Some things that depress me about poker – please respond

[sam h]

I’m writing this article about Positively Fifth Street and the poker boom in general and it’s getting me down. The book is well written, entertaining, chock full of interesting anecdotes, blah, blah, blah. But like so much other poker journalism these days, it’s just a big puff piece, a long and fawning love letter to a mythologized world of tournament poker by an author that's so blinded by the bright lights and the big money that he misses the big picture.

That the tournament circuit is basically a huge marketing device, a way to attract new players to a game at which they’re more likely to lose than ever before because higher rakes and jackpot drops have made it increasingly tough to beat at the lower and even middle limits for the vast majority of players.

That an honest and gutsy person like Nolan Dalla acknowledged that the circuit is full of broke “superstars,” and that these financial difficulties have created a culture of deceit and dishonesty. And that, in response, people with a financial stake in the growth of tournament poker have just swept these concerns under the green felt.

That many of these tournament “superstars” with cool nicknames that are fed to the public aren’t even very good in ring games and can’t hold onto a score long enough to buy themselves into the next tournament without backers. And that tournament No Limit Holdem, this “Cadillac” of poker displayed to the public by so many used car salesmen on the WPT, is far from the ultimate test of poker skill.

That some small part of what Russ G. rants about is probably true, but few want to admit it. That prominent players like Daniel N. have stated that they know Men the Master cheats in tournaments but it’s been deemed safer to cover it up or deal with the problem behind closed doors. That the WPT people would have to have been completely naive not to know Luis Milanes was crooked to the core when they did business with him.

That there is this tacit understanding between people in the industry and winning players that none of these issues should be voiced too loudly, because we all stand to benefit from the growth in poker and money is far more important than truth.

You see, I love poker – playing it, reading about it, talking about it, posting about it here on 2+2 or on RGP, whatever. And I’ve benefited from the softer games of late. But there’s something about the whole industry that’s starting to feel a little sleazy (obviously its never been lily white). I’ve always loved the fact that poker is essentially a meritocracy – that the dedicated and disciplined player can get the best of it. And I’ve always convinced myself that if people chose to play badly and lost that it was basically their problem. But I’m troubled by all the misinformation that seems necessary to really grow the game.

This isn’t a critique of anyone at 2+2. I’ve always felt that David in particular has been pretty open and insightful when addressing some of the thornier issues in the game and the industry. And I think 2+2 books and these boards give players the best possible weapons to fight what’s an increasingly uphill battle.

[ResidentParanoid]

Your stance could be taken towards almost any sports-entertainment industry. As a matter of fact, if it works for poker, it works for almost any type of entertainment.

Consider the example of golf. Many people take up golf "seriously", and spend lots of money on clubs in the hopes of becoming like tiger woods or someone else on the tour. They neither have the talent nor put in the the practice time to do that. I don't think all those folks selling lessons, equipment, greens fees, and tournament passes feel guilty.

+EV players are one type of "employees" of the poker industry. We make money off of other's money spent. If we all left, there would be another group of players currently in the game that would replace us as +EV players.

The only solution to your dilemma is for poker to disappear from the face of the earth. That will likely coincide with the disappearance of nuclear weaponry, hate, injustice and people. Or when people get bored with poker and a better game comes along.

[sam h]

ResidentParanoid,

You seem to have construed the post as an attack on winning players, which it is not. It was a critique of various deceptive ways in which poker is marketed by the industry and covered by the media.

Very few people who pick up golf have any intention of becoming the next Tiger Woods. They just want to play for whatever reason - entertainment, social status, etc. Likewise, most people who pick up poker don't seriously see themselves becoming the next Phil Hellmuth, though I think a lot of people do dream about it.

The difference is that people know what they're getting when they buy into "golf". Do you think so many people would buy into "poker" if they understood that 90% of players lose, that many of their heroes were broke, that the WPT is less a contest of poker's greatest than a glorified driving competition (to continue the golf metaphor)?

It's a question of honesty, which is something I think is important. That doesn't mean I think its dishonest to be a winning poker player or that I have trouble looking myself in the mirror because I am one. But it does mean that I think people covering the poker world, both in industry media and outside sources, have done a shoddy and deceptive job of telling the truth - which, Jason Blair aside, is the number one commandment of journalism.

