and said I didn't need school. He encouraged me to leave university behind to pursue poker because he accurately predicted almost every single thing that would happen in the industry. He said I may never have a better opportunity to make so much money in my life and to take it. I could always return to school.
He has been 100% right so far. Despite my diverse knowledge of business, every single company I have created or ran has failed so far despite many innovations I am quite proud of. This does not mean i will stop trying or that poker is the end all for me, but it is the only thing I am currently sure of at 31. I am an expert at what I do. Not many people can claim to be an expert who has been at the top of their field. I can.
Life is extremely short, and the professor was right...I haven't got the opportunity again to plunder the low hanging fruit I once did. I'm still here grinding some of the time and mostly spend my days trying to execute my ideas successfully. I know now exactly what I am capable of, and that is something poker has given me. I would have never been given the opportunity to leave the US, meet my wife, or have any of the amazing friends I have without poker. I might not be doing so great financially currently, but I am definitely a winner from poker, and in life.
This is a great post, many good points, lots to think about. I am from a media outlet, but I totally respect Dan´s decision and find the reaction of the world poker media quite wrong. I truly believe both sides - media and pros - can find a way to move forward. Dan is a fine young pro. Thank you for sharing this, Sam. Cheers L.
Thanks. Very nice post. I really appreciate how warmly yourself and others have received the article.
Woody Deck, remind me am racking my brain here. 10 years is a long time????
Good point on not everyone having the same opportunities I had. And yes, poker can be great for some people. Phil Laak reminds me every time I see him! However, opportunity or not, the path of least resistance may not be the optimal one. At the grand old age of 31, I am sure there is plenty of time for one of your businesses to cash.
Good article Sam, I like Colman and think he's a great player, but he probably shut have just done a boring "both teams played hard" style interview or talk about one drop. Dodging an interview after winning any tournament is kind of silly IMO (pro athletes would be fined for missing post-game press conferences), and while he technically has no obligation to give an interview, given that he just won the biggest tournament of the year, it would have been appropriate IMO for Colman to give a brief interview, even if he just spoke in platitudes for a few minutes.
The media is unfamiliar in dealing with people that have nothing to gain by talking to them.
Online poker is dead in the US and fighting constant regulatory battles elsewhere. Combine that with an overall economy that makes things difficult to capitalize on a public profile and players have no interest in talking to the media. They are not football players who get paid by sponsors and there are no benefits to having a public profile.
Coleman has his own reasons. But when it boils down to it for the majority (and probably Coleman), it's just not worth it. Until the overriding powers (poker is bad, regulate it into oblivion & not so great world economies) change, why bother?
Well i suggest you 'bother' to prevent a narrative that you have no hand in shaping filling the void and to help the rest of the community. I agree though that financial incentives did, and maybe will again, incentivise people to make use of the spotlight. - You can't know Negreanu's motives for his high level of community engagement, but one can speculate that a large endorsement deal with Stars at least to some extent stimulates it.
Meaningfulness of Poker and its morality
That subject seem to appear since Coleman didn't give an interview and people started to have some doubts on what is right and wrong, and many moralists came quick to preach the philosophies of good and purposeful and meaningful lives .
Now, lets step aside a little and ask who re they?
Econimists, who sell this and that to people who they call customers ( very different to fishes , term poker players use, O Dear, is that a vocabulary problem or I'm mistaken? ) for profits often with huge disregards to even common morality . Lets start there . Profits. Like it or not that is unfortunately thing that makes world go around in capitalistic world, and that is now. Are there any exceptions? Doctors, most looking for well paid jobs in good hospitals that are available to poor? Nope. Money is motivator to most and close to all, and it s kind of hypocrisy to point fingers in one direction, as in, most people in most professions work for money and because of money, fortunate ones combining what they love with what they do, others less fortunate, just work for money, yet, why point finger at Poker Player so much? Seems like some sort of unprovoked inquisition, people need their morality to show off somewhere?Are they really Good and are they the ones and who is the one to point that finger ?
Whatever profession we have and chose , we wil encounter many conscious and morality issues, and everything can be seen in its worse light, whatever is what we do, Even if one is a Saint, i can pull out Nietzsche and criticize the core of it.
