smegmaniac

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 didn't mean to come across as over-critical of Selbst as a person. I don't want to be the type of person to make judgements about people I don't know personally. I have heard a lot of great reports about Vanessa Selbst and I've heard that she has been involved in a lot of charity work also. And it's pretty obvious that she is a very intelligent , interesting person. I was only approaching your argument from the point of view of selling the game of poker to the public. 

I think the comparison that you made between Hellmuth and Selbst is spot on but I still stand by my theory of why the public is more fascinated by a Hellmuth than a Selbst which if summarised is that Hellmuth comes across as a bit nutty and Selbst as completely sane! So even though Selbst may indeed have a lot more integrity as a person than Hellmuth, the public will always be more endeared by him because there is such a comic element to his nutty rants.

Regarding your point about the role models, once again it's hard to disagree. You mentioned Timex and from what I hear he is a really classy guy and would make for a great role model , for sure. But I'm just not 100% convinced that the general public want role models - I think they want heroes! They want people to worship more than admire. Charismatic figures who ooze cool...at least on a superficial level! I'm not saying it's a good thing...I just think that the public is fickle and if I was a TV producer trying to sell the game, I'd be looking for the madness of a Hellmuth, the cool charisma of an Ivey and the sharp wit of a Farha to sell my game to the public and I don't consider any of these guys to be great role models!

It doesn't mean that there's not players of the current generation who can't fill these roles and anyway, I don't think they should have to. It's just my thoughts on how to sell the game. More cash games are needed  on TV , for sure! I really enjoyed the sky poker cash game . The poker was good and the banter was good. But I have a feeling the setting wasn't glamorous enough to appeal to a casual observer. I always cringed a little at all the hot girls hanging around the tables at poker after dark and High Stakes Poker because let's face it, it's absolute nonsense....but sadly, it probably works!

P.S....I hope I didn't totally misinterpret your argument!

But anyway, I believe that tournament poker isn't a good vehicle for bringing out the current crop of pros personalities! Cash Games are the way to go , and a format like High Stakes poker would be the perfect outlet to showcase both the players games and their personalities!

I'm not sure we'll ever come across another Sammy Farha though. ( Just for his personality!)

While I agree with some of the points that Sam is making , I don't really agree with the player comparisons. There is a massive difference between Hellmuth and Selbst! They're both obviously very competitive and have big egos but whereas Selbst comes across as completely sane , Hellmuth just comes across as a raving lunatic - completely nutty. So when Hellmuth blows the lid and goes off on a rant berating someone's play, it usually plays for quite comic viewing to the audience , whereas when Selbst loses the cool and berates somebody's play it usually comes across as bitter and arrogant to the viewer. Selbst obviously has a lot more self awareness than Hellmuth and ultimately seems a lot more grounded, in general.... but this could explain why people aren't as forgiving of her when she loses the cool because they just think Hellmuth is crazy anyway. And anyway, he obviously has a really unique personality...he comes up with great one-liners (often accidentally so ) and when he is in a good mood his childish enthusiasm can be quite infectious to some , so I for one, can totally understand why he is such a love/hate figure amongst the general poker viewing public.

Comparing the cold Ivey stare to the cold Timex doesn't really work for me either. Timex is obviously an incredibly talented poker player but the reason Ivey has become such an icon is not only because he is also an incredibly talented poker player but also because he oozes 'cool'. And Timex simply doesn't. When the poker boom began, the way poker was sold to the public  by the media was through the emphasis on how 'cool' it was. Think of all those full tilt poker ads of Gus Hansen with 6 different outfits taking the money each time, Ivey with his cool delivery reading a guys soul. They tried to appeal to the average Joe Soap's ego. How else would a tagline like 'play with the pros' work? Surely, the logical tagline to attract people who want to do well in the game would be 'Play with the fishes'! But Ivey is an icon to the casual viewer who doesn't necessarily understand the mechanics of the game because he seems so cool. And while Mike's stare might be intimidating to fellow poker players who know how good he is, it just doesn't carry the same sort of charisma in a broader sense. He still comes across as a bit of a geek. I think I can even remember a documentary where Tony Dunst was trying to show his fellow pros how to score women and McDonald was one of the guys who couldn't get laid. Now, there's nothing wrong with that. He seems like a nice guy and it's sad that we don't celebrate nice guys enough in society but the fact is they don't make for good idols...and everyone needs a hero.

Regarding the point about Chris Ferguson, I think the fact that he looked so distinctive and ultimately liked Jesus could have been the reason that the media chose to zone in on him at the start. It also seems more than possible that the likes of Ferguson and Howard Lederer had a big hand in the handling of the poker boom and the direction that the media played so of course, they would include themselves! Why else did Howard Lederer feature so much on Poker After Dark if only for his connection to FullTilt Poker? It certainly wasn't because the market demanded it. There may, of course, been a conscious decision by the media to show the variety of characters in the poker world and the variety of styles. Ironically, they probably chose to sell Ferguson and Lederer as the gentlemen of poker with conservative, calculating styles , especially considering how petulant and arrogant some of the other pros may have come across to those members of the public who didn't completely buy into the 'cool factor'! But it's no surprise that as Poker TV coverage evolved  the likes of Ferguson and Lederer were being edged further towards the sidelines , particularly in the cash games.