ESPN story - poker image takes a hit

[Wingnut]

Can't believe I'm the first one to post this. Just when poker is trying to upgrade its image, we get this. And apparently the article will be presented in video form on Sportscenter this evening.

ESPN Page 2 story (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?id=1866001)

[Songwind]

I really don't think this is a "hit". Gambling of all types has always had that image, and, frankly, it's something that needs to be out there.

There *are* people who develop serious problems with gambling for a variety of reasons. There are people who go broke and lose their inheritance and spend their kids' lunch money and all that stuff. Pretending it doesn't happen is no better than tobacco companies pretending they aren't related to emphysema.

The only part of the article that I really had issue with was the suggestion that the level of skill involved in poker is trivial. That, and the implication by Adam that anyone who gambles is skipping down the slippery slope to addiction, but that's an attitude I find pretty universal among recovering addicts so it's not surprising.

[wayabvpar]

See my response linked below-
Linky to other thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=953804&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=31&fpart=1#Post953885953804)

[M2d]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker can be studied and perfected to a greater extent than roulette or craps. But some say poker is more susceptible to problem gambling because it appears to take more skill than it really does.

[/ QUOTE ]

um, no. roulette and craps can be studied completely, since there's no human factor involved, and because the math involved is basic. you can easily come up with a best strategy for these games. the fact that they're -EV does not diminish this fact.

[RiverMel]

[ QUOTE ]
"I think we've all read Doyle Brunson's book 'Super System'," says Nahill, who will be attending Amherst College this fall. " I think we've all studied it as much as possible on TV -- studied the different ways they play, real aggressive, real conservative -- to find out who you like the best. And really as you go along, and you see so many hands, and you've played them, you automatically get better."

Almost everyone at the table talks about their favorite poker players, the way kids used to talk about their favorite athletes: Howard Lederer. Phil Ivey. Daniel Negreanu. Chris Moneymaker. Nahill's favorite is Phil Hellmuth

[/ QUOTE ]

[Kevmath]

Here's an article from just the day before in USA Today. It's odd that both are centering on the same thing (poker is bad for children)
USA Today column (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/saraceno/2004-08-22-saraceno_x.htm)

Kevin...

[Sundevils21]

tonight on sportscenter they are running a story about kids and there addictions to poker. should be interesting(probably all the bad and none of the good about poker). I want to see the story about ZeeJustin and Eugene and how poker has ruined thier lives.(or mine for that matter, I play full time and I'm 19)

[jpym84]

[ QUOTE ]
"If we teach kids the mathematics behind the reasoning that will show them that they're not going to win in the long run," Ferguson said, "then I think we can keep kids away from gambling."

[/ QUOTE ]
Is Jesus implying that good players don't win in the long run!!?

[The once and future king]

"After downloading the rules of gambling onto his computer, Adam and six friends started playing with $10 buy-ins."

The rules of gambling !!! /images/graemlins/confused.gif Talk about a leading misrepresentative statement.

[afish]

I think this story is pretty good. Frankly, in the last couple of months, I've seen an explosion of posts talking about the ease with which large sums of money can be won on line. This struck me as totally bogus, and I think someone needs to deflate the balloon. Maybe there are a bunch of guys winning from poor playing high school students. If that is the case, people need to recognize that the presence of such dead money is a temporary situation.

[nicky g]

What an incredibly poorly infomred article. Didn't you used to have to be reasonably intelligent to to become an Associate professor at Harvard? And know something about the game you're covering to write for ESPN?

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"If we teach kids the mathematics behind the reasoning that will show them that they're not going to win in the long run," Ferguson said, "then I think we can keep kids away from gambling."

[/ QUOTE ]
Is Jesus implying that good players don't win in the long run!!?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's talking about keeping kids away from GAMBLING. Everyone loses in the long run at GAMBLING. Now POKER is a different story...

[The_Tracker]

[ QUOTE ]
Just when poker is trying to upgrade its image, we get this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus Christ. Here we go.

"What about the children? How many children? Ddduhh children!" - Bill Hicks (R.I.P.)

[Pokergod]

Exactly. Ferguson is talking about gambling and using mathematics to uncover -EV. The fact that the article's author did not point this out is probaly because he is anti-poker, for some reason. I hate to bring politics into it but I would wager the writer is very liberal and this may cause him to dislike poker. It's not a game in which everybody comes out a winner. Some win, some lose, and if you don't study and learn, you lose. Nothing is given to you, you have to earn it all.

