History of poker on Discovery

[bonanz]

On discovery tonight at 8pm then again at midnight and i think a couple of repeats throughout the week is "history of poker." Probably an interesting watch. Just a heads up.

regards,
bonanz

History of Poker
60 mins.

A look at the card game in the U.S., beginning with the early 19th century. Included: a demonstration of the game by poker legend Doyle Brunson.

Release Year: 2004

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi bananz:

David and I were interviewed extensively for the show. So we'll see if we made it.

Best wishes,

Mason

[Kevmath]

It's on the History Channel, not Discovery Channel.

Kevin...

[bonanz]

you are right my mistake, its on the history chan sorry bout that

[TXTiger]

Not a ton of screen time but at least both of you were on. That was great when D Sklansky said that anyone with $100,000 would be more than welcome to sit down in the high stakes cash game. That was an incredible lineup too. I really enjoyed the show and enjoyed seeing all of those players at one table.

[chesspain]

In the program, it was stated that Jennifer Harmon began playing poker at the age of twenty-one. Yet I remember seeing a blurb on her-can't remember if it was from the WPT or WSOP-in which she said that when she was a preteen her father would let her sit in for him during his home games so that she could win back some of the money he had lost.

I wonder where the truth lies...

[TXTiger]

My guess is that she started playing professionally at 21. I think I remember that WPT episode also. If I remember correctly she was the one telling the story, and I would take her word.

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that she started playing professionally at 21.

[/ QUOTE ]
TxTiger,

I think you are right. She has told this same story many times.

Below is a link to an old NPR segment on the WSOP where she is briefly profiled. Something else odd: for some reason, she always seems to manage to use the word "robot" in her interviews, as in "I'm not a robot" or something like that. Sometimes I wonder if she really enjoys playing that much.

Note: Scroll down the page to the show called "Meet the Pros" and click on the RealPlayer icon to listen. The WSOP segment is the second one so you may want to fast forward through the first one, which is about basketball. Of course, you need RealPlayer to listen. A little trouble to get to but worth it. Very entertaining.

This American Life: Meet the Pros (http://www.thislife.org/pages/archives/archive01.html)

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Tiger:

I had a fairly lengthy interview with them and several phone conversations, but I imagine that was the case with others who didn't make the show. I did notice a couple of things they mentioned which I did tell them such as the word "stud" coming from the horses used to pull the canyons in the Civil war, and the fact that people like Wild Bill Hitchok and Wyatt Earp were essentially poker players who had to be good with a gun and who worked as lawmen when they were low on money.

I also told them about the most important hand of poker ever played and was disappointed that this anecdote was not used.

All-in-all, it was an enjoyable hour and I'm glad to have played a small role.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Tiger:

I had a fairly lengthy interview with them and several phone conversations, but I imagine that was the case with others who didn't make the show. I did notice a couple of things they mentioned which I did tell them such as the word "stud" coming from the horses used to pull the canyons in the Civil war, and the fact that people like Wild Bill Hitchok and Wyatt Earp were essentially poker players who had to be good with a gun and who worked as lawmen when they were low on money.

I also told them about the most important hand of poker ever played and was disappointed that this anecdote was not used.

All-in-all, it was an enjoyable hour and I'm glad to have played a small role.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to share that one with us (the anecdote)?

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

[ QUOTE ]
snip

I also told them about the most important hand of poker ever played and was disappointed that this anecdote was not used.


[/ QUOTE ]

And that would be?

[Mason Malmuth]

The Most Important Hand Ever Played
by Mason Malmuth

One of the more common themes you will find in poker magazines are articles that describe poker hands. Sometimes these are instructive in nature, and sometimes they are just describing a dramatic situation, especially an important hand played late in a tournament where much money was at stake.

In fact, a few of these articles have been written by me, and I enjoy reading many of them. They are informative, in many instances illustrate the dramatics and complexities of poker, and help to explain why this wonderful game keeps all of us occupied to some degree.

But it turns out that among all the poker hands ever played and written about, there is one particular hand whose importance is probably far more significant than all other poker hands ever played put together. Now that’s a mouthful, and the real shame is that most of you who will read this essay don’t know anything about it. Of course, that will soon be corrected.