The better solution to my "dilemma" would be for some more courageous people at Cardplayer, pokerpages, or outside media to actually act like journalists. This also will likely "coincide with the disappearance of nuclear weaponry, hate, injustice, and people."

[andyfox]

I'm not sure I agree that McManus misses the big picture. There's plenty of the seaminess of poker, the players, Las Vegas, the Binions, etc. in his book.

We all know that "gaming" is a euphemism. It's gambling. And gambling means losing for the majority of people. And gambling attracts people who don't want to live by many of society's rules if they don't suit them. So you have mobsters, cheats, juice-men, drug pushers, hookers in abundance. Look at the subtitle of McManus's book.

Any industry grows through puffery. Bob Hope was 100 years old the other day, what a great guy, entertained the troops, a great American. He was the meanest SOB on the planet. Called his own daughter a c*** over the office loudspeakers all day for years. Felt up young comediennes during rehearsals and cheated on his wife constantly.

Not too many of our heroes stand up to close scrutiny. Clay feet and all that. Misinformation makes the world go round.

[sam h]

Andy,

It's true that the book is plenty dirty. Just look at those first few pages. But I think it's also true that the seaminess into which it delves - Cheetah's, the Binion family, Jimmy Chagra, etc - is both very safe from a journalistic standpoint and quite calculated from a marketing perspective. It's pretty titillating, especially if you don't bring much prior knowledge of the subjects to the table, but it does nothing to expose the apparatus of how the poker industry actually works or to question anything about tournament poker.

Basically, the author says A) Tournament players are the toughest on the planet B) Tournament NLHE is the ultimate test of poker skill C) Tournaments are much more lucrative than cash games and D) Poker superstars tend to live like sheikhs ("as the all-time leading WSOP money winner with $2,570,494, and perhaps 30 times that in other spoils, Chan can afford...").

I'm far from an insider in the poker world, but I think most people with any knowledge of the game would agree that these are absurdities, though exactly the kind of absurdities that the people behind Cardplayer, the World Poker Tour, and every card room online or off would like the public to hear.

I realize that most people in the gambling world are going to lose. But I also know that the percentage who win drops every time a casino decides to rake a little more or institute a jackpot. My guess is that the percentage of winners in the poker world has been declining steadily for some time.

I also realize that most heroes can't stand scrutiny in their personal lives. But that's a different matter than telling people who know nothing about golf that the Nike Tour is the ultimate competition in the game and that Joe Blow is the world's greatest golfer (to return to a metaphor used in another response above).

And there is a difference between a journalist taking a pass on a story because it is not relevant (i.e. whether somebody famous cheats on their wife) and deliberately misrepresenting the truth or simply toeing the party line out of laziness or incompetence (which of these categories McManus fits into is a question for debate).

Misinformation might make the world go round, but journalism is supposed to make it better.

[mike l.]

"like so much other poker journalism these days, it’s just a big puff piece, a long and fawning love letter to a mythologized world of tournament poker by an author that's so blinded by the bright lights and the big money that he misses the big picture."

only 141 posts?? welcome!!

where have you been all my life??

[HDPM]

Yeah, but I bet his daughter was a c***.


Sorry, when talking about scumminess in poker I asked myself "What Would Archie Say?" [img]/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

[Ragnar]

Another interesting thing about the way that poker is being promoted is the big pitch that anyone can win, at least in tournaments. "Amateurs" compete against the pros. Some of these amateurs play poker constantly. Of course Chris Moneymaker did win the big one with a cheap online entry. Whenever that happens they promote the heck out of it.
Of course all you need to win is "a chip and a chair." [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
Being new to the game I suspect that it isn't that easy.
There is obviously substantial skill involved since a number of players repeat appearances on WPT. I don't quite understand why these supposed amateurs can do so well. Is the tournament game flukier than a ring game, or does their style throw the pros off? Perhaps it is partially a matter of the large number of amateurs playing in the tournaments and the mathematical probability of one or more advancing far in the tournament.

Ragnar

[justus]

Great post! I have had these same feelings and often. Perhaps I should just say ditto to everything you wrote.

[RiverMel]

Perhaps it is partially a matter of the large number of amateurs playing in the tournaments and the mathematical probability of one or more advancing far in the tournament.

Bingo! This is at least a huge part of it.