Knowing When To Fold ‘Em
by Burt PrelutskyWho would have ever guessed that my favorite game would be such a popular addition to reality TV? Suddenly, poker is bigger than Paris Hilton and Donald Trump put together. (Come to think of it, I suspect it’s only a matter of time until some smart cookie puts those two together in a TV extravaganza. It will be a ratings smash, not to mention the end of western civilization as we have come to know it.)
Shows such as “Celebrity Poker,” “World Poker Tours” and “World Series of Poker,” are all over the tube. And, frankly, I don’t get it. As a spectator sport, the problem with Texas hold-’em, a version of poker in which each player gets dealt two down cards, with five community cards eventually exposed, is that it is, roughly speaking, 98.47% dumb luck.
Yes, I understand that the real appeal of the game is it relies heavily on the players’ willingness to wager large sums on the turn of a card. But if the players all have lots of money already — and they do! — what’s the big deal? I once tuned in and saw Jerry Buss, owner of the Los Angeles Lakers, playing in the final head-to-head game against some very obnoxious punk.
But who cares if Buss wins or loses fifty grand? I doubt if even he does. Still, he was fortunate he was only playing for peanuts, and not for his franchise. Otherwise, his next gig would have been selling peanuts at Staples Center.
If I were staging these events, I’d forget all the big names and all the poker professionals, and I’d match up guys who were risking their rent money. Now that would be high drama. But, heck, I know some odd ducks who will be either very elated or extremely depressed next Sunday, based solely on whether some multi-millionaire pockets another $800,000 in a golf tournament. Go figure.
I have been playing poker for over forty years. The one conclusion I have drawn after all those countless hours is that companies have been wasting time and money administering psychological tests to potential employees. After all, it’s easy as pie to fake one’s way through those exams.
One: Would you rather plant roses or kill your grandmother? Two: Do you ever dream that you’re conducting the Boston Pops in your birthday suit? Three: Are you convinced you’re God? If I were looking to hire somebody, I’d sit him down in a poker game. In short order, I’d not only find out if he cheated, but how he dealt with setbacks. Is he a whiner and a sore loser? I’d discover how he dealt with victory. Does he gloat? Is he one of those louts who carries on as if good luck is to be mistaken for brilliance?
The good news for the yutz who failed my test is that he would probably wind up running a movie studio or a TV network.
As much as I enjoy playing poker, that’s how little I enjoy seeing it played on cable TV. The worst thing about these televised matches is having to watch all the posturing by the players. Like the strippers in “Gypsy,” they all seem to have a gimmick, one cornier than the next. It’s as if they’ve all seen too many bad movies. They either dress up like riverboat gamblers or like the chorus boys from a road company production of “Guys and Dolls.”
They’ve all given themselves nicknames, like “Snake Eyes” or “The Ogre,” that are supposed to strike terror into the hearts of their opponents. How scary can they be? Behind the sunglasses and the sneers, these are a bunch of characters who spend their lives sitting around on their fannies, playing cards, just like the old guys in the park. The only exercise they get is raising on a pair of queens or tossing in their hands.
The only part of the game worth watching are the final minutes when the two players try to out-glare one another. Each guy acts as if he possesses laser vision, and expects to turn his opponent into a handful of ashes. I swear, you don’t see this much bad acting on a Fox sitcom.
Tough guys? Believe me, in hand-to-hand combat, the ladies from my aunt Sophie’s Canasta group — blue-haired women with handles such as Miriam “Mad Dog” Epstein and Hannah”Take No Prisoners” Flitterman – would have these boys for lunch.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
31 Comments
If you really, truly believe that Texas Hold ‘Em poker is 98.47% dumb luck, I would like to play against you.
This site has been great so far, but this article is neither insightful or funny.
Poker shouldn’t be on TV, but in basements, or around cramped kitchen tables, under thick thick clouds of tobacco smoke and drenched with cheap beer.
The biggest headache from the poker explosion is trying to play a sensible game anymore. Nothing like having the 19-year-old punk next to you going all-in with his pair of 2s every turn.