First some background. The year was 1864 and the United States Civil War was nearing its climax. Even though the North was winning, it was not winning by enough to assure that the war would end with a favorable conclusion for the Union side. The Confederate Army led by Robert E. Lee in Northern Virginia had frustrated all Northern attempts to capture the city of Richmond, and the price the North would have to pay for total victory seemed to great for many people. This meant that there was a good chance that Lincoln would not be reelected, and that his opponent, General George B. McClellan would be the new president in 1865. There was also much speculation that McClellan would end the killing and split the United States into two countries.

However, the war in the West had gone much better for the North. The Confederacy had been split in two with the capture of Vicksburg, and they had a large army in Northern Georgia that was headed towards Atlanta. But there were still problems. The Confederate Army of The Tennesse was in its way.

This army also had a new commander, General Joseph E. Johnston, an extraordinary defensive tactician. Johnston understood that as long as his army survived, the Southern nation would survive, and didn’t want to fight unless he had a clear advantage. Thus a war of maneuver began where the two armies “danced” their way towards the city of Atlanta.

In addition, Johnston knew what might happen in the election of 1864. If he could hold out against Sherman, and not allow him that ultimate victory the North so badly needed, then Lincoln might be defeated at the polls. This was literally the best chance the South had.

Unfortunately for Johnston, Jefferson Davis, the Confederate President, did not see things quite the same way. Davis wanted the invader brought to battle and defeated. So at the outskirts of Atlanta, Johnston was relieved of his command and was replaced by the aggressive and courageous fighter General John B. Hood

Now some of you might be wondering what all this has to do with a poker hand. Well, a curious event now occurred. One of Sherman’s subordinates, whose name I have never seen in my reading, related a story to his commander about Hood playing in a poker game many years before the Civil War began. Apparently, Hood had bet $2,500, a very large sum in those days, with “nary a pair” in his hand. Sherman immediately understood what this meant. Instead of being against a defensive tactician who was forcing him to fight a war of maneuver, the Union Army should brace itself for an attack. Sherman correctly assumed that someone’s aggressive tendencies were as likely to show up at the poker table as they were on the battlefield. He now knew that he was against a fighter, not a tactician.

In fact, if his army was still on maneuver and was hit directly in the “side,” the Confederates could punch a hole in his lines, separate his forces, and perhaps even defeat the whole Union cause. The dance was now over, and big betting would begin.

As suspected, the attack soon came, and after several vicious battles, including the Battle of Atlanta, Sherman — who had correctly predicted his opponent’s intention all because of a poker game held many years before — finally achieved the decisive victory that the North and President Lincoln so badly needed.

So how important was this poker hand. Well, if it hadn’t been played, there might not have been a United States as we know it, and all of world history might have been different. So don’t let anyone ever tell you that poker isn’t important, or that they just played a hand of a lifetime. I don’t care what they might claim, the results can’t compare to that hand played perhaps over 150 years ago.

Finally, a few of things that we don’t know:

1. We don’t know what form of poker Hood was playing. My guess would be some form of no limit draw poker, but that doesn’t have to be the case.

2. We don’t know if Hood was caught bluffing or showed the hand after raking in a big pot.

3. We don’t know if this was a well thought out play on Hood’s part or whether he was just steaming.

4. We have no idea as to how good a poker player Hood might have been. But I do suspect that Sherman would have been very good if he ever sat at the poker table.

[SunTzu68]

Excellent show....and both the Malmuth and Sklansky interviews were outstanding.

[jdl22]

Mason,

Great story. I think I read here that one of your books discusses how the Japanese used poker or related strategy in the decision to attack Pearl Harbor. Which book would I find this in?

[deacsoft]

Bravo, Mr. Malmuth. I enjoyed the reading very much. I can see why they did not include it though. It would have touched on the impact of poker but would have caused a short side track for the theme of the show. It's an interesting fact about poker but I would see the story to be more fitting for a Civil War special featuring the battle for Atlanta and the days leading up to it.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi deacsoft:

Perhaps they'll use it in a show like you mention.