These are not viewpoints that are popular with the liberal sect of this country (in my opinion).

-PG

[Noo Yawk]

I'm not so sure this will hurt poker's image anymore than the antics of Matusow, Hellmuth or The crew despite ESPN's desire to fill air time with non-poker BS.
The fact that a few who play poker will also have addictive personalities will assuredly be the group used by those who want to rid the world of gambling. Those that like to play will use the other end of the spectrum and use the Doyles, Chips and Howards to prove their point.
Somewhere in the middle lies the truth. I believe that truth to be most will lose an affordable amount over their life or break about even and enjoy poker as good entertainment.

[jaybee_70]

I have been teaching Texas Hold 'em to a group of High school students every other week as part of a math and science enrichment program. My original thinking was that this would be a great way to talk about probability, practical math skills, and many other related and relevant topics. I introduced the game and we started playing limit, and have kept track of wins and losses every session. It doesn't take long to show that for every "big winner" there are a lot of "little losers", and some very big losers (and this is with no rake). We have barely begun learning about starting hand values, aggression, and betting. We have quite a long way to go, but now I have to take a pause and reconsider the risk of teaching poker to minors. This story may not be representative of poker playing teens in general, but the reality is that I am not teaching these skills in a vacuum. There is a real concern that with the incomplete information that they possess at this time, they may make some bad or even disastorous decisions about gambling. I have adult friends who have problems with gambling and these students definately qualify as "at risk". Some teenagers will make bad decisions, that is just part of the maturing process, but bad decisions around poker could have very serious consequences. Do you think it is irresponsible to continue teaching poker to minors? or perhaps a better question is how should I proceed in the most responsible way? Comments would be appreciated.

Joe

[deacsoft]

Give me a break. The kids an idiot and should not be playing. I blame his parents, the casinos, and the online sites he played at for their lack of responsibility. Those who allow a minor to play are the one's who should be blammed. Not poker.

[paland]

You should walk very carefully. There are religious fanatics who would want you to hang if they new you were teaching poker to kids. It's a shame but it is the way it is.

[Philuva]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to bring politics into it but I would wager the writer is very liberal and this may cause him to dislike poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting, I thought exactly the opposite. That this guy must be a huge conservative, just hoping for Asscroft to go after online gambling.

[slogger]

Honestly, I think you're a little off here. Whether this guy is a liberal or a conservative (both perspectives can generate very strong aguments against gambling in general and poker in particular) is irrelevant.

This writer does not seem to have an opinion or position one way or the other. He was given an assignment to develop a story about the potential dangers of gambling/poker in the age of poker on TV (ESPN needs to do a little CYA, as they're likely getting pressure from a number of fronts for "glorifying gambling" by showing the WSOP, etc.). Rather, it is likely the writer's ignorance of the concept of expectated value (not his bias toward the game) that causes him to miss the point that Ferguson apparently intended. M2d states the concept quite succinctly above.

No doubt, certain people interviewed for this article offered the idea that there is less skill invloved in poker than many think. But the writer himself just appears to be regurgitating the information he's been fed by his various sources.

One thing people here seem to be overlooking, though, is the fact that those of us who have spent time trying to master this game and win money from it on a regular basis often espouse the theory that poker is a skill game and should not be lumped in with other "bad" gambling. What we fail discuss (at least as openly) is the fact that we depend on certain volume of individuals who are doing the same thing you and I are doing when we sit down at a blackjack table or sidle up to a dice pit. We rely on people who don't understand the game as well. People who don't calculate EV. People who are, in fact, playing just to have a good time or because they have a deeper problem.

It's not that we don't acknowledge thes people (these "fish" or "LAGs" or "calling stations"). It's that we ignore that poker can be as much of a problem for them as the dice pits have been for others. Regardless of your position on the regulation of poker, as distinct from other gambling, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that it is (in a general sense) all that different from games we consider to be "games of chance."

[slogger]

Religious fanatics? What the hell does religion have to do with it? Don't get me wrong. I'm sure there are religious fanatics who would be violently offended by the practice of teaching a gambling game to kids. But are plenty non-religious people who would have the same reaction.

Let's just say that teaching poker to children for the purpose of conveying mathematics and probablity concepts walks a very fine line between creative education and irresponsible supervision of minors.

[Rduke55]

Well, the guy lists bourbon as one of the three things that are his least favorite in life. I think that says it all.