I realize you’re being glib, but on the off chance you’re even semi-serious I have to respond to the suggestion that poker, or just texas hold’em, is “98.47% dumb luck.”
Poker is a skill game with random elements. It’s a game about making correct decisions based upon available information, and getting your opponents to make incorrect decisions, and exploiting the mathematical edge granted by making more correct decisions than your opponents. It’s that edge that gives skilled players an “expected value” every time they play the game. Over a sufficient sample size, players who make correct, mathematically corrected decisions will always make money over those who play worse. Poker is a profitable vocation for thousands of players around the world.
And the reality is, a lot of people are just terrible at poker. Generally because they don’t really know which hands to play from which table positions; don’t make appropriate and consistent bet sizing; go too far (or not far enough) with drawing hands based upon the size of the pot (and implied value) compared to the mathematical price they’re getting to make their hands; don’t react and modify their playing style based upon the tendencies and mistakes of their opponents, etc. But also just because many people, like yourself, just play poker for fun and even if they are/were aware of the correct, or most profitable way to play – don’t play that way, because they want to have fun are there to play, not to drop out of hands even if it’s sensible to do so.
For people who are interested in watching poker and learning more about the game, and aren’t as turned off as you are, there are definitely some poker shows that better highlight skill, as opposed to crapshoot luck.
Some of the poker shows you mention depict one-table turbo tournaments – where the blinds (the money players are compelled to put into the pot each hand) rise very quickly and soon represent a significant portion of a player’s available chipstack — winning in those circumstances involves far more luck than regular poker, where players are deeper stacked and are required to make more decisions (particularly after the flop, since in those crapshoot tourneys, preflop decisions are all players generally have sufficient chips to make). So shows like Celebrity Poker and Poker Superstars (both now canceled) are worthless for people actually interested in skilled poker. Similarly, NBC’s Heads UP tournament has such a poor, accelerated structure that it’s essentially a joke (and even with that poor structure, a skilled player like Chris Fergusen has managed to make it to finals 4 out of 5 years). But not watchable for good poker.
Many of the older Wold Poker Tour and almost all of the World Series of Poker shows depict just the final few players remaining in a tournament that had massive fields of players. There’s a great deal of luck being successful in any single tournament, particularly the large fields of the WSOP, but those shows at least depict that particular aspect of poker (tournament poker, short-handed, late in a large field of play). More recent World Poker Tour shows and some of the WSOP coverage on ESPN cover events where skill is more relevant (WPT events have slowed down their blind structure at the final table, making skill more important, and WSOP features non-NL Holdem events, like the $50,000 HORSE Tourney and various other $10,000 events introduced in 2008, which are deep structured events where skill is more important). People interested in poker may enjoy those shows, since they regularly feature very skilled players (surrounded by less skilled ones who were lucky in that particular event, but unlike the skilled players, are unlikely to ever be able to replicate the achievement).
But the most skillful form of poker involves “cash games” – not tournaments. Where all the players are deep stacked relative to the blinds. Where they can rebuy if they lose the chips in front of them so their overall success is far less dependent upon the luck of a single hand, and where there are opportunities for more sophisticated post-flop play. I’d highly recommend “High Stakes Poker”, on GSN, for players interested in seeing that sort of poker. But there are occasionally other cash game shows on TV, including one associated with the Aussie Millions every year in January, and the occasional episode of Poker After Dark features a cash game (that show is also probably the best simple, single table tourney show, because unlike all the other ones, Poker After Dark actually shows almost every single hand, instead of a handful of highlights, so you can actually get a better sense of how poker is actually played by generally skilled players).
Long-winded post, but to summarize, obviously watching (or playing) poker isn’t for everyone. But poker is certainly a game of skill, and for players interested in watching and possibly learning from TV poker shows, there are available options that better highlight skilled play (such as High Stakes Poker or Poker After Dark).
