On Poker's Image

Poker News / Short-Stacked Shamus / 18 March 2011 / Leave a Comment

A convergence of recent experiences and events got me thinking a lot about "image" and poker. I'm not referring to image in poker -- that is, the impression someone projects at the table regarding what kind of player he or she is. Rather, I'm speaking of poker's image in culture, generally speaking, and how significant the thoughts and judgments of people who don't necessarily play poker can be to those of us who do.

As I say, there are a few reasons why I found myself thinking more specifically about poker's image this week. Probably the most significant is the fact that for the last couple of months I have been teaching a college class called "Poker in American Film and Culture." The course is in American Studies, and its primary goal is to examine the history of poker and the many stories (true and fictional) the game has produced in order to learn more about American culture.

We began the semester reading books like James McManus's Cowboys Full (reviewed here) and getting acquainted with the history of poker in the United States, tracing its development from its introduction in the early 19th century to today. From there we are moving to more "literary" works like Al Alvarez's The Biggest Game in Town (a nonfictional though lyrical look at the 1981 WSOP), various short stories, and Jesse May's poker-themed 1998 novel Shut Up and Deal. (Incidentally, I plan to speak to May soon about his book and other topics and share that interview here.)

Next will come the viewing of films, including The Cincinnati Kid, California Split, and Rounders, after which we'll delve into various other poker-related topics such as women in poker, luck vs. skill, moral objections to poker, legal issues, and technology/artificial intelligence and the online game. If you're curious, you can see a more detailed outline of the course over on my blog.

As we have moved through the history portion of the course, I've found myself becoming increasingly aware of the way poker has always endured a negative image in the broader culture. Despite its popularity, the game has consistently had a kind of "outlaw" status, thanks largely to its associations with the relatively lawless Old West of the 19th century, the many stories of violence associated with the game (e.g., Wild Bill Hickok's bloody final hand), and the widespread cheating that was typical of poker well into the 20th century.

In Cowboys Full, McManus explains how the game eventually transformed from a "cheating game" into the (mostly) "square game" most of us today experience in poker rooms and online. While cheating certainly still happens, it is no longer expected the way it was during earlier stages of poker's history, and one result of this change has been an improvement of poker's image and greater acceptance of the game by the culture at large.

Still, if one compares poker to other pastimes, hobbies, or games, it is remarkable to think how significant poker's image remains -- how much more image matters to poker than it seems to for other endeavors.

Perhaps because of its legacy as a game that has attracted cheaters, criminals, and other figures of ill repute, those of us who enjoy the game and believe it a worthwhile pursuit both recreationally and professionally often still find ourselves in a defensive position regarding it. When certain events happen or individuals associated with poker gain the notice of the "mainstream" for their actions, we instinctively concern ourselves over poker's image, asking that oft-repeated question "Is it good for poker?"

We cringe at stories like that of the "Bellagio bandit" who made off with $1.5 million worth of chips from the Las Vegas casino back in December, then managed to play several sessions of poker (losing steadily) with those chips before his arrest in early February. Still unresolved questions regarding extensive cheating scandals at Absolute Poker and UltimateBet -- back in the poker headlines over the last few weeks -- similarly cause anxiety to those of us who concern ourselves with poker's image.

When someone wins the WSOP Main Event, we wonder about how that player will represent the game as an "ambassador." When last year's runner-up John Racener was arrested for his third DUI (driving under the influence) in December -- just a few weeks after the WSOP had concluded -- some remarked that it was better for poker that he had not won the Main Event, thinking, of course, of what damage might have been caused to poker's image had the ME champion been arrested.

They were worrying about the same thing back in 1981, as Alvarez reports in The Biggest Game in Town. In his account, Alvarez noted how one player, Bill Smith, not only was drinking while he played, "but also seem[ed] drunk," even "weav[ing] a little in his seat." Still, by the end of the second day of play, Smith -- who still "seemed very drunk" according to Alvarez -- was in second place.

An unnamed pro then confided to Alvarez, "'If Bill ends up beating all the nice guys, like Bobby [Baldwin], it's going to set the image of poker back ten years.'" Eventually Smith would go out in fifth place, allowing Alvarez to comment (perhaps with tongue partially in cheek) that "the new, clean-living image of poker had been spared for another year."

The irony, of course, is that Stu Ungar would go on to win his second straight WSOP ME that year. As it turned out, Ungar proved something less than a model citizen to represent the game going forward, although at the time some were of the belief that the young, rock star-like champ would have great potential for subsequent marketing of the game.

Asked afterwards what he was going to do with the $375,000 he'd won, Ungar's initial response should have served as a clue to those who thought he might help with poker's image. "Lose it," he said, then facetiously corrected himself to say he planned to "put it in the bank and give it to my kids." (As was usually the case for Ungar at the poker table, his first instinct here was correct.)

Poker's sordid history, its association with other gambling games, and the central significance of money to game play have all helped contribute to the game's negative image, constantly putting those who support the game on the defensive. Other tales over the past few weeks of professional players accusing one another of cheating, angle-shooting, and/or other objectionable behavior have further reminded me of how difficult it can be sometimes to prove to those who don't play that it really can be a fulfilling, constructive activity that can provide all sorts of intellectual and emotional rewards (not to mention financial ones, too).

It's like what happens at the table when you blunder through the first orbit or so, misplaying a few hands and creating an undesirable, hard-to-manage image for yourself. A poor start like that can be difficult to overcome. Such is the situation faced by poker as it tries to convince the culture in 2011 that it doesn't deserve the negative image fashioned over its first couple of centuries.

Choose and earn a $50, $250, $500, $1000 or $2500 poker sign up bonus. Turn Loyalty Into Cash and earn up to 40% Valueback in the Players Club.

Join Betfair Poker Now.