[Rduke55]

I first learned statistics by the professor using gambling as a tool and I got a huge amount out of it. It just makes the learning easier. Are you using any money? That's where you'd get into trouble.

[Young Gun]

Hey i maybe me and my friends are in a minority but when we play its to get better. We read the books study the forums and put in the hours. These kids are jokers doing it to have fun. I would like them to show a group like mine where we play all night with no limpers and see about 25 flops an hour. Thats real poker.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
we play all night with no limpers

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[$DEADSEXE$]

Even the top pro's go broke...so no one is guarenteed to always win in the long run.

[Young Gun]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we play all night with no limpers

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn t mean that literally i just meant that it isn t a normal homegame where everyone sees the flop 5 out of 6 have a preflop raise and most are a "battle of the blinds"

Anyway the point of me post wasn t to brag about how my friens and i play. It was to clarify that not all the kids who play out there are playing for fun as a friday night thing. At lest i know that almost all of the kids i play with know the game. And our favorite player isn t Chris Moneymaker.

[SpiderMnkE]

Alright!! The new "crew" is being born.

You guys are going to take over the poker world... call espn!!

[warlockjd]

[ QUOTE ]
Even the top pro's go broke...so no one is guarenteed to always win in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

With proper bankroll management you will not go broke.

[Jaraim]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Ferguson is talking about gambling and using mathematics to uncover -EV. The fact that the article's author did not point this out is probaly because he is anti-poker, for some reason. I hate to bring politics into it but I would wager the writer is very liberal and this may cause him to dislike poker. It's not a game in which everybody comes out a winner. Some win, some lose, and if you don't study and learn, you lose. Nothing is given to you, you have to earn it all.

These are not viewpoints that are popular with the liberal sect of this country (in my opinion).

-PG

[/ QUOTE ]

You're an idiot. Take a look at the donation records for Howard Lederer (http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=NY&last=lederer&first=howard ) and Doyle Brunson (http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=NV&last=brunson&first=doyle) if you believe dem god-hatin libruls hate poker and hate America. I believe someone in Phil Hellmuth's family donates very, very heavily to the Democrats as well.

I swear, you have to be this Hannity drone that I know.

[burntazure]

I also noticed the author's assertion that skill in poker can be mostly ignored....

The funniest thing about this article is that the author's weak attempt at buttressing his argument by evoking testimony from an associate prof. of psychology (not a professor of mathematics, or a game theoretician, or an expert in extracting order from stochastic processes).

Most likely he does not play poker & it is obvious that he lacks basic mathematical understanding of the game. Those that espouse such a viewpoint and those that regard those ideas as valuable are always welcome at my table.

We need to take everything in moderation including moderation.

[Young Gun]

[ QUOTE ]
Alright!! The new "crew" is being born.

You guys are going to take over the poker world... call espn!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha we re not the crew and we re not gonna "take over the poker world." Yet.

[3rdEye]

I didn't think the segment put poker in all that bad a light, to be honest. Kids are spending too much time playing poker? Cry me a river. They used to say the same thing about video games, and *they* certainly aren't on the decline.

And, of course, the notion that parents should be responsible for the behavior of their teenage degenerate gamblers seemed to be conspicuously absent from the story.

I liked how they spoiled the outcome of the WSOP main event, though, lol.

[knifeandfork]

not to interesting side note roenick was in a tourney with me a the borgata....didnt know plaing a 100 buy in could get you in trouble with an 8 figure bankroll...butwaddaiknow
jason

[knifeandfork]

hey jeb check out
reejectbush.com
i think with all the young people playing these days you will find a lot of pro poker liberals out there if not for anything but personal freedom reasons, but im probably wrong:(
jason

[knifeandfork]

"everyone goes broke form time to time" didnt you learn that circa 98?
jason

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
You should walk very carefully. There are religious fanatics who would want you to hang if they new you were teaching poker to kids. It's a shame but it is the way it is.

[/ QUOTE ]


While I'm sure many religious people will be unhappy with teaching poker to children, it's not just religious people -- Joe Q. Average Parent will NOT be happy their kid learning poker in school, whether they are religious or not.

Poker is a wonderfully mathematical game and I applaud the notion of teaching it for that reason, however, while I don't have a sample size that would appease this crowd (how many parents: 10 million?) I think most would agree that a majority of parents aren't interesting in their kids learning any type of gambling in school. Likewise, you could teach blackjack and all sorts of other games to teach via "real life" examples but you're going to run into trouble--

--from religious and secular alike.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)