Poker is a game and competition, and it costs money to be played. Many wil come around for fun, fun evening and won't regret some money spend, even bigger one, as many do come to sport games movies buy silly collectible stuff super expensive clothes, yet, no one cares about other stuff where people have fun, just because they're FUN and it is expected person to go relaxed here and there, specially weekends, yet, if its game of cards, then we hear occasional loud No NO;s and some moralities from various people often interlacing many valid points that kind of apply and don't apply because they re universal.
Many wil come to compete and many wil fail. Many have in all areas of life, yet, they usually aren't subjects of any discussions. Thats just life, only few succeed to become top in anything.
Some get addictions, but, how many things are addictive and totally ruin person life ? Compared to moderate and decent joy and usage? So, should we ban clubs and cafes because some people are alcoholics?
Meh, i just had to rant a little, i disliked that morality issue appearing since that One drop, and wanted to reflect out loud some, and this tread just seemed place where to :)
"how many things are addictive and totally ruin person life?" you ever done coke bro? yea don't or you might get an answer to your question.
While I think you provided a good counter-argument to James Vogl's post (who I think wrote an interesting post here), I would still take a little issue with your post. It almost feels a little like 'if everybody is guilty of something than nobody is really guilty of anything and therefore we shouldn't even begin to question the morality of our actions'. Or to put it another way, if you were one of the many boys who engaged in the activity of kicking the fat kid of the stomach, it's almost like presenting the 'well, everybody else was doing it' excuse as morally justified.
I believe we should be able to analyse any activity or behaviour and question the morality of this behaviour on it's own merits and not try and grade it's moral value in a scale relative to the morality of other behaviours associated with other jobs or walks of life. I'm not excusing other activities from scrutiny but I'm just saying that we should try and look at the morality of poker as objectively as we can and not let what we think of the morality of other activities effect our conclusion of how we perceive the morality of poker.
And I'll present a case for when I think engaging in the game of poker is a morally bankrupt activity and absolutely not to be celebrated. I remember playing a lot of live poker in the local casino. I wouldn't claim to have been a pro as I had a job but I was a winning player. I got to know a lot of the regulars though who were pros and many who weren't and were simply very bad players. There were clear cases where I remember a lot of us buttering up certain bad players with flattery and general friendliness and I think if we were being honest with ourselves , we were only doing it because we had an eye on their cash. So it was dishonest behaviour. Of course, this sort of dishonesty happens throughout the business world and I won't deny that. But it's still not reason to excuse the behaviour. This behaviour is not something to be proud of, in my opinion.
But worse still, there were the moments when the sick gambling addicts sat down to play. Really, really sick people. And sadly, these were the people who were ultimately keeping the pros at the table full time. We were feeding off the MOST VULNERABLE people. It was a sad sight to behold but deep down, if most of the pros were honest with themselves, they lick their lips at the sight of these sick gambling addicts. Surely, the most humane thing to do is to reach out and try and help these vulnerable people. But instead, we flock around them like vultures to try and exploit them. I know you can point to other walks of life and question them in the same way e.g a barman continuing to serve an alcoholic but doing so doesn't make the poker players behaviour any more excusable. It is ABSOLUTELY NOT behaviour to be proud of or to be celebrating. We are HURTING these people. NOT HELPING them. And it is a side of poker, that I believe the media should be drawing MORE attention to and not less. Phrases like 'poker community' seem to insinuate something wholesome to me or perhaps I am missing something. I still can't help but feel that it's a community of exploiters, for the most part. There are certainly not all winners in the poker community and certainly not all of the people being exploited are as vulnerable as the ones that I have drawn attention to. Perhaps, some of those even being exploited feel that they are being given their money's worth of entertainment by these 'cheerful, friendly' players but I think that deep down all pros have been in that situation where they have come across a gambling addict spiralling out of control and in a lot of pain and instead of helping that person, they have done everything they could to cash in on the process.
I think it's a very, very dark side of what we do as poker players that we try so very hard to hide from the general public and any potential new 'fish'.