It seems every 40ish guy I know is addicted to either golf or poker. The common thread with these two addictions is that the addictees feel inclined to recount to me their latest golf round or poker game in more detail that is involved in the US tax code. At least when someone talks about their previous round of golf, I can understand what the hell they’re talking about; poker has a veritable wealth of ‘lingo’, and guys that play poker LOOOOOOOOOVE to work in as much of it as they can into each and every sentence:
“Well, I had a bad beat when I drew a pocket Broderick Crawford and the flop had a Cowboy and an Aggie Slick. Anyone with a pocket Bachelor’s Hand or even a Gorillas in the Mist I wouldn’t be able to crack, no matter what came in the turn or the river. I couldn’t even go for a Gun Shot and I didn’t want to be a Calling Station, so I mucked it…”
Another thing about the surge in poker interest is how seriously everyone takes themselves now when they play. Gone are the days of a casual “guys night” game, replaced with a tableful of guys acting like Doc Holliday.
Ha! Funny stuff, Burt. I’ve often thought the same thing watching these tournaments. All in!
“But who cares if Buss wins or loses fifty grand? I doubt if even he does. Still, he was fortunate he was only playing for peanuts, and not for his franchise. Otherwise, his next gig would have been selling peanuts at Staples Center.”
They could have made Buss lose the Lakers and get stuck with the Clippers if he had lost. Now that would have really made him sweat.
In regards to the discussion about Poker being “98.47% dumb luck”…I realize that I am probably putting too much thought into this, but how do you measure luck as a percentage?
For example, suppose I bet someone a million dollars on a coin flip which is weighted 70/30 percent in my favor and I win. What percentage of my victory was due to luck? Some, obviously (30% is only slightly less than 1 in 3), but not all of it (I had the good sense to be betting on the better odds).
[...] admin wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptShows such as “Celebrity Poker,” “World Poker Tours” and “World Series of Poker,” are all over the tube. And, frankly, I don’t get it. As a spectator sport, the problem with Texas hold-’em, a version of poker in which each player gets … [...]
[...] admin wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptAs a spectator sport, the problem with Texas hold-’em, a version of poker in which each player gets dealt two down cards, with five community cards eventually exposed, is that it is, roughly speaking, 98.47% dumb luck. … [...]
There’s definitely a lack of etiquette, or class, among some of today’s players (generally younger players, but then again, there’s classless Phill Hellmuth). But complaining about “playing against morons” is silly – those are the players that make poker so profitable. If everyone played equally well, since luck would be equally distributed over time, everyone would eventually lose because of the rake.
And, no offense, but generally people who complain about bad beats or bad players are not profitable players themselves. There’s a lot of obnoxious kids playing the game today because there’s just a ton of young people playing the game, and with that enormous sample size, you’re going to get a bunch of social misfits (particularly since those bad habits aren’t culled out of them since most of them learn by playing online where they aren’t shamed out of such behavior, as they would be in a live setting).
But most of the very best, and most profitable, poker players today are incredibly young – in their very early 20s or even younger. While those players are all incredibly smart individuals, they’re not necessarily mature, and youth combined with more money than most people can imagine at their age can result in obnoxious arrogance. Almost all of players in the world who play at the highest nosebleed stakes ($500-$1000 NL Holdem or Pot Limit Omaha, with table buyins of $20,000 or $40,000), are under 23. I’ve always thought there’s a good movie screenplay to be made about those characters — their perception of the value of money, and general societal rules, gets distorted so badly by such young success.
Similarly, the suggestions that poker would be “far more interesting” if the players could all feel real pain, by risking all their money or in Jerry Buss’s case risking the Lakers, etc. — are clearly being made by people who don’t understand (or like) poker.
Only degenerate gamblers risk any “pain” when playing poker. If you’re playing poker for stakes where you have more invested in a single hand, or single session, or single tournament – than an inconsequential amount to you, then you’re an unhealthy person. Regardless of skill, luck and variance will ensure that you will lose all your money. People rooting to watch that sort of play aren’t looking for poker – they’re looking to watch hapless, unhealthy people broken for their amusement, which is kinda sick.
