what do we get out of poker? (long but I would appreciate responses)

[Kenshin]

As Dr. Al has reiterated many times in both his articles and in this forum, the overwhelming majority of poker players lose money in the long term. What do we derive from the cost of our hobby/passion? Obviously, the superficial answer is enjoyment. However, I will, without any particular psychological training or emperical evidence, attempt to discuss the deeper causality.

Poker as a fraternity

I believe poker (including its online varient) constitutes a form of social interaction at its most fundamental level. Thus, as inherently social beings, we derive a great deal of our poker enjoyment from the sense of companionship. I feel that I can walk into a cardroom anywhere in the world and immediately relate to individuals of profoundly disparate origins and personalities. In the poker context, we possess shared objectives and travails. Think about our relationships in 2+2: I can read a post from a wholy unknown person discussing a brilliant play or a terrible beat and immediately relate to the emotional experience of the poster. In what other context can an individual so easily comprehend the thought processes and feelings of a seperate person? I believe social interaction also helps to explain (but not justify) both the presence of nasty players and the resistance to women in the cardroom. For nasty players, the comraderie of the cardroom allows an outlet for antisocial behavior. These players, without damage to their real world persona, can engage in the fantasy of distrupting social norms with outrageous behavior. Of course, some of these players might behave in this manner outside of poker as well.
I believe the resistence to women stems from a perceived threat to this social dynamic. Upseting both figuratively and litterally the fraternity of the cardplayer, women players introduce a complicating factor of sex into the uncomplicated poker relationship. In effect, the social mores of sex relations damages cardroom companionship. Thus, many men react with hostility to the presence of women.

Poker as controlled reality
I hinted at this concept in the above section on social interaction; however, I will go into greater depth here. We all live a world fundamentally outside of our control. Ostensibly random events happen without reason, purpose or any real understanding on the part of the individual. Poker maintains the randomness but eliminates the lack of understanding. The cards never lie. I can see with absolute certainity that your flush beats my two pair. Unlike outside reality, in poker, each hand contains a clear cut winner and loser. Players can curse their unluckiness but the cannot dispute that their cards lost. Thus, poker provides a facsimile of reality in a controlled setting. However, the above statement might apply to many games and not just poker.

Poker as war

We have all heard the cliche that we must approach each hand as if it were a war. I believe that this statement, like most cliches contains a kernal of truth, and helps to explain our enjoyment. On some level, all players have aggressive tendancies. We want to hurt and defeat our enemies. Poker provides an outlet for these tendancies without the inconvience of death and mayhem. Accordingly, players exercise their aggressive desires, necessarially supressed in society at the table.

Perhaps these explanations are not overly original. I truly do not know. But I hope those of you that have read this post have enjoyed it.

Kenshin

[CrisBrown]

Hi Kenshin,

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the resistence to women stems from a perceived threat to this social dynamic. Upseting both figuratively and litterally the fraternity of the cardplayer, women players introduce a complicating factor of sex into the uncomplicated poker relationship. In effect, the social mores of sex relations damages cardroom companionship. Thus, many men react with hostility to the presence of women.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'll never understand this. Take 8 men and sit them at a poker table, and they're all poker players. One man gets up and a woman sits down, and suddenly there are ... what ... 7 poker players and someone with whom one must consider "the complicating factor of sex relations?"

Guys ... when I sit down at a poker table, I'm a poker player. That's all. Sex relations are no more relevant now than they were when there were 8 guys at the table.

If guys would just get OVER this and realize that a woman at the poker table is JUST ANOTHER POKER PLAYER, then a whole lot of this ridiculousness would go away....

Cris

[Kenshin]

I understand your position Cris and, in fact, I agree with you. I do have a question, however. Have you ever noticed that individuals shift their behavior patterns depending upon whether they are in same or mixed sex company? I have female friends whose behavior differs in accordance with the absence or presence of guys. In the cardroom, regulars, I believe, fall in to comfort level behavior. The natural or culturally conditioned (I really don't want to get into a nature or nurture type argument) shift in behavior when a woman arrives upsets them. I am not trying to belabor my point. I am simply attempting to point out that this change is not unique to men in cardrooms

[Lawrence Ng]

Poker is THE metaphor for life. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Kenshin, you have obviously never played poker with Chinese women before have you? Trust me on this generalization, there is no social dynamic disruption when you play with a chinese woman. Now North American women...that I don't know.

[pretender2k]

I think all you points ar valid.

I have used poker, a game I previously enjoyed in a cardroom environment but due to inconveinance that I no longer have with online poker, to fulfill many of the human needs you discussed. I have a very addictive personality and have had problems dealing with the mundane elements of life; go to work, pay bills, raise kids, etc. I still had to deal with lack of social interaction which I found mainly in bars, lack of being the male go to war, fight , win testosterim thing which I also fulfilled by drinking until I was six feet tall and bullet proof, talking about all the things I wanted to do but never did. Of course the drinking just made things worse.