I also suggested that if they ever wanted to get back to David and I we could work with them on a show called "The History of the World from a Gambling Point of View." I doubt if that will ever happen, but the suggestion was made.

Best wishes,
mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi jdl22:

It's in PokerFarce and PokerTruth.

Best wishes,
Mason

[deacsoft]

I would be very interested in a show of that kind. Hope the History Channel is smart enough to take you guys up on the offer. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Lottery Larry]

Mr Malmuth, what is the information source for this essay?

It is a good one by the way

[rbenuck4]

Hi Mason,

Isn't there some story about Truman locking himself in a room with a bunch of his buddies and playing poker for a few days straight before deciding to drop the A-bomb?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi rbenuck4:

That was mentioned on the show.

Best wishes,
mason

[MicroBob]

really nifty story mason.

i thought the show was extremely well done.

here's my review complete with some criticisms...

seems to me they could have made it longer if they wanted too.
they allot 2 hours to the MIT-BJ team that played for a few months but only 1-hour to cover poker from 1850 to today.


another issue with the show was on some of the high-roller table hands.
there's one point where they are talking about hold-em....and i think phil ivey takes a pot and seems to have 4 cards in his hand (which obviously means it's not a hold-em hand).
the initial hand between doyle and barry was a bit confusing also. i didnt get a great look at the cards....but i have a suspicion they might have been playing low-ball on that hand. did the betting order change from one round to the next on that one??
was i the only one confused?? should they have consulted with David and Mason to make sure the narration made sense with the goings-on in the various hands.


also, there were several shots of some well-known players without really mentioning who they were. most of us recognize Chris Ferguson for example when they show him in the poker-room for example...but i dont believe they mentioned him by name.
but they did bring up the math-guru's of today vs. the tough-guy image of yesteryear so perhaps mentioning Ferguson's math background would have been overkill.


poker in popular culture could have been featured a bit as well. doyle beating up on the private games in texas wasn't the only thing happening in the pre-WSOP era.
James Garner in Maverick.... i am assuming poker was pretty popular amongst WWII soliders (the bit about Truman was really cool though). other home-games (that weren't getting torn apart by Doyle).

certainly the advent of Hold-Em and it's importance could have been included (i believe i read that it was originally called Hold-Me Darling...i'm too young to know).
they explain how hold-em is played....but i think they could have gone into greater detail as to how it contributed to poker's popularity.
a couple of quotes from doyle are too close to sounding like 'well, this is just the latest fad game so we all had to get good at this one.' which i believe understates its impact and importance.

and today, the popularity of low-limit poker-rooms all over the country with long waiting lists, etc.

the story about the horseshoe adding the poker table to draw spectators was terrific...but i dont remember them going into enough detail on the advent of the 'house-rake' to all of a sudden make poker-rooms a worthwhile addition for many casinos.


i liked the show a lot....much much more than i expected to actually....but i do think a 2-hour show covering some additional aspects would have been worthwhile.

jmho

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bob:

I agree with your comments.

While I thought the show was very good, another 30 minutes emphasizing more of the 1800s and the Civil War's impact on poker would have made it even better. For instance, I told them that poker was still mainly a Southern game, but with the South being devastated, many Confederate soildiers went west after the war and they brought poker with them. But this didn't make the show.

Another thing that could have been brought out, but which I forgot to mention to them, was John Von Neumann development of Game Theory which of course plays a role in modern day poker strategy.

Also, there was confusion about the hands played and the game. In the beginning they were playing triple draw lowball for $2,000-$4,000 not no limit hold 'em, and the call of an inside straight when there was a seven and a deuce in the hand was also inaccurate.

I also thought they had way too much of Amarillo Slim. He's not deserving and unlike Doyle, who plays all the time, I can only remember seeing Slim playing in a real poker game, as opposed to a tournament, only once. But he is a good talker.

A nice touch was the appearance of Robert K. DeArment. He's a historian whose written numerous books about the Old West including Knights of the Green Cloth which is a history of the gamblers from that time period.

Best wishes,
Mason