If you’re interested in playing poker for fun and/or profit, you should never invest more than 1/50th (1/100th is better) of the bankroll you have allocated to poker in a single tournament – and never sit with more than 5% of your poker bankroll in any cash game. Prudent bankroll management is a key aspect of being a long-term winning player.
Dru Jeanis – January 16th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Am I the only one who thinks it is odd to have a picture of a Blackjack hand for an article about Poker?
Ummm….Obviously, you know as much about Hold ‘Em as the author!..lol
I am somewhat surprised that so many people would be offended by my 98.47% crack. My word, some of you are so touchy! Having played poker for many years, I am well aware that poker is a game of skill…in which luck plays a significant role, unlike, say, chess, a game in which luck plays no part at all.
Dru Jeanis–although the photo appears to be a blackjack hand, it also illustrates hold-’em, a game in which the player is dealt two down cards. The ace-jack could just as well have been a five and a nine.
Regards, Burt Prelutsky
The only question I have with these poker tournaments is that is one really supposed to pee in their pants if they have a good hand?
I can see sports like football, basketball and baseball but a card game? Maybe if they put the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders behind each player it would get interesting for me.
I would think as a professional card player it is a tough way to make a living.
[Burt] “am somewhat surprised that so many people would be offended by my 98.47% crack. My word, some of you are so touchy! Having played poker for many years, I am well aware that poker is a game of skill…in which luck plays a significant role”
Heh, not so touchy – I’m just glad to have the opportunity to talk about another form of conservative entertainment – poker!
I can’t resist responding to your “luck plays a significant role” comment, at least for the benefit of any interested readers who don’t have your experience playing poker. While it’s certainly true that luck plays a significant role in various ways in a single hand, single session, single tournament, etc. (which is why prudent bankroll management is so important) — with a large enough sample size (thousands of hands/tournaments/sessions), luck is no longer a relevant factor in determining whether or not you’re a profitable player.
Heh, GeronimoRumplestiltskin, you think poker players are incredible bores recounting moves and whatnot, avoid Scrabble players who have tournament ratings. ZOMG. I’d rather jab an ice pick through both ears before listening to someone recap a game complete with laments for the failed challenge and the bingo they could have gotten with the blanagram if only they’d had an F…
[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptAlmost all of players in the world who play at the highest nosebleed stakes ($500-$1000 NL Holdem or Pot Limit Omaha, with table buyins of $20000 or $40000), are under 23. I’ve always thought there’s a good movie screenplay to be made … [...]
[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptBut most of the very best, and most profitable, poker players today are incredibly young – in their very early 20s or even younger. While those players are all incredibly smart individuals, they’re not necessarily mature, … [...]
Hate the playas, not the game!
I agree with those who say that TV exposure has ruined the game. The last time I visited the city that I like to call “the happiest place earth,” I could not find a decent $1-2 no-limit hold ‘em game — you know, where you buy in for a couple hundred, play for a couple or three hours, enjoy yourself and maybe win a few bucks.
Oh, the games were there, but at four different casino card rooms, the story was the same. Everytime someone would make it, say, $12 to go, some 22-year-old would re-raise all-in for $300.
You complain about the posturing and wild clothing and gamesmanship on the cable TV poker shows. That’s exactly why I watch one of them regularly, even in reruns. I have players I root for and others I root against, and I see the compelling drama of someone I was rooting for turn into a heartless b|itch and suddenly I’m rooting for her opponents.
It’s my version of pro wrasslin’, including the possibility that someone will finally punch out certain creeps for good.
The game itself is a bore. But the personalities create endless entertainment, because sometimes it’s not an act.
Poker affiliate programs represent one of the Internet’s fastest-growing business segments in the web. Once you join one of these poker affiliate programs, you will receive commissions based on revenue generated by all players referred by you.
lol no one cares. at all.
You must be logged in to post a comment.