I do understand many aspects of poker, but when one looks into 1 subject it is very unfair to pull out the worse and start abusing that arguments only in regards to 1 specific profession
Surely not many things are great, i myself enountered few times player on super tilt ( i play online not live so i can't actually separate true and real gambling addicts ) and what I did is left table cause i had a feel it would be abusing to use person out of his mind . Sure most wouldnt, but each of us handle individual cases due to their own personalities. Same goes to people being friendly and nice to people having money, lurking at their money piles and trying to make them feel as good as possible so they can win as much. Same is in all other professions, some are simply arse kissers and good social minglers for their benefit, butMUST be said its personal choice. Like everything in life, some things are easier to do and achieve with disregards to common morality and high standards, and poker players, but, same as many other human beings simply fail.
In that regards, i can say , and I'm sure of it and believe in it that you can play with morality and integrity and without fake presentations. If u watch me play, id engage myself in pleasantries, nice social charter, but thats simply cause I'm alike in real life, i talk to anyone and I'm super friendly, id talk to elderly neighbors, bank clerks security on doors kids whoever comes across myway, so, i simply cant chose otherwise in poker. Yet , many times, its just play play play no talk, and thats online world, professional and quiet most often :) and i don't think it needs to be labeled as much more immoral then other stuff. Just my view. Everything we do should be questioned and each individual should seek for higher moral and value standards, and i think they can be met and found in poker as well. People not meeting standards are everywhere in life, not just poker, so i dontthink they need to be labeled specially to stand out of the common world.
One nice example i would like to add to gambling addiction problem and poker players address to it, and you an find it in chatter http://www.runitonce.com/chatter/10-years-of-busto/ where person admits gambling addiction.
Poker players, most i think, want to win as competitive individuals against same sane individuals, not people with problems.
Poker players are people like everyone else, and when they see someone with huge problem, they would address it and say a person to seek help. Beyond that, we cant make anyone do something specific, like u can't take alcoholic to treatementwhen u see him day in and out being dead drunk.
Can be sorry and sad. As we all are. Cause we re as human as everyone ELSE>
in regards to the comment "playing poker for a living, even if successful, was not the right way to spend a life"
I think this comment can be interpreted in 2 ways; its not right morally for people to be poker players OR its not right for me. I would hope that the poster is simply expressing his personal views. These are also views that I share. I have been playing poker as my only source of income for about 10 years now and as a U.S. resident, once online poker was essentially taken away from us, I transitioned to about 80% live play. With 80% of my hourly play being live, I can honestly say that there have been MANY MANY occasions that I have come to the realization that:1) Im sitting indoors all day/night 2) I have to look at all these ugly people's faces 3) I am out to get their money and they are out to get mine so we naturally have some form of distain toward each other 4) Im basically sitting on a chair 5) Indoors 6) All day 7) Live pokers is sloooooowwww
I should add that I actually went through a brief period of having a vitamin D deficiency due to lack of sunlight exposure due to long hours of grinding.
Monetarily, poker has been good. BUT in every other facet of life I feel like I would probably have been better off and healthier in some kind of traditional career.
Thanks for sharing. Definitely is a tough profession for many (most?) of us.
Yes, I meant it was nor right for me. Anyone feel free to do what they are happy and comfortable with.
But I would add, (and this is in response to Zenfish also), that morality issues aside, from my experience you see very few pros that over a long period are particularly satisfied. I can count on one hand the number of successful pros with a happy family (understood, not for everyone), but also due to the binary nature of the game, ten years and millions of hands later, you may not find poker quite as captivating as you do now.
Great post, ty
Pleasure!
Very good posts. Good food for thought if I ever want to become a pro.
If I were giving life advice to anyone considering playing poker professionally from the ground up, I would tell them that poker is like a pyramid scheme. It is beautiful at the top and the money pours in. Its also a constant "king of the hill" battle, meaning its not like other jobs where once you get to the top, you stay there. In poker once you get to the top, you have to continue to learn, continue to get better, stay current on the metagame, continue to crush in new ways as your much more skilled opponents will be adjusting to your play better than those opponents that you fed off of on your way up. Obviously, as you move up in poker things get harder and harder. Edges over opponents become smaller and smaller until you either A) continue to get better and beat them OR 2) you reach your plateau. In many other professions in life its the opposite; the bottom rungs are where the shit work is and then as you move up it gets nicer and easier.
Holy cow! That was profound, concise, and triggered a half-dozen epiphanies. Who are you and why haven't I read your stuff before? On the hunt for more of your stuff. You, Sir, are under-exposed.