Now I play alot of poker. I have alot of time on my hands because I am one of those people that only needs 4 to 6 hours of sleep a day. What do with all the time I used to spend drinking and recovering? I play poker. And now I can also enjoy a glass of wine after a rough night to tone down and not finish the bottle just because it is there. I went to AA (which I highly reccommend to anyone even if you only think you have a problem, they are great people and make no judgements about you) at one time but didn't feel my problem was a chemical addiction but more of a psychological one. I think I was right but time will tell.

Well enough rambling.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Kenshin,

You're right, it's not unique to men in cardrooms. Men in offices and factories and golf clubs and etc. did (and some still do) the same thing when women were (and are) allowed to participate. Suddenly the office, factory floor, golf club, etc. isn't just for "the boys" anymore. Suddenly they "have to worry about sexual politics." Etc., etc., etc.

What they don't get is that in an office, or a factory, or a golf club, or etc., sex is irrelevant. It's not as if a bunch of women walked into your locker room at the gym, or staged a panty raid on your hunting lodge. It's just another human being who'd like to earn a living or play a round of golf. But when you look at her, you don't see a "co-worker" or "golfer." You see a WOMAN, and your first thought is not "okay, so that office or slot on the line is filled" or "okay, we have a fourth," but instead immediately runs to three questions:

(1) Do I want to f*ck her?
(2) Does she want to f*ck me?
(3) If neither, why the f*ck is she here?

(Note that I'm using the editorial "you," here, Kenshin. I'm not referring to you personally, but to a very common mindset that women encounter on a daily basis.)

And that -- not "mixed company" -- is the source of the "sexual politics" that "come up" when women enter a "men's" environment.

Cris

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Actually, your 1st question is slightly wrong. With most men, it's not a question and you can eliminate the word "do".

Any man who tells you he doesn't think that way is lying. Those of us with a little bit of couth understand that we're hardwired that way and find a civilized way to work around it or relegate it to our subconscious. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[LetsRock]

This is getting a bit off topic, but I think the answer to the "sexual discrimintion" factors you discussed are simply a mtter of social conditioning.

For many hundreds of years, social roles of men and women were very clearly defined and very different. It goes all the way back to the "hunter/gatherer" roles our primitive relatives developed. These were developed based on natural skills and abilities possessed by each of the sexes.

Using the timeline of our species as the base, it's only been a very short period of time since technology has created the options for us to live our lives outside of the "traditional" roles. It's been even a shorter period of time that we (we being society) determined that it's incorrect to "force" people to "serve" in traditional roles.

Socialogical changes take a very long time to really take hold, even if this change is desired by the masses. From my understanding of social history (which is admittedly very superficial), the first major change in traditional social roles didn't occur until the early 1900s, when women demanded the right to vote. While it's hard for me to imagine that this was even an issue (just as I can't begin to imagine how anyone could beleive that another person should be enslaved just because of the pigment of their skin!), it was huge at the time. The reason that women were not allowed to vote was likely based on a very real desire to have decisions made by those who were considered "politically aware". How (in their eyes) could a woman, who was largely homebound, have any clue about making social decisions? Technology evolved to the point that this was no longer the case and women wanted their voice to be counted as well. And rightly so.

It's only been 50 years (or so) that women (as a whole) have "been allowed" to enter the outside the home workforce traditionally "reserved" for men. It's only been 30 years since the "demands" for equality in the workplace were taken seriously by society and that issue still hasn't been completely resolved, depending on what your source for information is.

During each and every phase of these social advancements, society was forced to adjust. For men, it meant a huge behavioral adjustment: for the most part, men prefer a fairly crude level of behavior that, for the most part, women find to be "untasteful". It's been relatively recent (200 years? or so) that men have been "taught" that behavioral differences were important ("respect for women", "watch your language" etc).

It's taken some time, but for the most part, men will attempt to behave "properly" in the presence of women most of the time. And this is where I believe the presence of women is a bit "unwelcome" in a situation where men are used to being around only men. Unwelcome is not really the right word, but I think it acurately describes the general environmental feeling.

I can't define exactly what it is (or why it's even important), but I definately notice a change in atmosphere when a woman enters a "guys" event. I hang out with a group of guys regularly; we play cards, we watch sports, we drink, we hang out. We're guys. We tell stupid crude nonpolitically correct jokes; we make noisy, smelly, bodily functions and think it funny; we scratch ourselves and make rude gestures at each other - all in good fun. Outside looking in, I'm not sure I really understand why it's fun - maybe it's just the alcohol! But it is fun when I'm there.

