Does poker apply to politics? Mamet's article

Summary: (sorry Mamet, but…)

Politics is poker without cards. Bluffing is an integral part of poker—the word poker means to bluff. However, consistently bluffing is a sure way to busting out. Mamet is calling for Democratic poker players to play a more agressive game, similar to James Carville and Jeff Nussbaum calling for stronger play in Had Enough?: A Handbook for Fighting Back.

Professional poker players know that the real game of poker is sustainability. Of course politicians play poker without cards. What annoys me is all the bluffing.

By David Mamet


In politics as in poker, the only way to win is to seize the initiative. The Democrats need to make bold wagers or risk being rolled over again.

ONE NEEDS TO know but three words to play poker: call, raise or fold.

Fold means keep the money, I’m out of the hand; call means to match your opponents’ bet. That leaves raise, which is the only way to win at poker. The raiser puts his opponent on the defensive, seizing the initiative. Initiative is only important if one wants to win.

The military axiom is “he who imposes the terms of the battle imposes the terms of the peace.” The gambling equivalent is: “Don’t call unless you could raise”; that is, to merely match one’s opponent’s bet is effective only if it makes the opponent question the caller’s motives. And that can only occur if the caller has acted aggressively enough in the past to cause his opponents to wonder if the mere call is a ruse de guerre.

If you are branded as passive, the table will roll right over you — your opponents will steal antes without fear. Why? Because the addicted caller has never exhibited what, in the wider world, is known as courage.

In poker, one must have courage: the courage to bet, to back one’s convictions, one’s intuitions, one’s understanding. There can be no victory without courage. The successful player must be willing to wager on likelihoods. Should he wait for absolutely risk-free certainty, he will win nothing, regardless of the cards he is dealt.

For example, take a player who has never acted with initiative — he has never raised, merely called. Now, at the end of the evening, he is dealt a royal flush. The hand, per se, is unbeatable, but the passive player has never acted aggressively; his current bet (on the sure thing) will signal to the other players that his hand is unbeatable, and they will fold.

His patient, passive quest for certainty has won nothing.

The Democrats, similarly, in their quest for a strategy that would alienate no voters, have given away the store, and they have given away the country.

Committed Democrats watched while Al Gore frittered away the sure-thing election of 2000. They watched, passively, while the Bush administration concocted a phony war; they, in the main, voted for the war knowing it was purposeless, out of fear of being thought weak. They then ran a candidate who refused to stand up to accusations of lack of patriotism.

The Republicans, like the perpetual raiser at the poker table, became increasingly bold as the Democrats signaled their absolute reluctance to seize the initiative.

John Kerry lost the 2004 election combating an indictment of his Vietnam War record. A decorated war hero muddled himself in merely “calling” the attacks of a man with, curiously, a vanishing record of military attendance. Even if the Democrats and Kerry had prevailed (that is, succeeded in nullifying the Republicans arguably absurd accusations), they would have been back only where they started before the accusations began.

Control of the initiative is control of the battle. In the alley, at the poker table or in politics. One must raise. The American public chose Bush over Kerry in 2004. How, the undecided electorate rightly wondered, could one believe that Kerry would stand up for America when he could not stand up to Bush? A possible response to the Swift boat veterans would have been: “I served. He didn’t. I didn’t bring up the subject, but, if all George Bush has to show for his time in the Guard is a scrap of paper with some doodling on it, I say the man was a deserter.”

This would have been a raise. Here the initiative has been seized, and the opponent must now fume and bluster and scream unfair. In combat, in politics, in poker, there is no certainty; there is only likelihood, and the likelihood is that aggression will prevail.

The press, quiescent during five years of aggressive behavior by the White House, has, perhaps, begun to recover its pride. In speaking of Karl Rove, Scott McClellan and the White House’s Valerie Plame disgrace, they have begun to use words such as “other than true,” “fabricated.” The word that they circle, still, is “lie.” The word the Democratic constituency, heartsick over the behavior of its party leaders, has been forced to consider applying to them is “coward.”

One may sit at the poker table all night and never bet and still go home broke, having anted away one’s stake.

The Democrats are anteing away their time at the table. They may be bold and risk defeat, or be passive and ensure it.

[2ndGoat]

I dont see this article talking about bluffing specifically, rather, it explains the virtues of a high aggression factor- including pushing small edges.

I think he would get along well with Doyle in Super/System.

Interesting article.

2nd

[mshalen]

This really should be in the politics forum. The problem is the Democratic party would be raising with a 72o. Works if your opponent folds but not if they call or raise.

Interesting line of thought. I agree with a lot of it. I'd rather he not have taken the obviously anti-Republican attitude and kept it politically neutral.

I usually vote Republican, but I've also voted for Democrats. I can't stand the extremists (either party) and I also don't like persons who, because of their "standing" in areas looked on as "entertainment," using their celebrity to push their agenda.

[Dan Mezick]

Poker certainly applies to Politics and vice-versa. Al Schoonmaker has stated that "poker is about power." If true, poker is a form of politics and vice versa.

Most of the action in poker or politics revolves around the semi-bluff. Where "betting for value" ends and "semi-bluffing" begins, and where "semi-bluffing ends and "outright bluffing" begins are fuzzy boundaries, to say the least.

Plays in politics and poker are mostly about the art of the semi-bluff.

The best players in both domains are truly great at it.

Poker applies to any situation where

a) you have incomplete information
b) you are forced to make a decision that affects your welfare

[Dan Mezick]

What if you're not on Welfare?

[ QUOTE ]
What if you're not on Welfare?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about someone starting a thread titled, "Poker put me on welfare and now..."

[NMcNasty]

If poker were like politics the players would be competing over who could bribe the dealer the most to give them the best cards.

[ QUOTE ]
If poker were like politics the players would be competing over who could bribe the dealer the most to give them the best cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a man who definitely understands politics.