Thanks for kind words. Did used to do a column in Poker Player Magazine in the UK. Some of the articles are online. Just find PokerPlayer365.com then search my name.
I truly dislike poker being considered morally bankrupt and full of vultures. Poker has certainly done some good for some people as well. Hell the tournament that sparked this conversation raised money for charity. I have personally played live and buttered up the bad players and stayed an extra hour because the gambling addict just showed and was going to be juicing up the game. The difference is I actually make an effort to truly befriend these "bad" players and if I see them often - I will pull them aside or talk to them after and make sure everything is going ok with them....make sure I am not taking food out of there mouths. In the case of the sicko gambler - I have made an honest effort to talk them out of playing and tried to get them out of the habit of gambling away the rent. But honestly these guys are going to gamble, it doesn't matter if we take poker away, they will go out back and flip quarters or bet on the Browns or whatever. At least poker offers them the opportunity to play in a fair game where the odds aren't irrevocably stacked against them and if they chose to, they could learn the game, get better and maybe turn a profit.....probably not but certainly have a better chance at poker than they do when they dump their paycheck into a slot machine (which is what they would do if there were no poker tables). I guess my point is Gambling is a vice and has all kinds of morality issues to it.....poker is different than most (all other?) gambling games in that it is me against you in an equal fair contest. (besides the rake).
I think one thing this discussion has missed is the media's role in hiding this 'dark side' that Colman describes.
There has been a huge backlash about the responsibility of the players to promote the game for reasons as varied as a percieved debt of gratitude, or some future payoff not forthcoming, to some dire predictions of 'empty tables' just because of missed interviews.
What about the media's responsibility to 'truth' ? Why no blame for the media promoting unrealistic expectations leading to (potentially) a generation of kids bright enough to go to college, instead being lured into a game that is -EV in so many ways?
Any of the dark sides of poker that are known to a pro would surely be known by CardPlayer. But it is obviously in that magazine's best interest to keep beating the drum about huge wins by any and every body. When was the last time CardPlayer ran a negative article about any of it's advertisers? Why was UB/Absolute Poker allowed to advertise even while they refused to pay players? Why is Lock Poker still allowed to be mentioned?
And why are there no stories in Bluff or CP magazines about struggling Pro's ? No one picks up the print media and hears about Lindgren, Boothe, or Moneymaker putting off creditors.
Simple.... no money in reminding readers that Poker is a net sum -EV game. ... That most don't win....that many big wins are actually divided up with backers, and perhaps even divided among other players who were with them at the Final Table. .... That the deal happened on the second break, and that only the trophy was at stake during the entire TV coverage..... That poker really is a dark profession, more myth than reality.
Huge winning pro's? Few and far between. Just like any multi level marketing scheme. Few winners, but very very visible. The losers? all those chasing the dream. (Amway guys can make more off of their promotional material sales to their members than any other source of income*)
The media want you to believe that Antonio won $18 million in the first One Drop. But everyone who knows better? They are keeping up the silence. They are not "killing the goose that laid the golden egg" by perpetuating the myth.
Colman comes along and refuses to play their game, and they are mad.
So those with self interests that were not served try and manipulate the story.
* https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Amway/AUS/tools.htm
Good post. Very true what you say about the promotion of winners and the hiding of losers.
In defense of Bluff they did do a cover story about Lindgren's issues a while back.
Nice post and very interesting topic. When I read about this, I compare it with the background I come from: rock'n'roll. I've released records, I've done tours, and when the subject comes up, the common question is: did you have a lot of groupies. The comparison, that at this moment you might thing that is stupid, is that non common jobs are unknown for the masses, and that makes them subjectable to critiscm because people is dumb on the work behind. I mean: if the masses think about Motley Crue they will think about sex and drugs. If the masses think about colman, they will think about the millions won. But the masses won't think about the hours that motley crue were practicing or Colman was studying. And the problem here is that the only way you have to make people understand that poker is a game which requieres a lot of study is through the media, but the media is not interested in that, so that creates a paradox that makes very difficult that poker becomes an accepted math (or logic if you prefer) game to the masses. Certainly, Colman's attitude doesn't help... Poker needs more "rockstars", but clever ones (if that makes sense).
Be the first to add a comment