One of the guys (I'm not sure if he's more or less socially advanced) doesn't have the behavioral hang-ups that most of us (men) have and thinks nothing of inviting a woman into the environment. (He's kind of a "the more, the merrier" kind of guy without a discrimnating bone in his body.) When this happens, there is deffinately a different tone to the group. Some of the guys turn into preditors and focus their attention squarely on the woman. Even if there's not a "hookup" option (the woman could be one of the other guy's wives), a couple of the guys go directly into their "how can I impress you" routine. Most of the group suddenly begins to "self monitor" their behavior including language, topics of discussion and anything else that would be considered "incorrect" around a woman. It can be uncomfortable. We men have to put up our "social guard" and it changes the dynamics of the group. I'm not saying it's right, but it's what I experience. I notice the same thing (to a much lesser extent) at the golf course and even at work. The social environment changes when the company is mixed.

I don't spend a lot of time in live card rooms so I don't notice a lot of this there. I'm sure it happens amongst the regulars, but since I'm not one of the regulars I don't notice it. I don't have a problem with playing with women and have encountered a few that could easily clean my clock.

The point to this long social commentary (sorry for the length, but I do like to provide reasons for my thoughts) is that society is changing and we are not yet to the point that we are able to completely forget that we "should" have different roles. It's getting better, slowly yes, but better none the less. 200 years from now, this probably won't even be a topic for discussion.

I think it's important to realize that the reactions women may encounter are not necessarily because we (men) intend to treat womeon differently, we are just acting on "instincts" that have been ingrained for our entire lives which have been passed on to us from many generations. Each generation is able (through socialization) to filter out more and more of these discrimintory thought patterns, but influences from previous generations are still present and it just takes a long time for these kinds of changes to occur.

I think that men will always think of women in the general terms of "what's the desire level and likelyhood of a sexual encounter with her?". I beleive that's just the natural process of being human. I expect that we will eventually evolve to the point where it doesn't automatically become part of our behavioral nature; at least not to the point that it's so obvious.

[LetsRock]

There is a fraternal effect of poker, but I don't think it's any different than most "hobbies" where many people have common interests. I also participate on a motorcycling forum, and it shows very much the same fraternal elements as this site.

I play poker (or any game) for the competition. I'm a competition junky. I'm not blessed with the physical skills to be very completetive in traditional sports, so I get my fix from games. I will play just about any game, anytime, if I feel that I have (or can gain) the ability to be competetive. I don't have to win (of course I always want to win), and feel the satisfaction if I was involved in a good contest where I was bettered by another player. I can only get better from these encounters.

Many people can't seem to take contests seriously if there's no money (or at least some very public notice of a victory) involved. I don't understand this concept, but I know that it's true. (I want to win all of your toothpicks if that's the stakes and noone but you and I know about it.)

I can get the same "fix" from other card games (hearts, spades, pinochle) where skill has the ability to outweigh the luck of randomness. Since these games are scored by "points", they are often not taken as seriously as I enjoy (oxymoron?). Poker's scoring mechanism is money; therefore it's usually taken seriously by everyone involved.

Winning money is the icing on the cake for me; I just want to compete.

[Kenshin]

Very true, letsrock. I realized after I completed my initial comments that I listed very few (IE none) elements unique to poker. Does anyone have any unique alternatives to explain the burgeoning success of poker?

[CrisBrown]

Hiya LetsRock,

I agree that there is some hard-wiring, as well as eons of socialization involved here. On the other hand, that's one of the reasons we have a cerebrum and not simply a medulla: so we can monitor our baser impulses and adapt to changing situations.

If you want a guys-only poker night where you can sit around in undershirts with large cigars and noisily expel gasses born of beer and nachos, that's fine. Women have hen parties, after all.

But don't expect a public cardroom (B&M or internet), or a workplace, or a golf course to be that place.

Cris

[CrisBrown]

Hiya Kurn,

Thanks. You're a gentleklingon. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Cris

[Kenshin]

Most men (myself included) find it difficult to distinguish between the social atmosphere in which "women are women" and the one in which "women are people". For instance, I believe men should not sexualize their conception of female co-workers. However, if a woman expresses interest in a male co-worker, the man can respond accordingly. The work space changes from a place of sexual neutrality into one of a more traditonal relationship.

[LetsRock]

I agree with you Cris. Public places should be completely void of any discriminatory behavior, intentional or otherwise. I don't intentionally behave in a way that will alienate anybody, and I would guess that most people don't either. I would have to be completely ignorant to believe that never behave in a way that makes someone uncomfortable, but I never (well rarely /images/graemlins/wink.gif) do it on purpose and usually appologize if I become aware of the situation where I do.

Some of us just haven't evolved enough yet to know that our behavior (intentionally or otherwise) is considered unacceptable by most people. Evolution takes a long, long time.

[LetsRock]

[ QUOTE ]
Most men (myself included) find it difficult to distinguish between the social atmosphere in which "women are women" and the one in which "women are people".

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this to the point of "first impression". Mens "first impression" of women likely tends to be of a sexual nature. This is just basic instinct. I think that most men can get past this (I think I can anyway - I guess I shouldn't try to be the spokesman for all men) and interact with them on their basis of professionalism and personality. I can not think of any instance where my opinion of someone was raised or lowered by their attractiveness after getting to know them.

I've found it to quite the opposite actually: they become more or less attractive as I find out who they are.

[mosch]

One of the regular substitutes in my regular foursome is a woman who I made friends with while at the pub one night. She's there to enjoy golfing, winning the sidebets and buying the celebratory round of drinks when she wins the match. She usually wins the match.

One of the strongest players in my home game is a woman who came one night as a friend of a friend and has been welcomed by everybody ever since. She plays well, has fun, and is the only person there who gets as distracted by a good hockey game as I do. She's beautiful, but it's irrelevant, she's just another fun person to have around on poker night.

I don't really care whether the person who takes the seat next to me is male, female or eunuch. I just want to play poker with people who aren't annoying, smelly or rude. I don't think that makes me particularly unique.

[Kinli]

I enjoyed your social theorizing,LetsRock. Thanks for sharing. As a former anthropology and archaeology student, I'd like to add a few observations.

Not all societies (past or present) have endured the social inequality of European and Asian societies. A great many Native American cultures, for example, saw no social inequality in sex-oriented roles.

But be that as it may, even the most preliterate tribes have a "men's hut" and a "woman's hut." These were places for the sexes to congregate socially apart from one another because of behavioral differences, and differences in interests.

Today, by removing all the "men's huts" and saying women are allowed to enter, we've created an uncomfortable social setting for men, whose last bastions of retreat have been invaded.

So instead of seeing the long accepted tradition of behaving differently in mixed company, we're seeing men trying to hang onto the men's hut mentality in mixed company, sometimes being quite belligerent about it.

I can sympathize, but we still need to cling to "special behavior in mixed company," men and women both.

Kinli

[James Boston]

I must be playing in the wrong cardrooms. I've never seen a woman playing poker that made me think anything sexual. As for the women I have played with, they were just poker players to me, like everyone else at the table. If I think I can beat a game, I play in it, regarless of the presence or lack of Y chromosomes. My arrogance doesn't discriminate.

[bigpooch]

Unfortunately, many players play poker to feed an addiction
or compulsion psychologically. It's gambling to them and
many of the players are simply gamblers! How would any
rational person explain losers at casinos or poker sites
playing week after week despite losing month after month?
To deny this would be to deny the reality of the world we
live in.

Poker is also a form of escapism from reality. From my own
personal experience, it was a good way to escape from more
productive activities and thankfully I was blessed to do
just about anything analytically well. It's true of other
games too, like chess and bridge; at times, I've immersed
myself in these games in the past and admittedly, it's quite
enjoyable to escape into another world if only for a few
weeks at a time! The real world is ugly, irrational, and
full of nonsensical events and problems that are unsolvable
despite our "technological progress". In the idealized
microcosm such as online poker, there are convenient layers
placed between the participants: players can hide behind
handle names and play any way they please as long as they
have chips to play with! Even if they are berated online,
would you think players are worried about other players
finding out their IP?

Poker can also be competition (not as extreme as warfare) as
evidenced by the really successful: they are all very
competitive and zealous to win. It's also a hobby that
people can slowly get better at (such as golf) that they can
use as a platform to socialize. Just like many other games,
it's also equitable to the participants not like the real
world where knowing who is often more important than knowing
what. Cards, if they are dealt randomly, don't care if you
are Colored, Jewish, the Queen of England , Bill Gates or
a rocket scientist. Also, on any given day, all but the
truly hopeless can actually win!

I don't want to minimize the social aspects of playing, but
the current zeitgeist suggests that a lot of poker in the
future will be online where the only interaction is through
that insidious chat box and often, the exchanges aren't very
complimentary besides the "nh"'s and the "ty"'s. Hopefully,
the stigma associated with poker in the past will all but
disappear with the arrival of the WPT on television and even
the notorious "Celebrity Poker"!

I wouldn't consider suggesting the poker playing community
as a fraternity: I would find it quite difficult to relate
to the "typical" player and wouldn't really want to delve
too deeply into a "loser's" kind of mentality and how they
were conditioned to think that way (it's too scary!). On
the other hand, a forum like 2+2 distinguishes itself as a
group of people that are trying to better themselves, albeit
in the limited activity of playing poker. In addition,
there are many insightful posts and some that are really
worth responding to. That simply means that some people
that post here do have something of valuable to say;
therefore, just finding some of these nuggets make it that
much more worthwhile on 2+2!